Sitting of 14 September 2004

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

    Mental Health Care Hospitals
    Tony Baldry: What the Government's policy is on the optimum size of mental health care hospitals. [188501]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): It is for local trusts to determine the configuration of their provision according to their assessment of the needs of their population, the range of community and residential services already in place, and the resources available to them.
    Tony Baldry: For many years, Banbury has had residential community mental health care, but that facility is being closed and will in future be centralised in Oxford. My constituents and many people in Oxfordshire want to understand how these ever-larger mental health care units are compatible with the concept of care in the community.
    Ms Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is for local primary care trusts to commission appropriate services for their population needs in the light of national guidance and the resources available. Care for people with mental health needs is increasingly being provided by the crisis resolution teams, home treatment teams and assertive outreach teams that are developing in all areas. The idea is as far as possible to keep people out of hospital and to provide care in people's homes, which is where they and their carers wish to have it.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to separate men from women and older patients from younger patients where they have incompatible lifestyles? Does she also agree that drug addicts and alcoholics can be a nuisance on wards, and that a larger hospital should be able to achieve such separations better than a smaller one?
    Ms Winterton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our evidence is that more than 99 per cent. of NHS trusts now provide single-sex sleeping accommodation. Obviously,
    1106
    patient safety is paramount, and we have recently issued further guidance on that matter. Since 1997, about £720 million has been spent on upgrading psychiatric facilities to deal with the points that my hon. Friend raises. Later this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, will publish information on these issues, including children's services.
    Sir Michael Spicer: What is the budgeted cost of the Mental Health Bill?
    Ms Winterton: Overall, we have spent around £300 million extra on mental health over the past three years. "Shifting the Balance of Power" provides for local primary care trusts to use the massive amount of extra investment that is being made available as they see fit within the national service framework. That investment will have increased by up to £90 billion by 2007. Within that, an extra £300 million has already been spent on mental health services, and we expect that amount to increase within the next few years.
    Tim Loughton: Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister gave just now, if she is taking the whole subject of hospital mental health services seriously, can she explain why Mind, in its report "Ward Watch", which was published last week, found that 23 per cent. of recent and current in-patient respondents were accommodated in mixed-sex wards a year after the Government claimed 99 per cent. compliance, that a third of patients did not have access to single-sex bathroom facilities, and that a climate of fear, harassment and abuse exists on mental health wards, with cleanliness leaving a lot to be desired? When are the Government going to treat mental health patients on an equal basis with everyone else in the NHS?
    Ms Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear some of the facts that I stated earlier. I accept that Mind issued its "Ward Watch" campaign document. Its survey was fairly small, covering 4 percent. of people with experience of mental services, approximately only 2 per cent. of whom were being treated by mental health services when it was conducted.
    The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise the additional investment—£720 million extra—to upgrade psychiatric facilities that has been made since the Government came to power. We believe that 99 per cent. of wards now provide single-sex sleeping accommodation. However, when I met Mind representatives last week, I said that if they wished to provide information in relation to wards where that was not happening, we would take the matter up. They accepted that their figures did not tally with ours, but I promised to look into any instances that they provided of mixed-sex sleeping accommodation.

    Children's Hospices
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the contribution that children's hospices make to palliative care.␣[188502]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Children's hospices make a very important contribution to the support of children with life-threatening illnesses and their families, and in providing emergency, respite and end-of-life care.
    Mr.Luff: I am sure that the movement will be pleased to hear the Under-Secretary's endorsement in advance of next week's children's hospice week. However, does he share my concern about the much lower amount of funding that children's hospices receive from statutory sources, as compared with adult hospices? Does he understand that a hospice such as Acorns children's hospice, which will open in Worcester next year and serve a large geographical area—most of the south-west midlands and Gloucestershire—has to look for funding packages from up to 33 different primary care trusts? Has the time not come to consider again the quantum and management of funding for children's hospices?
    Dr.Ladyman: First, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the children's national service framework, which we intend to publish tomorrow, not next week.
    Mr. Luff: No, I mentioned children's hospice week.
    Dr. Ladyman: My apologies—I thought that the hon. Gentleman referred to the children's NSF.
    Acorns Children's Hospice Trust is currently in discussion with the local primary care trust, which is being supportive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happily surprised by the outcome of the discussions. He made a point about a general uplift in funding. He must realise that children's hospices provide one of a range of services of which children with palliative care needs may make use, which include home care and hospital care. We could set a blanket figure for the proportion of funding that comes from the national health service only in one of two ways: either by unbalancing the mix of care, which would mean that some children who currently receive home care would no longer receive it, or by providing more money. The hon. Gentleman's commitment to 40 per cent. funding for hospices might make an interesting press release, but he does not intend to provide that extra money for the health service.
    Mr. Michael Foster: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the Acorns trust in Worcester, and given that it serves the three counties of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, will my hon. Friend write to the range of primary care trusts and local authorities in those counties to ensure that they do what they can to provide a more secure statutory funding basis for it, thereby making sure that it is there for children who will need it in future?
    Dr. Ladyman: I am happy to ensure that the primary care trusts in those areas realise what their responsibilities are—I shall certainly do that for my hon. Friend. However, I assure him that they do understand those responsibilities. They are in active negotiation with the Acorns trust, have a close relationship with it as regards its two existing hospices, and are in discussion, which I hope will prove fruitful, about the one that is proposed for the near future.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend makes a reasoned case, but he should examine the
    1108
    inconsistency between the funding for adult hospices and that for children's hospices. The poor relationship between the two in getting direct funding is the important issue. Derian house gets so little funding. We get some from the local primary care trust, and although children come from as far away as Scotland and London, the funding must be raised locally. We should ensure that we get equal match funding as between adult and children's hospices directly from the NHS. The sooner that happens, the better. It will ensure that the required service continues.
    Dr. Ladyman: While I share my hon. Friend's desire to see the children's hospice movement succeed, I cannot agree with the solution that he proposes. That is because children's palliative care is a very different proposition from adult palliative care. Adult palliative care tends to involve end-of-life provision, whereas children's palliative care tends to involve long-term provision, respite or emergency care, and managing chronic conditions. It is therefore important that primary care trusts ensure that there is proper balanced provision and full availability of home care in their area. It might not be appropriate to have the same level of funding for an adult hospice as for a children's hospice in any particular area, so I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's solution to the problem.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on the availability of care home places for the (a) elderly and (b) physically disabled. [188503]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): The independent Laing and Buisson survey shows that there is sufficient capacity to meet the demand for care home places nationally. We recognise that there are supply problems in some areas and have given councils extra funding to tackle them. However, going into a care home is not an inevitable outcome of growing old or being vulnerable, and we are giving people a choice as regards when and where they receive care.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that reply. He cited the survey a little selectively, because 9,600 places have been lost nationally in the last year, 2,100 of them in the north-west. Does he accept that that will mean more bed blocking and less choice for patients and clients? Will he undertake to make it easier for social services to pay a viable rate for high-quality care, to keep those places available for my constituents?
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has given us an object lesson in quoting selectively. He did not mention the fact that Laing and Buisson also said that the demand for care home places fell by almost the same amount as the number of places that were lost. He did not mention that Laing and Buisson said that there were now 486,000 places available, which is 16,000 more than they identified as being available last year. He did not say that his own council, Stockport, has had a 71 per cent. cash increase since 1997 to fund these measures. If the council is not taking strategic responsibility for ensuring that there are no problems in the hon.

    1109
    Gentleman's constituency, it will hardly come as a surprise to the rest of us, as that council is Liberal Democrat controlled.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to inform me how people with diminished responsibility who are incapable of making decisions on their own behalf can access health services to ensure that they do not become physically ill?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend will be interested in the forthcoming debate on the Mental Capacity Bill, which will allow for provision for people to receive the appropriate support when they have to make such decisions. Generally, in regard to older people's care and the care of people with learning disabilities and other problems that might diminish their capacity to make decisions, we expect councils and national health service bodies to work closely with those people and their families and advisers to ensure that they are able to access all services and to take the best possible decisions in their own interest.
    Mr.Simon Burns: On the question of the occupancy and availability of care home beds, will the Minister tell the House how many people have been wrongly charged for their care in a care home in the past seven years? How many people have been reimbursed for being wrongly charged since the health service ombudsman uncovered this scandal? Why, when many of these people are dying during the delays in sorting the mess out, has the Minister missed so many of his own targets relating to reporting to the House? Has he met the target that he set in June, which was that every outstanding case up to 31 March this year would be dealt with by 31 July?
    Dr. Ladyman: First, the hon. Gentleman is referring to NHS continuing care, which is not necessarily provided in care homes. He is absolutely right to say that there were a great many cases in which we believe mistakes to have been made, and we are working hard to deal with them. However, those cases do not primarily involve people who are still alive. Strategic health authorities have prioritised ensuring that compensation claims are dealt with and wrong decisions are corrected in regard to people who are still alive. The backlog that remains relates to people who have passed away, and we are now dealing with their estates. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well, because I reported the relevant figures in my last written statement. I promised to make another written statement to the House as soon as possible. I never promised to make a statement on 8 September; I promised to do so as soon as possible, and I will. It would be inappropriate for me to give the House figures now, before I have made a full statement to the House.

    Hospital-acquired Infections
    Bob Spink: If he will give the most recent rate of hospital-acquired infection for (a) the NHS and (b) private sector health care providers. [188504]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): It is estimated that hospital-acquired infections affect 9 per cent. of NHS in-patients, which is broadly similar to the level in other European countries. For example, estimates for the Netherlands and Spain are 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively, and it is estimated that rates could be as high as 10 per cent. in France. There are no estimates available for rates of hospital-acquired infections in the independent sector.
    Bob Spink: What is undeniable is that these superbugs are growing like Topsy. They are afflicting more and more people, and will continue to do so unless we tackle the issue. Does the Minister, who is an excellent Minister, agree that one way to tackle it would be to publish clear statistics for every single hospital in the country, and to give patients the right to choose? That would put the onus where it ought to be, and force the system to correct itself. The right to choose is the way forward.
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is an excellent Member of Parliament, too. I agree with him both in relation to publishing this information and giving patients the right to choose. Those are the Government's policies. In relation to publishing rates of MRSA infections, we have been doing that, and that information is available. In the case of Southend hospital, for example, which serves his constituency—it is also an excellent hospital, because both my mum and two of my sisters have worked there—last year, the trust reported an improvement in its MRSA infection rates. Obviously, there is more to be done, but it is equally true that many parts of the NHS are engaging properly with that debate right now.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: When my right hon. Friend considers infection rates, will he take into account the fact that a significant number of patients entering hospital already have such an infection? Research shows that something like 17 per cent. of patients in nursing homes are infected, and University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust found that something like 40 per cent. of patients had it in their blood culture. So the figures are not necessarily a direct reflection of the hospital's performance, but of a much wider picture.
    Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is right, for the simple reason that, as we all know, MRSA is widespread in the community at large. It is not a bug that is simply manufactured and cultivated inside hospitals—obviously not. What we record are incidences of bloodstream MRSA infections, which is important if the national health service is to have a proper understanding of the nature of the problem. There is concern on both sides of the House, which I share, and we need to do more. I understand that, and we are trying to do that. It ill behoves Opposition Members to point the finger of blame at us for not doing enough, given that they were the ones who refused to collect the information in the first place.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister explain why, in the years during which I

    1111
    have been pursuing the issue of hospital-acquired infections, an increasing number of consultants, doctors and nurses have contacted me to say that in their hospitals the problem is made worse by the fact that clinical priorities are overridden by Government targets and bureaucratic priorities? Could that be the reason why the situation is worse in this country than in most countries of Europe, and according to the European Commission, is getting worse faster in this country than in the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Hutton: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been clear in his concerns, which he has raised over several years, but there are no data connecting waiting times targets with levels of HAIs. Bed occupancy rates in the US, for example, are very much the same as here, and it has similar rates of hospital-acquired infections. We need to focus on initiatives that we know work: the hand hygiene campaign, for example, will make a significant difference. It is not the case, however, that all those unfortunate infections can always been prevented. We estimate that up to a third can, and it is important that the NHS does all that it can to focus on those cases on which it can do more. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Obviously, I am interested in the views of consultants who write to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), but can we contrast those with the views of trade union leaders and nurses who write to me saying that the problem has got worse since the contracting-out of cleaning services, for which his Government were responsible?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has restored a bit of balance to this debate. We have raised such issues with the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) previously, and we differ from him and his colleagues on this matter. I do not believe that the pursuit of compulsory competitive tendering led to an overall increase in standards of cleanliness in our hospitals—and the buck for that policy, I am afraid, rests entirely with him and his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the right hon. Gentleman is an excellent Minister, he will have taken steps to identify and investigate the circumstances reported by the National Audit Office in which infection control teams recommended bed and ward closures. What practical steps has he taken?
    Mr. Hutton: The guidance on ward closures still exists. It dates from the time when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, and the Cooke report. We have made no changes whatever to the guidance that the hon. Gentleman—I assume—supported, as an active Conservative.
    When the hon. Gentleman referred to the NAO report figures last week, he spoke of about 12 per cent. of cases in which ward closures did not result from the advice of local infection teams. That is a matter for concern. It is not clear from the report—the hon. Gentleman has no data and nor, unfortunately, have I—where the decision was countermanded. Was it countermanded by, for instance, clinical directors or other medical staff in the hospital?
    1112
    What the NAO report does say—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not confirm this—is that in nearly 90 per cent. of cases the advice was followed. I think that that is progress in the right direction.
    Mr. Lansley: It is precisely in regard to that 12 per cent. that the Minister has told us that he has no information—no data. What steps is he taking?
    It is true that when infection control teams make recommendations, they do so on the basis of risk assessments. It is in patients' interests, and necessary for their safety, that the recommendations be followed. Ninety per cent. is not a good enough result. In 12 per cent. of cases, the advice was not followed: it was countermanded by hospital management. The NAO said that in 2 per cent. of cases it was advised against by the strategic health authority, which is directly under the Minister's control. Will he now tell us that on no future occasions when infection control teams have made the appropriate risk assessments and recommended a bed or ward closure will that recommendation be ignored for the purpose of pursuing the hospital's waiting list targets?
    Mr. Hutton: As my right hon. Friend made clear in last week's debate, we have always believed that these are matters for clinical judgment and clinical priorities, which should always be dealt with on that basis in the national health service.

    General Practitioners
    Mr Adrian Bailey: What change there has been in the provision of general practitioners since 1997. [188505]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Since 1997, there has been an increase of 3,081—11 per cent.—in the number of GPs, excluding retainers, registrars and locums, and an increase of 1,096—no less than 81.6 per cent.—in the number of doctors training to be GPs. In March 2004, there were 31,127 GPs, the highest number in the history of the NHS. I believe that those record numbers show the Government's commitment to expanding the GP work force.
    Mr. Bailey: Those figures are reflected in my constituency, which has historically been underprovided with GPs. There are still shortages, however, and to get around the problem local practices have been pooling resources, sharing information technology, appointment systems and the recruitment of positions' assistants. What steps are being taken to promote such examples of best practice in other areas with chronic shortages, and ensure that everyone everywhere enjoys the standard of service that we should expect?
    Dr. Reid: I am aware of the steps that have been taken by my hon. Friend's local primary care trusts, particularly Wednesbury and West Bromwich PCT. In partnership with Birmingham and The Black Country strategic health authority and other local PCTs, it has been developing a fairly radical plan to improve its own GP recruitment and retention.

    1113
    Nationally, we are taking action to ensure that the current record number of GPs can work in partnership whenever possible, to ensure excellent primary care provision. For example, the national primary care development team is working with practices to promote primary care modernisation, and some 5,000 practices are taking part. That covers more than 32 million patients in England. Not only do we have a record number of GPs; increasingly, GPs are working in partnership to produce an even better service.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Minister aware that one of the changes of which constituents are most conscious is the withdrawal of practices from night cover, which has resulted in my constituency in an area of 1,000 square miles having resident within it only one doctor on duty between midnight and 8 am? That has put great pressure on the ambulance service, and some health authorities have been reported as having to recruit doctors from Germany to provide night cover. One Scottish health board has had to pay £1,000 a night for health cover. Has this part of the new contract not gone rather worryingly wrong?
    Dr. Reid: I do not believe that it has gone worryingly wrong. That part of the new contract, allied with the record number of general practitioners in this country, is meant to give a greater, better and faster service to patients. However, if the right hon. Gentleman brings to my attention examples about which he is concerned as the arrangements develop, I will certainly look further into specific cases. As a general point, it is necessary to make it absolutely plain—everyone must understand this—that we are committed to ensuring that patients have access to high-quality, appropriate and timely health care out of hours. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) will shortly be publishing requirements that clarify exactly what is expected of out-of-hours cover. I can make it absolutely clear in the meantime that that will include access to home visits—this is very important—from a GP, should a patient's condition require it, and access to a Saturday morning surgery.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I remind the Secretary of State that one aspect of the Government's policy and programme that both he and I enthusiastically support is the development of the Thames gateway? I should like to draw to his attention the need for him to discuss with the Minister for London and with my primary care trust the acute shortage that already exists in Thurrock—a new town with an urban development corporation and an awful lot of single GP practices. If we are to succeed in our policy objectives, we need truly joined-up government as between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to ensure that my constituents' needs for GPs are met. I am currently facing a crisis and there must be sufficient GP provision as we build up the area and make it a quality place in which to live.
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will have heard what I said about the national picture in England and about the
    1114
    record number of GPs. He will also know that, throughout the country, about 19 out of 20 patients can now see a GP within 48 hours and a nurse practitioner within 24. However, I recognise that there are regional variations and particular problems in certain areas. Nineteen out of 20 implies that some people do not secure that access. On the implications of the Thames gateway project, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are aware of it; that we have made more money available because of it; and that we are ahead of him in that we are already entering discussions, through my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, with the local primary care trusts. I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel that the door is so open that he has fallen through it, but he is certainly pushing a door that is already ajar.
    Dame Marion Roe: I welcome the Government's target of 2,000 new GPs, but does the Secretary of State agree that simply referring to the total number of GPs does not reveal the difference between whole-time equivalents and part-timers? After all, the British Medical Association says that we need 10,000 new doctors. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how and when this target will be achieved and what plans he has to recruit more GPs?
    Dr. Reid: That is an excellent question from an excellent Member of Parliament. First, I welcome her support—[Interruption.] Indeed. She followed another excellent Member of Parliament in the previous question. I welcome her support for sensible targets and objectives for increasing the number of doctors. Secondly, I can assure her that we not only have a record number of GPs in terms of head count, but the biggest ever increase in terms of whole-time equivalents as well. Thirdly, I would say that this is a slightly different thing from saying that we have as many GPs as we want and need. We do not: there is still a shortage. The addition of 19,000 doctors in our seven years in office is something about which we can have some satisfaction, but it does not make us in the least complacent.
    Finally, in respect of achieving all the objectives that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) so sensibly outlined, it would be a disaster to approach that task by reducing the money going to the mainstream NHS and introducing charges for NHS patients. Perhaps she should have a word with hon. Members on her own Front Bench about that.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his admirable bedside manner? Does he agree that the best general practitioners are those who know their patients as individuals? To revert to a point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), what percentage of GPs offer an out-of-hours service, compared with the percentage that obtained in 1997?
    Dr. Reid: The number of GPs offering out-of-hours services is changing as a result of the new contract, but I would not like to say that it has changed dramatically. There has been a gradual change in such provision over the period as, for example, more co-operatives and locums have come to be used. Opposition Front-Bench Members should not pretend that that did not happen under the previous Government. Things are changing

    1115
    because of the new contract, and we will keep a close eye on that, but I have made it plain already that we fully expect that those who need a GP call-out can get one, and that Saturday morning surgeries will be provided. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will repeat that message in more specific terms later this week, and he may even offer more detail later today.

    NHS Dental Services
    Mr. Peter Pike: If he will make a statement on progress in the north-west in providing NHS dental services. [188506]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): An extra £7.5 million was allocated in July to strategic health authorities in the north-west to improve immediate access to NHS dentistry. In the longer term, we are radically reforming the way in which dentistry is delivered, supported by £368 million of additional investment. That includes recruiting the equivalent of 1,000 extra dentists by October 2005, and training an extra 170 dentists each year.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer and for her personal interest in the provision of NHS dentistry in Burnley and east Lancashire. I am pleased to hear what the Government are doing to address the problem, but I am sure that she will know that more constituents write to me every week about this matter than about any other. One of the biggest problems is that people who are entitled to free NHS dental services often cannot afford to go to the places where they can receive them. What can we do to deal with that matter as a priority?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are problems with immediate access and that one of them is the distance that people have to travel to obtain NHS dentistry. That is why we have asked each primary care trust to draw up a dental action plan, saying how they will use some of the extra money that we have made available now to overcome those problems. I have looked at the plan in my hon. Friend's area and can assure him that it will improve access for about 37,500 people. Not all of those will be new patients because some will be NHS patients who will not have to travel as far as they do at the moment.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware of any innovations, either in the pipeline or being tried out, that could help the situation in the north-west and in my constituency, where there is a severe shortage of NHS dentistry provision? For example, would it be possible to use mobile dental surgeries?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right, and a number of dental action plans will involve mobile surgeries. At the same time, we are looking at international recruitment and at encouraging dentists who may not be practising at the moment to return to work. We have had 186 inquiries in response to our advertisements about that. However, we also want PCTs to look locally at how they can attract dentists into their areas, perhaps by moving people to the new contract more quickly or by considering some of the ideas in respect of
    1116
    international recruitment or mobile surgeries. Every PCT is drawing up a plan to say how it will spend the extra money with which we have provided it.

    Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the financial situation of the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. [188507]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): The West Yorkshire strategic health authority is currently working with the trust to agree a sustainable financial recovery plan that delivers an appropriate level of health care for the local community.
    Mr. Grogan: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been told that, in order to meet financial targets, senior managers at the trust are considering bringing forward proposals within the next month that would involve the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Pontefract general infirmary? Such proposals would be completely unacceptable to the people of mid-Yorkshire as far east as the villages of Sherburn-in-Elmet and Osgoldcross in my constituency. Can she provide me with any reassurances and will the Secretary of State agree to meet local Members of Parliament to discuss the financial situation of the trust?
    Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend will probably be aware that all six Health Ministers had the pleasure of a visit to Yorkshire at the start of September. Indeed, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), visited the accident and emergency department at Pontefract as part of that visit. I assure my hon. Friend that 24-hour A and E services will be maintained at the Pontefract general infirmary and I assure other hon. Members who represent the area that no closures of A and E departments are proposed. We will of course consider any requests for meetings that we receive and see if we can provide any further assistance.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: In the local media last week, the finance officer for the trust gave a positive picture of the way in which it is addressing the deficit. However, will my hon. Friend examine the amount of money that the trust has spent out of the additional money allocated by the Government on securing care in the private sector locally to meet Government targets and ensure an improvement in star ratings? That is a significant factor in the problem of the deficit that the trust faces.
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. There has been and continues to be an unprecedented level of investment in the NHS, including in Yorkshire and the Wakefield area. We are investigating whether we can get an even better deal out of the provision that has been made through purchasing in the private sector and we are always seeking to achieve a more cost-effective use of resources. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming all the additional investment that Yorkshire has received from this Government.

    Hospital Star Ratings
    Bob Russell: How many acute hospital trusts have three stars; and how many trusts have lost this status since it was introduced. [188508]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): In 2003mdash;04, 74 acute NHS trusts received three stars, compared with 35 in 2000–01. That demonstrates that overall trust performance has improved. Twenty trusts lost their three-star status in the most recent year's figures.
    Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that the star system is misleading the public and is grossly insulting to medical and support staff in those trusts that have gone from three stars to two stars and then to one star, given that their work rate has not diminished? The staff are working their socks off, but for other reasons such as the way in which the accounts are done or the privatised cleaning services, the star rating has been dragged down. On the clinical focus measure, one-star Colchester comes ahead of two-star Ipswich, two-star Chelmsford and three-star Southend. Given the choice, where would the Minister prefer to go and which of those hospitals provides the best clinical focus for patients?
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the purpose of the star-rating system. It is, first and foremost, a tool to help management improve the overall standard of the hospital. Secondly, it is a tool to ensure that local people understand in a simple way what is happening in their local trust. He says that financial management and accounting are unimportant. Does not he realise that every £1 wasted means less treatment for his constituents? Every £100 or £1,000 that is not spent properly means delays to someone's operation. That is why financial stringency is important in the ratings system.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Does my hon. Friend agree that both attaining and retaining three-star status is a challenge for everybody working in the national health service? Will he congratulate both my local hospital, Rotherham general hospital, which for the third year running has retained three-star status, and the primary care trust, which has attained it for the first time? Does he agree that hard work locally and increased funding nationally is improving health care and the health of the people of Rotherham and the surrounding area?
    Dr. Ladyman: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. As he says, attaining and keeping three-star status is difficult, and it is doubly difficult because, of course, we make the standards higher every year. The fact that the hospital had three stars last year and this year means that it is continuing to improve and my right hon. Friend should be proud of, and congratulate, all the people in the NHS who have contributed to that, as well as the Government for the funding that made it possible.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What warning did the Department of Health give hospitals seeking foundation trust status that they would not receive the
    1118
    £1 million achievement award under the capital bonus scheme for maintaining three-star status if they were successful in achieving foundation status? I hope that, as a reasonable Minister, he will reconsider that decision, given that it is causing particular problems for hospitals that had expected to receive that £1 million bonus.
    Dr. Ladyman: The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who deals with those matters, takes a sympathetic attitude and he assures me that such hospitals are receiving the £1 million.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend look closely at the fine detail of the process for assessing performance for star status? My local hospital, the James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust, was a three-star hospital and worked out that this year, if in a particular month it had carried out fewer operations, it would have retained its three-star status. Does he agree that we should not have a system in which through some bizarre quirk a hospital can lose a star because it did more work?
    Dr. Ladyman: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—a body completely independent of Government—is responsible for both devising the mechanism for inspection in the star-rating system and carrying it out. The commission is reviewing the inspection process to ensure that some of the anomalies are removed and that there is richer and broader representation of issues about which the public have every right to know—a right that the Conservatives would take away from them.
    Mr. John Baron: With regard to the Minister's answer to a previous question, he should at least accept that public confidence in the star-rating system is very low, with recent research by the Consumers Association showing that 50 per cent. of patients would not use star ratings to help them choose a hospital. Is that any wonder when star ratings tell a person whether their local hospital has long waiting lists but not about the waiting list for their particular condition and when star ratings unfairly tar all departments, whether good or bad, with the same brush? Will he recognise that stars may be a good way of measuring hotels but not complex organisations such as hospitals and will he stop fiddling with the system? Will he scrap it and replace it with clinical standards and better information, which would be far more useful to the patients?
    Dr. Ladyman: I wonder how members of the public would know anything about their local hospital if we implemented a policy that took that information away from them. Of course, the Consumers Association found that a significant proportion of people would not rely only on the star-rating system to judge their local hospital; I would not either and nor would my hon. Friends. We all make judgments based on a mix of information, including local experience, family referrals, the views of local staff and the star-rating

    1119
    system, but at least the star-rating system gives a basis for people to make sensible decisions and obtain objective information.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: In determining star status, how much weight is given to whether a dedicated stroke unit has been established in a trust? Unfortunately, the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust has not yet established such a unit, so what action is being taken to assist, encourage and press trusts to set up such essential units?
    Dr. Ladyman: First, I can tell my hon. Friend that an indicator on stroke care is part of the clinical focus score card used in assessing star ratings. Every acute trust ought to have a dedicated stroke unit. That is one of the priorities that we set under the national service framework for older people. I am sorry to hear that his local trust has not yet achieved that, but I assure him that it should be working to achieve it as soon as possible and I will certainly do everything that I can to encourage it to fulfil that objective.

    Hospital-acquired Infections
    Tom Brake: What progress has been made in implementing, "Winning Ways", his Department's policy on hospital infections. [188509]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Department and the national health service are both actively implementing the initiatives contained in "Winning Ways", for example, through new local directors of infection control and a new hand hygiene campaign, which will help to meet our objective of reducing the incidence of MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—in the NHS.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that isolating patients is a key tool in tackling MRSA and severe acute respiratory syndrome, yet I understand that no figures are available centrally on what isolation rooms are available in hospitals. Will he instigate a review to look at their availability nationwide to find out whether sufficient isolation facilities are available?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We obviously keep such things under careful review, and one of the things that we have been saying to the NHS is that we want more single rooms to be built into new hospital provision. That is an effective way to help the NHS and hospitals to deal with incidents of MRSA infection because, as he says, isolation is very important. We are looking carefully at all those issues.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiatives on this matter, but when he publishes the data that he is collecting, will he be careful not to publish a crude league table, as that could be extremely misleading to people? We need to ensure that we are comparing apples with apples. When he publishes that data, will he also
    1120
    include some information about the risks, putting them into perspective? One of the difficulties is helping the public to understand that we are talking about a very small risk.
    Mr. Hutton: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We have been publishing information about MRSA bloodstream infections for some time. That information is widely available. Next year, we will publish further information about, for example, glycopeptide-resistant enterococci, DNV and orthopaedic surgical site infections. That is part of a suite of information that we want to be available to the public so that they can make informed and sensible choices—very much in the way that we have been encouraged to do by others.
    Mr. Archie Norman: We had a very constructive debate on this issue last week, but may I ask the Minister specifically about the patient environment action team inspections and the rate of hospital infection? My local hospital in Tunbridge Wells was recently subject to an undercover investigation by the BBC that resulted in very worrying revelations about the standards of cleanliness, and the ubiquitous Professor Hugh Pennington declared it to be the worst that he had ever seen. That hospital was declared to be acceptable by the PEAT, as were all NHS hospitals last year. Will the Minister now accept that what was acceptable to the PEATs is now no longer acceptable as a standard in an MRSA world and that those inspections need thoroughly overhauling to be much more based on taking account of the general standard of hygiene and discipline in hospitals and probably involving microbiological tests specifically for MRSA in high-risk areas?
    Mr. Hutton: Again, the hon. Gentleman is quite right: we had a constructive debate last week, and it shows the value of trying to approach these issues in that way rather than by jumping on political bandwagons and shroud-waving to raise anxieties and fears as, I am afraid, some have tried to do. I agree with him about that. I also agree that it is important that we take into account the best scientific advice and intelligence that is available to us on standards of hygiene and cleanliness in our hospitals. That is very much what the chief medical officer is trying to do and I will draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent representations he has received about out-of-hours cover for general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [188510]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I have received representations from right hon. and hon. Members, as well as from a number of different organisations. As a result of changes agreed by GPs and by the House last year, primary care trusts now have responsibility for arranging the provision of out-of-hours services, which must comply with national quality requirements, ensuring that patients continue to have access to GP home-visiting services.
    Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that, in west Oxfordshire, out-of-hours cover

    1121
    will no longer be provided by a doctor, but by a paramedic? Those requiring to see a doctor may have to travel to Abingdon, which can take up to an hour. If the point of all the extra money going into the NHS was to ensure a better service, can he explain why many of my constituents seem to be facing a worse service? Does he agree that the policy will have failed if all we get are longer queues at accident and emergency departments such as at the John Radcliffe? Will he ensure that the review that the Secretary of State announced earlier looks specifically at the situation in west Oxfordshire?
    Mr. Hutton: I will certainly look at the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The advice that I have received is that the primary care trust is now providing the service itself, that local GPs are available as part of a multi-professional work force and that GP home visits are being made when that is necessary.
    I will obviously take into account the hon. Gentleman's concerns. They are widespread and we have to respond to them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it very clear today how we will do that. It is part of a process of change and not a completely new invention. In 1990, the previous Conservative Government gave GPs the right to opt out of providing out-of-hours services themselves and 95 per cent. of them did that. This is therefore the completion of that process, but it is very important, as we make this final change, that the patients and public are properly reassured about the level and quality of service that will be available to them. That will be enshrined in new national legally enforceable standards and requirements, guaranteeing the access of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to the sort of service that he has just been talking about.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Can the Minister give the House any estimate of the difference in costs between the new methods of out-of-hours cover and the old methods?
    Mr. Hutton: Sadly, the information that we used to collect on the cost of out-of-hours-services was not the most robust information that we had. The latest figures that I saw showed that the cost incurred by providing out-of-hours services was about £120 million. This year, we are providing £316 million to provide effective and comprehensive out-of-hours services. It is obviously crucial from our point of view as Ministers and for our accountability to the House that we can satisfy right hon. and hon. Members that that money is being spent to provide a sensible and comprehensive service. We will discharge that responsibility, because all of us understand the importance for our families and friends of people being able to access GP services out of hours. That will continue.

    Vaccination
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the launch of the new five-in-one vaccine. [188511]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): On 10 August, we announced that a new combined vaccine would be introduced for babies from the end of September onwards. While the current vaccines are very safe, the new vaccine is even safer. A range of clear factual information resources for parents and health professionals has been produced to support the programme.
    Dr. Cable: Can the Minister explain the terrible confusion that arose at the launch when the Department of Health leaked to the press information about the new vaccine before GP surgeries had been informed of the detail? That resulted in the leading medical centre in my constituency approaching me because hundreds of calls had been received from anxious parents. In particular, can she clear up the issue of the safety of the old stock of vaccine?
    Miss Johnson: There are no issues about safety in relation to this. As I said, the old vaccine is very safe and the new vaccine is even better for reasons that I can explain later.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about the leak, it was not a leak. I understand that a relatively junior member of staff in the Health Protection Agency informed somebody about the proposed change and that that person then informed a national newspaper. In consequence, about a week ahead of a letter that was proposed to go out informing the service—[Interruption.] But not from the Department of Health. It was not a Department of Health leak, but something from an agency that came out without the chief medical officer's letter that was due the following week. We got the letter out as quickly as we could and staff have been informed. I understand that the new vaccination is receiving a very warm welcome from people who welcome the development of the new safer vaccine that is offered by the five-in-one.

    Dental Schools
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What plans he has to establish new dental schools. [188512]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): On 16 July, I announced that we are to fund 170 extra undergraduate dental training places as part of a £368 million funding programme to revitalise NHS dentistry. Capital investment of £80 million over four years will support this expansion.
    Mr. Prentice: The extra 170 training places is marvellous news, but the dental work force report told us only in July that there is currently a shortage of 1,850 dentists in England and that the figure may well double by 2011. Will the extra 170 training places close the gap or is the capacity problem so acute that we need to open new dental schools?
    Dr. Reid: May I first say that, although this does not deny the challenge on dentistry that we face in any way, the figures that my hon. Friend cites are from an older

    1123
    report published before we changed the system of commissioning? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and his colleagues laugh, but they closed two dental schools, which contributed to the problem. One reason why we have a problem is the closure of dental schools by the previous Government and a second is their introduction of a contract in 1992, although they were warned at the time that it would lead to the sort of problems that we now face.
    1124
    We have tried to remedy the situation piecemeal up until now, but that has not worked, which is why I recently announced a huge injection of cash and the introduction of 170 new places—the equivalent of two or three dental schools, or those closed by the Conservatives. I have also made a firm commitment to recruit an extra 1,000 full-time equivalent dentists in the health service by next October. There is a problem throughout the country, but the Government are taking robust action to remedy it.

Hurricane Ivan
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Hurricane Ivan.
Hurricane Ivan is the most powerful hurricane to hit the Caribbean for many years. It has been moving across the region for several days, causing devastation in its wake. I am sure that the House would first like to express its sadness at the loss of life, injury and damage to homes that many people have experienced.
Initially, Hurricane Ivan was a category 3 with wind speeds of 111 to 130 mph. It was on a course towards Barbados, but veered south, passing the island by about 100 miles. That was, however, still close enough to create tidal wave surges, uproot trees, bring down power lines, rip off roofs and damage hundreds of properties. Fortunately, there was no serious flooding.
Ivan then strengthened to a category 4 hurricane as it reached Grenada on 7 September, bringing sustained winds of 115 mph and gusts of up to 150 mph. Several hundred people from the low-lying areas of St. George's, the Grenadian capital, were evacuated, but 17 people were reported to have been killed, with 60 taken to hospital. Approximately 60,000 people were made temporarily homeless—about two thirds of the island's population. Water and electricity supplies were severely affected. Telephone lines were cut, thus making initial contact with the island very difficult. There were also problems of looting, so security personnel were deployed from Barbados, Antigua, St. Kitts and Trinidad and Tobago to assist security officials in Grenada to restore law and order.
The hurricane caused structural damage to nearly every major building in St. George's, including the island's emergency operations centre, the Prime Minister's residence, several schools, the main hospital and a nearby prison. The immediate help requested by the Government of Grenada was for supplies of plastic sheeting, tarpaulins, tents, roofing material, building supplies, construction tools, food and batteries.
Ever since the development of the first hurricane system to affect the region, which was Hurricane Frances, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been working closely together to ensure that HMS Richmond and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave Ruler were available, equipped and in position to provide immediate assistance. HMS Richmond and RFA Wave Ruler began helping the Grenadian relief effort at the earliest opportunity on 8 September. They provided a party of 48 sailors to clear debris and undertake the most urgent repairs, including restoring electricity supplies to the hospital. They were also able to provide medical staff, deliver medicines, offer basic air traffic control for the island and help to reestablish the island's emergency operations centre. A helicopter was made available to the Prime Minister and officials for aerial surveillance of the island to help with initial damage assessment.
As a result of preparation for the hurricane by the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency, and of collaboration between DFID and the United States
1126
Agency for International Development, arrangements were in hand to access relief stores from USAID's Miami warehouse. The first emergency relief supplies, funded by USAID, arrived in Grenada on 9 September, including blankets, plastic sheeting, dry food and water for 20,000 people. The Governments of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago also shipped bottled water, food, tents, generators, plastic sheeting and water bladders using coastguard vessels.
Following a request on 10 September from the Pan American Health Organisation, the UK provided an immediate contribution of £83,000, which enabled emergency personnel to undertake disease surveillance and control, and provide urgently needed medical supplies. DFID also had an aircraft on standby in Miami to deliver 140 rolls of plastic sheeting—enough for 1,400 families—and 11,000 jerry cans. Because of conditions on the ground, the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency asked for the flight to be held back 24 hours. It arrived in Grenada on 11 September.
The International Federation of the Red Cross has released money from its disaster relief emergency fund—DFID contributes to it annually—which exists to provide urgent help. Further assessment of needs on Grenada is now being undertaken.
The eye of Hurricane Ivan then moved to the south of Jamaica on the night of 10 and 11 September and moved across the Cayman Islands on 12 September. Its strength varied, reaching category 4 in passing Jamaica and variable 4 to 5 on its approach to the Cayman Islands. Initial reports from Jamaica indicate that the impact has, fortunately, not been as severe as first feared, although, tragically, 15 people have reportedly lost their lives and there has been widespread damage. The Jamaican Government have declared a state of emergency and called for international assistance. Initial assessments have been undertaken by the international and regional Red Cross teams, Save the Children UK and Oxfam, and the UK has sent two humanitarian advisers to the region to advise on what help is needed. They are in Jamaica now and will report this afternoon.
Initial reports indicate that the Cayman Islands have been severely affected. There has been extensive roof damage to many homes. As of last night, there were no reports of loss of life, but there are unconfirmed reports of injuries. Contact with the island authorities is still extremely difficult, but HMS Richmond, which is now offshore, reports that travel is very restricted, with 25 per cent. of Grand Cayman under water. The sewerage system is flooded and there has been no power since Saturday. The governor has requested immediate supplies, including plastic sheeting, cots for small children and water purification equipment. We are looking to dispatch those in the next 24 hours. The governor has also imposed a curfew. The DFID assessment team will try to get to Grand Cayman tomorrow.
The hurricane has since moved on to Cuba. Initial reports suggest that it has affected only the far west and south-west of the island, which had been evacuated. There are, however, reports of flooding. We are ready to provide assistance if requested.

1127
We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground across the Caribbean. The International Red Cross intends to launch a regional appeal in the coming days, and we will contribute to it. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with all those who have been affected by this terrible force of nature. We will continue to do all that we can to help them as they seek to rebuild their homes and their lives.
Mr. Alan Duncan: May I, first, say that I am delighted to have been appointed the Secretary of State's opposite number? I also thank him for giving me advance sight of his statement. I certainly look forward to working with him to argue for the best way that Britain can champion and help the poorest in the world. I look forward, too, to working with the voluntary and charitable organisations that do so much to alleviate the plight of the world's least fortunate.
May I, briefly, also take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for what Members on both sides of the House say was very sincere work over the past year? I am regularly mistaken for him, but that is, perhaps, what makes us so readily interchangeable.
It is a rewarding part of being British that we all know that we are part of a country whose global reach and historic experience equip us to give so much help to others when they desperately need it, and now is just such a moment. A quick scan of the satellite imagery illustrates the immensity of Hurricane Ivan, with its destructive force extending far beyond the passive eye of the storm. The Secretary of State graphically described fierce winds of over 150 mph whipping through the region, leaving in their path a trail of death and despair. Thousands of homes have been damaged and scores of people have died. Eight countries are affected, five of which are members of the Commonwealth.
The scale of the calamity is enormous, and unless Britain and the international community take immediate and effective action those countries face a miserable aftermath.
Modern weather forecasting allowed us to see that the hurricane was building up, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Department on their preparatory action and on sending advisers to Jamaica at the earliest possible opportunity. It is clear from his statement that, through our efforts, we are seriously engaged with host Governments and the United States to do all that we can to help, which I applaud. What, however, is his assessment of how much his Department will spend to alleviate the effects of the hurricane? What are his priorities for the way in which the money will be spent? How will he channel it to the people who need it most? Will he give it directly to the Caribbean Governments, or will he channel it through NGOs on the ground? How does he intend to set the balance between the two? If NGOs are to be given any money, it is best that they know now, so that they know where they stand and can set about their business urgently in the knowledge that they can pay for it.
I salute HMS Richmond and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave Ruler for their rapid response and superb rescue work. Their presence is a timely reminder
1128
of the vital importance of the role that British forces can play in humanitarian relief, and is a testament to the professionalism and adaptability of the men and women who serve in them. Given that hurricanes are an annual phenomenon in the Caribbean, however, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that despite the Government's proposed defence cuts the same level of Royal Navy assistance will be stationed in the Caribbean in future? My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition delivered a speech yesterday about climate change and, indeed, the Prime Minister will refer to the topic today. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the problem is inevitable and that there is a serious need to address it. Hurricane Ivan is an acute example of that phenomenon. Will the Secretary of State refocus his Department's resources to adapt to the growing threat posed by climate change, given that the risk of such natural disasters is probably growing rather than receding?
As with any humanitarian disaster, so far we have only seen the initial impact. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State will do all that he can to help everyone hit by the hurricane, but as the news cameras redirect their gaze, we know that the deepest need is just beginning. We all hope that when those hard-hit countries are out of the news the hard work of helping them will still continue.
Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I extend my sincere congratulations to him, and I warmly welcome him to his new responsibilities. I genuinely wish him well in the work that he will undertake. As he will rapidly discover—if he has not done so already—it is a privilege to have the chance to speak for our respective parties on international development in the House. I join him in expressing personal appreciation for the role played by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who will be missed.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for his kind words about staff from DFID, the MOD, the FCO and, indeed, personnel serving on HMS Richmond and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave Ruler for the part that they have played. Our disaster response team, which is part of DFID's conflict and humanitarian affairs department, has been tracking the hurricane for some time, and the fact that I have been able to report to the House the steps that we have already taken is a testament to that preparation. We are proud to have played our part, but the hon. Gentleman is right that much more needs to be done. I cannot at this stage tell him the total spend in response to the hurricane, because that will depend on the assessment of need. Our immediate priority is to deal with the most urgent and pressing problems, and I set out in my statement the steps that we have already taken to respond to the needs communicated to us by people with whom we have been in contact, particularly on Grenada and the Cayman Islands, and by sailors and other personnel serving on HMS Richmond. That assistance will be used to support the Governments of the countries affected and at the same time—this will become more apparent when the Red Cross regional appeal is shortly launched—we will work, as we do wherever possible, through relief agencies on the ground, because they have the capacity. The best thing that we can do is use the

1129
resources that I am prepared to make available through them, thus ensuring that they can undertake the work that is required.
I agree that the presence of HMS Richmond has proved extremely important. It has played a valuable role and shows the continuing importance of that presence to deal with such disasters.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there have been a large number of hurricanes this year. Nobody knows for sure whether this is a manifestation of climate change, but he rightly draws attention to the challenge, and the world must respond to it. That is the point that the Prime Minister will make in his speech today. It is often the very poorest people who suffer most from the impact of climate change. We are talking today about flooding in the Caribbean, but only a short time ago there was flooding in Bangladesh, a country uniquely vulnerable to a rise in the water level because so many people live so close to sea level. The UK has made it clear that we intend to make climate change a priority for our G8 presidency next year.
The other truth, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would recognise, is that unless in the long term we get an agreement that involves action by all the countries of the world, including developing countries and including some, such as China, which are in the process of becoming big emitters, we will never solve the problem.
On the final point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the long term, I recognise that although the cameras have moved on, the process of reconstruction will continue. I can tell the House that the Caribbean Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund have concessionary lending facilities that are designed to help countries recover from disasters of this sort. We will be looking at the assessments that are made by our own people, we will be responding to the appeals made by the Red Cross and others, and particularly in relation to Grenada, where we have a small programme of technical assistance, I will be looking at how we might refocus that to support the country to recover.
Tom BrakeI thank the Secretary of State for providing an advance copy of the statement, and echo the condolences and sympathies that he expressed to people affected by the tragedy. I also pay tribute to the role that British forces are playing in the region. Their presence underlines the need for long-term engagement in that area.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was a real friend of international development. I hope that his successor, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), will prove to be so too, and I wish him well in that position.
It is appropriate that the Government's response has been generous and immediate. I should like to ask the Secretary of State about the other action that the Government intend to take. What contacts have we had with other leading Commonwealth countries to see what role they could play? On the Government's position in relation to short-term commitment in the form of humanitarian aid and, just as important, in relation to their longer-term commitment to the region, particularly the need to rebuild the infrastructure, some details about Government plans would be appreciated.
1130
Climate change has been mentioned. Will the Secretary of State raise the matter with the Prime Minister and ask him to raise it in due course with President Bush? The hurricane is the most recent and forceful evidence of climate change in a region close to the United States.
Finally, with reference to Grenada, could the Secretary of State set out what assistance Grenada has asked for, and whether the UK Government would be willing to provide people to assist on the ground? I understand that the problem is not necessarily the quantity of aid available, but getting it out reliably and safely to the people who need it. Grenada, Jamaica and the Cayman Islands are all facing a tragedy. I am sure that if the Secretary of State chooses to push Britain's role even harder and faster in the region, he will receive support from all parts of the House.
Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about those who have worked so hard to respond to the crisis. On his first point about the Commonwealth, as I said, a number of Commonwealth countries have already responded—the provision of practical support is, of course, a natural inclination, not least among neighbours and friends.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about longterm plans, as I indicated to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, we must make an assessment based on priorities and the extent to which countries can help themselves. For instance, the Cayman Islands has suffered grievously, and we are providing immediate humanitarian assistance, but it has a relatively high GDP, and its need for long-term support will be different from that of Grenada or, indeed, Jamaica, which is why we must reflect on relative need in deciding how to support long-term reconstruction. We will examine the provision of further assistance, including a response to the Red Cross appeal.
On climate change, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have already raised that point internationally, including making clear our wish that the United States should sign up to the Kyoto protocol, but the United States Administration are not persuaded. We have been strong on both the targets that we have set ourselves in the United Kingdom and pressing the rest of the world to recognise that climate change is a challenge that we must do something about.
Ms Diane Abbott: The whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his prompt oral statement. He knows that millions of British residents, who have either friends or family in those countries, have watched the course of the hurricane with extreme anxiety hour by hour. Obviously, the Government must wait for a detailed assessment of need before taking steps, but we may need to examine special immigration arrangements for the residents of Grenada. Flexibility was introduced after the volcano in Montserrat, and many Grenadian families have elderly relatives who have nowhere to live. Will the Secretary of State consider whether his officials can brief Grenadian and Jamaican people who are over here and who want up-to-date information?
The real problem for those countries is not the provision of immediate humanitarian aid or even rebuilding infrastructure, but the savage blow that the

1131
hurricane has dealt to agriculture and tourism, which are the pillars of their economies. They need serious long-term help to rebuild and restructure their economies, because if we leave an economic vacuum in Grenada and Jamaica, the drug trade will move into it. We may need to examine large-scale, sustained economic advice and help so that those societies can remain stable and secure.
Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I know that she takes a close interest in the matter. In addition to flights that have left Grenada, which removed people who were there on holiday, I understand that the one flight in carried friends and relatives who want to provide assistance. We will put my statement and other information on to the Department for International Development website, and I am happy to discuss other ideas that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members may have about how those communities that are particularly concerned can be kept in touch with events. I am happy to examine any proposals on reassuring people or telling people how they can provide practical assistance.
I undertake to raise my hon. Friend's point about arrangements for those who might want to bring relatives over to care for them with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I do not know the answer, but I undertake to look into the matter and to ensure that either my right hon. Friends or I reply to my hon. Friend on that point.
Finally, my hon. Friend made a powerful point about the hurricane's possible long-term impact. The international community's response includes the Caribbean Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Community. Once we have dealt with the immediate crisis, on which we are focused today, particularly in Grand Cayman, where no one has been able to go ashore, it is essential that we examine supporting those countries in recovering from that terrible catastrophe.
Tony Baldry: When climatic disasters, whether hurricanes in the Caribbean or flooding in Bangladesh, occur, the poorest suffer most, are most vulnerable and are least able to cope with the aftershocks. Britain's presidency of the G8 will be subject to one clear test: can the Prime Minister persuade the United States to sign up to the Kyoto protocol? It is no good the Prime Minister making further speeches unless some action occurs.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that because the Cayman Islands is an overseas territory, it has a particular claim under international development legislation on the first slice of the overseas development budget? Will he estimate the assistance that will specifically go to the Cayman Islands under that claim?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right about the impact of climate change and the importance of dealing with it. He knows the consistent line that the Government have taken in expressing the hope that the United States Administration will sign up to the Kyoto protocol. In the end, it is for the US Administration to take that decision—we hope that they will—but so far
1132
they remain unpersuaded, whether it is by the United Kingdom or the other countries that have signed up and have given the same advice.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the Cayman Islands' particular status as an overseas territory, for which we therefore have a special responsibility. As I said, we are exercising that responsibility by providing immediate assistance. We must talk to the Governor and to the Cayman Islands Administration about how we can balance further support with, as I indicated earlier, a recognition that the Cayman Islands is a well-off overseas territory and an assessment of the extent to which it can contribute from its own resources.
Hugh Bayley: Our relationship with the Caribbean goes back hundreds of years to a time before the Union between England and Scotland and our presence in Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Members of my wife's family who live in the Caribbean have told me about the enormously high regard in which Britain is held, because of the speed with which we have responded to previous disasters, and that memory goes back years. I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that speed is everything. It is extremely important that this country retains a naval presence in the Caribbean in order to respond at times such as this.
Hilary Benn: Speed is, indeed, of the essence. We have already seen the benefit of that naval presence, which has been the main means by which we have been able to provide assistance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House feel that our actions, which I described earlier, demonstrate not only that we were tracking the hurricane and were prepared, but that we moved as quickly as could reasonably be expected in the circumstances, bearing it in mind that it is difficult to get in while the hurricane is still blowing.
I pay tribute to the staff at DFID. I am continually and genuinely impressed by the effectiveness with which they go about their job, the information that they have at their disposal and the assiduity with which they deal with crises. It is principally because of their efforts that I can report to the House that we have taken steps, but we must do more.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I echo other hon. Members' remarks about putting real pressure on the United States of America to sign up to the Kyoto agreement. It is no good doing everything that America wants if America does not act in the interests of the whole world in return.
I want to raise the question of the general hospital in St. George's, Grenada. One of my constituents, Dr. Gary Symons, set up the intensive care unit, which has just been completed, in that hospital. Yesterday, he reported to me that although the hospital has its own generator, it has medical and surgical supplies for one more week only. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that it will get the supplies that it needs immediately?
Hilary Benn: The whole House is agreed on Kyoto. I thank the hon. Lady for her report on the availability of medical supplies. As she will know, HMS Richmond brought supplies on to the island as part of its initial response. I undertake to find out from my officials how

1133
long those supplies are likely to last, and then I will respond to the hon. Lady on what can be done to ensure their continuity over the coming weeks.
Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making this early statement and on the prompt action taken by his Department and our armed forces. The response of our armed forces in the Caribbean is absolutely vital. In that context, can he comment on the security and communications situations in place—Grenada, Jamaica and, perhaps with less certainty, the Cayman Islands—where we have responsibility?
If the hurricane turns towards Mexico, as still seems to be a possibility, will our armed forces be available to undertake the same kind of work, particularly on communications, in the fragile communities on the Mexican gulf coast?
Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. On communications, the airports in Grenada and Kingston are open. The airport on Grand Cayman—the other two Cayman islands have been evacuated in anticipation of the arrival of the hurricane, and the entire population is on Grand Cayman—is open for light aircraft, and it is hoped in due course to make it available for larger relief aircraft. One way or another, everyone will do all that they can to get supplies in by that means. As I said, communications remain particularly difficult on Grand Cayman.
On security, there has been some looting in Grenada. Security forces from neighbouring countries have come to help, and there is a curfew. Some looting has taken place in Jamaica, with unconfirmed reports of three people having been killed as a result of the violence. There have been concerns about law and order in the Cayman Islands, where a curfew has been imposed. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the information that he needs.
On Mexico, the honest truth is that we will need to identify the continuing requirements in providing support to the countries in the Caribbean for which we have a particular responsibility. At the moment, the immediate priority for HMS Richmond is to provide support to the Cayman Islands.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: To continue on that theme, this morning my office received a phone call from a constituent who is extremely worried about his family on Grand Cayman but is unable to contact them. I understand that no electricity is available and that mobile phones have gone down. Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of how communications can be secured on the island and whether HMS Richmond will do that as a matter of priority? Is there a helpline that concerned people in this country can ring, either at the Foreign Office or in his Department, to enable contact to be made swiftly?
When the assessment teams have gone into Grand Cayman, how swiftly will the Secretary of State be able to react to the demands of that community?
Hilary Benn: There has been some communication, albeit intermittent, with the governor of Grand Cayman. As the hon. Lady suggests, re-establishing
1134
communications will be a priority for HMS Richmond and the team that it hopes to send ashore as soon as possible. As intermittent telephone conversations have been the only means of talking to those on the island, there is no way in which relatives, who are understandably deeply concerned, can make those links. That is why it is very important that communication be re-established as soon as possible. We are considering how to get in as quickly as possible—I hope that it will be within the next 24 hours—the initial relief supplies for which we have been asked. That is our immediate priority.
I shall reflect on the hon. Lady's point about sources of information and contact for concerned relatives. I recognise that concern, but at the moment we are having real difficulty in talking to people on the island ourselves.
Chris Bryant: Bearing in mind the United Kingdom's historic association with many of the countries in the region, it is important that we play a vital role in providing health and assistance. However, given that many other countries in the European Union have historic ties with the Caribbean, how much co-ordination has there been with our European friends who have relations with the Caribbean? In particular, has Commissioner Nielson been involved in co-ordination or co-operation between member states?
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point. So far, our priority has been to do everything that we can to help. Now that we have provided that immediate response—although getting the help that is needed to Grand Cayman remains the urgent priority—I intend to find out about the response from other European countries. The Red Cross appeal is open to any other countries, including EU member states, that wish to give money. That is intended to help agencies with the capacity to get on to the ground as soon as possible, which is, historically, the most effective way of providing help. That is how we work in principle, because it gets relief there by the quickest route.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his exemplary attitude and approach. Will he build on that by keeping the House informed of the situation? If there is significant further information, will he make a written statement on Thursday; and when we come back in October, can we have at least a detailed written statement outlining precisely what has been done, especially with regard to those territories for which we have a political responsibility?
Hilary Benn: I am happy to do both those things, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.
Mr. David Heath: In recent days, I have been in contact with my constituent, Mr. Gerry Copsey, who runs a company called Just Grenada and has been desperately working with other tour operators and airlines to evacuate people from Grenada. He tells me that there are two overriding problems there: the breakdown of law and order and lack of policing; and the lack of prefabricated housing. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the welcome

1135
support from troops from Barbados and Trinidad is sufficient to restore governmental systems and policing on the island; and is there scope for providing a greater supply of prefabricated housing so that people can get back into solid houses, rather than tents, at the earliest opportunity?
Hilary Benn: I am grateful for the information that the hon. Gentleman's constituent has provided. I do not know whether the steps taken with the assistance of those countries have dealt with the problem that was identified, but I can tell him that the response from neighbouring countries and islands is being led by Trinidad and Tobago. As I said, there is a curfew in Grenada. The authorities will no doubt consider what further steps are needed to ensure the peace and stability that are the building blocks of any progress.
I am sure that housing is one of the issues that will be considered in further assessments of what can be done in the medium term, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the priority has been to ensure that people who had the roofs blown off their houses have sheeting or tarpaulin to put over them so that they at least get shelter from the rain; that is what we are working towards.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his full and helpful statement. Will he say a little more about climate change, particularly as it may affect this country? In other words—I hope this is not a naive question—could this awful hurricane perhaps be an indication that we in this country should brace ourselves against possible changes in climate and weather patterns that may affect us as well as other parts of the world?
Hilary Benn: I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises that point, but I am not in a position to forecast the potential impact of climate change on this country. That is beyond my responsibilities and, indeed, my knowledge of meteorology.
Mr. John Bercow: Surely not.
Hilary Benn: Definitely so. Many people say that we are experiencing increasingly frequent severe weather
1136
patterns, and that is understandably generating a debate about whether it is a consequence of climate change. Whether or not that is so, we can see the impact that increasing CO2 emissions are having. The weight of scientific opinion is clear, and we need to respond. It will be incumbent on all countries, including the UK, to be in a position to prepare themselves in case such eventualities affect them.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Secretary of State has graphically described the death, damage and destruction that was wreaked by a hurricane, which could perhaps be most aptly called Ivan the Terrible. As he said, it is the worst one for some years. Given that nearly every hon. Member has mentioned global warming and climate change in the context of such natural disasters, will he assure the House that scientific research is being conducted nationally, internationally or both? If a link can be shown, perhaps that will be the greatest fillip for hon. Members of all parties who want the Kyoto protocol to be adhered to and mankind to take urgent and immediate action. We are all responsible for wrecking, probably irreversibly, mother earth's fragile ecosystem.
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, not least about the threat of the process of change to us all, wherever we live in the world. As he knows, a great deal of scientific research is being undertaken. The Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has spoken about that forcefully. However, Governments and politicians are also required to act. Frankly, that is the biggest challenge that the world faces.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: As the Secretary of State knows, Britain has a proud tradition of helping the residents of all the Caribbean islands when natural disasters occur. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out, we have an extra special obligation to British overseas territories. The Secretary of State mentioned that the Caymans constitute a wealthy overseas territory, but its residents are nevertheless proud British subjects. Surely that should never be forgotten.
Hilary Benn: I agree entirely. That is why we are trying to fulfil our particular responsibility to the Cayman Islands in the ways I have described, and why we shall continue to do that.

Representation of the People (Ballot Papers)
1.12 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the order of names on ballot papers used in elections where more than one candidate is to be elected; and for connected purposes.
In all elections in the United Kingdom, the names of candidates are currently listed on the ballot paper in alphabetical order using the surname. When the election concerns parties, such as in the European elections, they are also listed alphabetically. Consequently, someone with the surname "Blair" would find themselves listed above someone with the surname "Howard", or, indeed, Kennedy. The Ant Liberation party, should such a party exist, would appear above the Bring-Back-Doctor-Who party or the Flat Earth party.
That does not seem surprising, as it is the case in many areas of life. At school, our registers were listed alphabetically and when hon. Members vote in this place, our names are recorded in Hansard alphabetically by surname. So why should that easily administered and well understood part of the electoral process change?
The ballot paper is fundamental to our democracy. No candidate or party should receive advantage from the ballot paper. If the political process is not fair and equitable to all candidates, it strikes at the heart at our system of democracy. In June 2003, the Electoral Commission produced a report entitled "Ballot Paper Design", which covered a range of issues regarding ballot papers, including alphabetical listing of candidates. After extensive consultation, it considered whether alphabetical discrimination exists: whether candidates with surnames towards the end of the alphabet are less likely to be elected because their names appear lower down the ballot paper, and whether there was evidence that electors were more inclined to vote for those nearer the top of the ballot paper for no reason other than reading those names first.
In the consultation process, the Electoral Commission received little evidence to suggest that, in single-vacancy elections, there is any bias towards those higher up the ballot paper. An analysis of the 2001 election showed an almost equal split between the positions on the ballot paper in which the winning candidates were placed.
My concern arises not from single-vacancy elections but from those where more than one candidate are elected. This year, for example, several local authority councils, such as my authority of Sheffield, were elected on new ward boundaries. That necessitated the election of all members of the council, whereas normally one third of the council is elected. In talking to hon. Members, I found that many provided anecdotal evidence of discrimination which they believed affected candidates placed lower down the ballot paper. Although in many circumstances that is not sufficient to affect the outcome of the election, in some it might.
The Electoral Commission shares that concern and cites academic research analysing the London borough elections in 1994 and the English shire district elections in 1995. The research showed that a smaller proportion of ballots was cast for candidates in the middle or at the bottom of the alphabetical order. It also showed that,
1138
among voters who cast all the available votes for one party's candidates, there was a marked bias towards those listed higher in the alphabetical order. Several councils also provided evidence that, when ballot papers had 12 or more candidates for three seats, a significant number of voters used only one or two votes—appearing not to find the third from the favoured party on the ballot paper.
Other factors, such as incumbency, influence the outcome of elections but research that included those factors still demonstrates a bias towards those with names at the start of the alphabet.
There is little evidence that parties or candidates seek to exploit the alphabetical listing by changing their surnames. For example, we have yet to see the appearance of a Robert Aardvark-Silk. I doubt that, if I sought election in a multi-vacancy election, I would choose to use my husband's name to bump me up the ballot paper from "M" to "B"—although, as he is called Bates, I would find myself above many famous names—Blair, Blunkett and Brown, to name but three.
Australia, which uses a randomised system for ballot papers, has experience of people seeking advantage. A famous example is the 1937 Senate election in New South Wales, when four candidates were elected with the names Armour, Armstrong, Arnold and Ashley.
In the case of the use of party lists, such as in the European elections, a campaigning organisation could well try to highlight its cause by adopting a name beginning with "A", in the way some companies do to secure first listing in the "Yellow Pages" telephone directory. A recent article in the Financial Times highlighted concerns that, under the alphabetical system, the British National party usually appears at the top of the list.
Residents of London know that, as part of mayoral elections, they are sent a booklet that includes the manifestos of all the candidates. After the first mayoral election, some candidates complained that the public were likely to read only the first few manifestos, and that that gave an advantage to those with names higher up the alphabet. For the election held earlier this year, a randomised system was adopted, with lots being drawn and candidates' manifestos appearing in the booklet in the order in which they had been drawn. However, the practice of listing candidates on the ballot paper in alphabetical order remained.
Many countries list candidates alphabetically on their ballot papers, but a research project on voting systems, the Epic project, found 16 countries that use randomisation for elections to their first Chamber, including Australia, Belgium and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have not made a detailed study of the different forms of randomisation that are used. However, in Australia, there is a double randomisation system, whereby all candidates are first randomly allocated a number and then the numbers are drawn again. That determines the outcome on the ballot paper. The process is not unduly bureaucratic and burdensome on returning officers and, in my view, would not therefore be in any way detrimental to the process. I understand that drawing lots for the publication of manifestos for the London mayoral election took place openly and was seen to be satisfactory.

1139
The Electoral Commission, in its report on ballot paper design, goes on to suggest that party candidates could be grouped together and that that would assist both electors and counting clerks. That would be achieved by substituting party for candidate in the first draw and then by further randomisation of the candidates' names in the party block.
I am not seeking to add to our view of the world another form of discrimination—that of alphabetism—although my experience of talking to hon. Members whose name begins with "W", a number of whom are in the Chamber today, is that they can tell of many instances in which they feel that their position in the alphabet has affected them. I am seeking to ensure that our electoral system should address the concern that, in elections in which more than one candidate is to be elected, there should be no possibility that having a name beginning with a letter near the beginning of the alphabet could confer an advantage.
Pamela Gordon, the Electoral Commissioner who chaired the review of ballot paper design, has stated:
"The design of ballot papers and nomination of candidates are two crucial areas of election administration. The public's ability to access democracy is dependent on their effectiveness."
The randomisation of names through a system similar to that used in Australia would not be cumbersome or difficult to understand. It would provide the reassurance that accidents of birth—or, indeed, marriage—are not influencing our democratic process and affecting the outcome of elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Meg Munn, Mr. Andrew Mackay, Mr. Andy Reed, Jonathan Shaw, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Brian White and Mr. Phil Willis.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (BALLOT PAPERS)
Ms Meg Munn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the order of names on ballot papers used in elections where more than one candidate is to be elected; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 152].
Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Higher Education
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1.22 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with regret the emerging consequences of the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004; believes that fees and expanding student debt create significant disincentives for those considering university entry, particularly from less well-off backgrounds; congratulates the efforts of those in the House of Lords who achieved significant concessions during the passage of the Higher Education Bill, particularly for part-time students; regrets that Her Majesty's Official Opposition has completely ignored the needs of part-time students in its new policy; notes that Conservative proposals ask students to pay for the abolition of tuition fees through higher interest payments on their loans, leaving them no better off; further notes the conclusion of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and others that Conservative proposals penalise the poor in order to subsidise the rich; notes the recent Times Higher Education Supplement/Opinion Panel Research opinion poll of students which finds that 47 per cent. support the Liberal Democrats, 20 per cent. support Labour and 23 per cent. are backing the Conservatives; and therefore calls for the immediate abolition of all tuition fees, the re-introduction of maintenance grants of up to £2,000 for students from low-income homes, and the development of a higher education system which brings together universities, further education and e-learning, opens up routes to vocational and technical as well as academic qualifications, and makes it easier for those who wish to study part-time.
  It is a pleasure to speak to a packed House on the important issue of higher education. I should like to begin by welcoming the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), to the Front Bench in his new role. When I first came into the House, he was the Minister for Lifelong Learning, and was incredibly courteous to those of us who were starting our careers here at the time. We remember that, and thank him for it. If today's announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on post-result applications to higher education is a measure of the Minister's immediate influence, we welcome that, too. The Schwartz committee's recommendations, which have been so swiftly accepted by the Secretary of State, represent an important step towards encouraging university applications from the less traditional groups.
  Will the Minister use his influence to dovetail the proposals of the Schwartz committee with the forthcoming proposals by Mike Tomlinson? It is crucial that those two strands of policy development sit together. Schwartz talks almost exclusively of post-A2 level entry into higher education, while Tomlinson shifts the emphasis to four-level diploma entry, with an emphasis on vocational as well as academic credits. I see that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is in his place, and I wonder whether this is an issue that the Education and Skills Committee could also look at. It would be sad if two separate silos, each of which placed an emphasis on trying to get under-represented groups into higher education and to further their

  1141
  education, could not come together. Schools, colleges and universities need a single, integrated entry system, and there is a danger, if we adopt the Schwartz system, that we might prejudice what is proposed later by Tomlinson. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
  We wish the Minister well, however. When I looked at the Guardian Unlimited website this morning, a most unusual fact was revealed to me: the Minister was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on industrial development between 1995 and 1997! That was a fact that I did not know, but I am sure that the Minister will reap huge rewards from having represented us on that vital brief during those two years.
  Such surprises are the magic of the House of Commons, but few surprises can rival the announcement last week that the Conservatives at last have a policy on higher education. It has only been six years since the passing of the Teaching and Higher Education Act in 1998, three years since the Prime Minister launched his review, two years since the White Paper was published, one year since the current legislation was published and three months since it received Royal Assent. However, we welcome their announcement.
  I have to confess that I was as nervous as a schoolboy with his first top-shelf magazine when I read the Conservatives' policy. Would it live up to expectations? That was the key question. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has now joined his colleagues on the Front Bench, because it was he who stung me in Committee when I challenged him to tell me when the Conservatives would reveal their plans for higher education. He boldly replied:
  "I can assure him that when we publish our policy he will be immensely jealous of it, as it will be much more attractive than the one that either he or the Government propose."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 24 February 2004; c.252.]
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Willis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has hon. Members' support. However, the initial verdict on his party's policy has not exactly been encouraging.
  Professor Nicholas Barr of the London School of Economics, who is regarded as one of the leading international experts in student finance, has said of the Conservatives' policy that it is
  "deeply regressive, benefiting merchant bankers at the expense of nurses and teachers".
  Mr. Tim Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman also believe what Professor Barr says about Liberal Democrat policy, which he utterly condemns?
  Mr. Willis: I am quite sure that when the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to speak, he will comment on the Liberal Democrats' policy, but I am talking about his party's six-year plans for higher education.
  The National Union of Students has described the Conservatives' policy as
  "a regressive response to the funding crisis in higher education",
  1142
  and the Association of University Teachers has said that it "could prove a disaster" and that it is "highly regressive". NATFHE has commented:
  "This elitist policy would reverse efforts to widen participation in higher education."
  Frankly, there is not much to be jealous of, so far.
  To be fair to the Conservatives, however, despite the dodgy use of figures, the lack of published sources in their report and the misleading use of the Government's explanatory notes to the Bill, the proposals deserve, and are getting, detailed consideration. I wish to help them in that regard today. Perhaps the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) could explain why, when using the range of figures from the explanatory notes, he took the lowest figure for fee income and the highest for savings from loan subsidies. That is hardly the research on which to base a credible policy after seven years.
  But surely the Conservatives' glaring, unforgivable omission of any mention of part-time students was not a result of sloppy research. Given that 50 per cent. of university students study part-time, that omission is more than a minor oversight. I well remember the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell saying in Committee that
  "the absence of greater focus on part-time studies in the White Paper, the absence of a part-time dimension to the Bill, and some of the shortcomings that the Bill represents for the part-time sector are greatly to be regretted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 2 March 2004; c. 428.]
  Those were nothing more than crocodile tears, because there is nothing in the Conservatives' proposals for part-timers. Indeed, had it not been for the assiduous work of my noble Friend in another place, Baroness Sharp, who persuaded the Government to include some provision for part-timers and to ensure that the Office for Fair Access—OFFA—considered access arrangements for part-time students within university plans, I doubt whether the Government would have acted at all.
  May I ask the Minister, who I know values part-time study greatly, whether he will extend the proposed review of funding at Birkbeck and the Open university to all mainstream universities, rather than just those two institutions?
  Will he guarantee that any assistance rightly offered to Birkbeck and the Open university will be offered to mainstream universities, too? That is a relatively small commitment, but it would send out a strong signal to part-time students and to mainstream universities that that mode of study is valued and supported. The failure of the Conservatives to address that and other key issues means that they have missed a glorious opportunity to cash in on disillusionment with Government policy and to make an important contribution to the debate.
  The Higher Education Act 2004 represents a significant departure for British higher education. It enshrines a system in which access depends on ability to pay, not on ability to learn, and on tolerance of £30,000-plus debts. It is extraordinary and irresponsible for Labour Ministers to admit that students will graduate with significant debts, and to boast that students will just have to live with that, at a time when the debt culture in our society is viewed as dangerous and unsustainable.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: On the close examination of Opposition policies on higher

  1143
  education and the question of student fees, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on whether a such a policy can be described as providing free higher education when proposals exist to impose commercial repayment rates for student loans at 2 per cent. above base rate, I believe? Does he consider that to be a free higher education system?
  Mr. Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, because that is the crux of the Conservative party's policy. The short answer to his question is absolutely not. What is more pernicious is that to get those funds into universities, that commercial rate of interest is charged on the poorer students, who must pay the greatest amount, because they must borrow the most. That is a classic sheriff of Nottingham policy, imposed by the Conservatives.
  Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend moves off student debt and the prospect of debt, has he seen the figures that came to me in a parliamentary answer just before the summer, which showed that for the first time in the past 10 years, there was a drop in the percentage of people across Greater London going on to university? That fall was evident in two thirds of education authorities. Does he have any explanation as to why, suddenly, in London, not only are we not moving towards the Government's target but away from it?
  Mr. Willis: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is interesting that in some of the poorest communities in places such as Barking, Islington and particularly Lambeth—which I know because I live there—in which fewer than 20 per cent. of students now go on to higher education in a city that offers the widest range of higher education institutions, we are seeing such an alarming drop. For Ministers to say that that is nothing to do with tuition fees and top-up fees is fatuous.
  The Liberal Democrats consistently argued that tuition fees and top-up fees would be a significant disincentive to potential students, particularly those from less affluent backgrounds, and not simply a disincentive to go to university, but, crucially, a disincentive to attend the top universities. That was the clear and categorical conclusion of the Government's research, commissioned from Professor Claire Callender of South Bank university. The findings were given additional impact by the report, "The Missing 3,000" published by the Sutton Trust in August, which concludes:
  "While 45 per cent. of independent school students who obtained the equivalent of an A and two Bs go to a leading university, only 26 per cent. of state school students achieving the same grades do so."
  Are Ministers saying that that is not partly due to debt and the fear of debt? If so, they are burying their heads in the sand.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the Committee stage of the Higher Education Bill, he and I had quite a few debates about the factors that were influential in determining whether students go to university. Does he
  1144
  agree that there is a perception that it is more expensive to go to Oxford and Cambridge than to many other universities? That is blatantly untrue; in fact, the reverse is true. The level of subsidy and number of bursaries available at Cambridge university make it a much cheaper university for those who have the right qualifications.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady is right that we have debated these issues regularly. Does she think that adding a £3,000 a year top-up fee creates a fair access policy? I do not care how much is given at the other end. If £3,000 is charged up front, my goodness, let us not pretend that students are getting a different, better provision.
  Mrs. Campbell rose—
  Mr. Willis: Our research shows that the proportion of English school leavers applying to go to university has fallen—
  Mrs. Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House, but the £3,000 is not paid up front, and it would be helpful if he were to withdraw that last statement.
  Mr. Willis: I will gladly withdraw it. The fact is that, although the student who is charged £3,000 does not have to pay it on that day, it is still added to their account. Whether it is paid on the first day, or at the end of three years, when the debt is £9,000, is irrelevant. Let us remember that a Labour Government in 1998 introduced tuition fees, having said that they would not do so in their 1997 manifesto, and a Labour Government introduced top-up fees, having said that they would not do so, and having legislated against it in 2001. Let us not have crocodile tears from Labour Back Benchers about those fees.
  Our research shows that the proportion of English school leavers applying to go to university has fallen in each of the past two years. According to Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures, if the number of 18 to 20-year-old applicants in England had kept pace with demographic trends, an additional 12,250 would have opted to go to university over the past two years, but they have not done so. The Government can hardly claim that six years of tuition fees, and the prospect of top-up fees, have been a triumph for social inclusion.
  But what are the alternatives? Will either the Liberal Democrat or Conservative proposals expand educational opportunities for less affluent and underrepresented groups? As opposition parties, we have a duty not just to criticise but to propose credible alternatives. The Liberal Democrats not only proposed but published our higher education proposals in "Quality, Diversity and Choice". Copies of our documents were sent to Ministers for perusal in advance of debate on the Higher Education Bill, and the costings were analysed and verified not only by the Government but by the Higher Education Policy Institute as correct.

  1145
  Hon. Members might disagree with our proposals on where we would raise our money, and where we would spend it, but the Liberal Democrats are the only party that guarantees students that they will not pay tuition fees or top-up fees and that poorer students will get grants, which will be paid for out of progressive taxation—a philosophy and a concept that the Labour party has abandoned totally as it faces the 21st century.
  The Conservatives, however, have totally failed to meet the test of credibility. The analysis of their proposals by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is devastating. As was pointed out earlier in relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), the poorest 30 per cent. of students, who are entitled to a full grant and bursaries under the Government scheme, will pay 25 per cent. more in loan repayments under the Tories' proposals. The Higher Education Policy Institute confirms the IFS view that women, those taking career breaks, for whatever reason, and those in low-income employment, particularly in the public sector, would be particularly disadvantaged. Significant numbers of students will never pay off their debts, because the interest on them will rack up to a point at which it will be impossible to pay them off.
  The proposals include no calculation of how that debt will be written off. Students taking longer courses in medicine, for instance—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is trying to intervene from a sedentary position. A tiny figure is included in the Conservative proposals, but they include no calculation of the number of students who might not repay their debts. They are, in fact, based on the Labour party's proposals—and for all their faults, those involve a simple tax on the outstanding amount which will depend on a person's income. No real interest is added.
  My fear, and that of my party, is that those taking longer courses such as medicine, dentistry and architecture—who are already grossly disadvantaged by the Government's proposals—would find their debts soaring as commercial interest rates were added to loans taken out in the first years of their studies. Or is the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell saying that loans taken out by medical students during the first three years will be exempt from interest until those people start earning more than £15,000? Perhaps that could be clarified later.
  In short, the Conservatives are asking the poorest to pay extra so that the rich will not have to pay any fees. That is a classic Conservative policy: tax the poor to give to the rich.
  What about investment? Will the Conservative proposals mean extra investment for our universities?
  Chris Grayling: More than yours do.
  Mr. Willis: I shall have to have a little drink of water, because I am getting excited.
  Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating very eloquently how sharply to the left of the Government his party stands on these matters. Given the huge funding gap that undeniably exists in higher education, and his and his party's stated opposition to all student payment, can he explain how he would tackle the very real problem of
  1146
  recruitment and retention of the highest quality staff, and how he would stop the brain drain of high-quality academics to the United States?
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is always incredibly courteous in his interventions. I have long enjoyed debating with him.
  Let me give a simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. Every single member of our party was elected on the basis of a pledge that we believed in social justice—that we actually believed in what we said in our manifesto—that we wanted to see students from lower social groups gain access to university, and wanted to see those with the necessary qualifications and ability go there. That is what we stand for. What we do not stand for is telling those students after winning seats in a general election "Now we are going to change our minds, and send you out of university with huge debts of £30,000." Nor will we say, as Conservative Front Benchers have said, that we will add commercial rates of interest to the debts of the poorest students who must take out the largest loans.
  I am proud of what our party is doing. I am proud that we are saying that to pay for that, and for social care for the elderly, we will tax the 1 per cent. who are the wealthiest in the land, earning more than £100,000 a year, and make them pay a little more. I am not ashamed to tell the hon. Gentleman that I believe in social justice, and that I believe in progressive taxation to pay for it.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point is important, and has been made constantly by us and by the Government. We believe that our universities do need more money. Academic salaries cannot remain at their present level. We cannot have PhD research students working on less than £8,000 a year, which has been happening in many of our universities. We must stop that drain.
  We believe that we must match the amount—roughly £1.1 billion£that the Government say they would provide in top-up fees. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has said that he will do more or less the same. It is the assumptions made by Conservative Front Benchers that I now wish to examine. We need to arrive at a fair balance.
  Will the Conservative proposals mean extra investment? The Conservatives make two claims: that their proposals will not cost the taxpayer an extra penny, and that their policy will generate an extra £21 billion of investment for universities over 20 years. If it does not come from the taxpayer, where will the £21 billion come from? For one thing, £9 billion of it does not exist at all. It will supposedly be generated by the universities themselves in endowments. If the Liberal Democrats had said "We are going to magic £9 billion which does not exist", you would have roared. Well, you would not, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you are too polite; but the House would have.
  After seven years, we hear this proposal to magic £9 billion. Let me tell the House what it actually means. It means the provision of £500 million a year for the next 20 years—and it assumes that private giving to our universities will rise to the level experienced in the United States, not in 20 years' time but on day one!

  1147
  Many of our universities are struggling to receive even meagre amounts, but because this will be a Conservative Government, they will flood the universities with money on day one.
  Chris Grayling: What about the Thomas report?
  Mr. Willis: Well, let us take the Thomas report.[Interruption.] A lot of sedentary interventions are being made.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. If Members wish to make interventions, perhaps they will do so in the usual way.
  Mr. Willis: Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is probably being a little unfair on the Conservative party. He may recall that in its last manifesto, the foundation sum for every university that was to be magicked out of another sort of proposal was far more extreme and far more magical than this. The Conservatives' present proposal brings us slightly closer to reality.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is most unkind. I thought that we should just forget that episode. The idea that every one of Britain's universities could be endowed by the sale of Channel 4 struck me as immensely fanciful, although it was very exciting at the time.
  The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned the Thomas task force. He was right to do so. Its report on voluntary giving to higher education states
  "The potential for growth is significant … if higher education can raise its share of donations to the proportion seen in the USA, the sector would receive £600 million annually."
  That is the basis on which the proposals come to us. The report goes on, however, to make it clear that that is an aspiration—perhaps one that could be achieved in 20 years' time. Our universities need the money now. The idea that they could generate income on the scale imagined and in the time scale suggested by the Conservatives is an illusion worthy of their backer Paul Daniels.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: People give money to universities in the United States because they are seen as independent institutions—independent of the state, and requiring support from civil society. Does the hon. Gentleman think it likely that people in this country will give money on any reasonable scale to institutions that they see as state-owned, state-run and state-controlled?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is partly right. The trouble with basing the UK model on the US model is that the original bases are totally different. With the exception of a very small number of British institutions, our universities depend almost entirely on state funding for not just teaching but research. Although a small, elite set of Russell group universities are already
  1148
  bringing in significant amounts of additional resources, the vast majority of British universities are not capable of being independent from the state, certainly in the short term. The idea of their receiving donations such as those described in the Thomas report is therefore illusory and fanciful.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that all our universities should be independent institutions—there is a fair argument in that—and that we need to think about how to create them, I believe that some of them could move in that direction over 20 to 25 years. However, if we are thinking about the US, outside the Ivy league and other more prestigious state universities, a significant amount of higher education is supported at a very local level and is certainly not supported by huge voluntary giving.
  I come back to the Thomas report, which makes it clear that it is talking about an aspiration. Having established that £9 billion of the £21 billion promised by the Conservatives does not exist, it follows that a further £9 billion out of the total is also an illusion, since it is promised only as matched funding from the proposed student loans corporation. Some of our poorest universities, which prove unable to raise any of those resources, would, under the Conservative proposals for matched funding, not get any money. The new universities in particular, which are contributing the most in terms of expansion and have the largest number of part-time students, would lose out. How much money goes to universities depends entirely on how much they can raise themselves, and the most prestigious institutions are the ones most likely to benefit since they will find it easier to generate funds.
  With university income dependent on an institution's ability to raise matched funding and expansion almost entirely dependent on our mainstream universities, the Conservatives are proposing a redistribution of resources based on prestige, not need. Perversely, while the Conservatives have rightly criticised Government proposals for increasing student debt, their own proposals to provide extra investment depend critically on the poorer students taking out the maximum loans on which they will have to pay the maximum interest and accrue the maximum debt. If that is not a classic Conservative proposal, I do not know what is. Their detachment from reality is truly classic.
  For the Liberal Democrats, our fundamental criticism of both Conservative and Government proposals for higher education is the poverty of their vision of what higher education should be about. For both, our universities are to become little more than high-class employment exchanges, where degrees are valued by their market currency, where students are consumers and minority academic courses are to become the province of the wealthy.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. Willis: I want to finish.
  When the Secretary of State said,
  "I do not mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for this state to pay for them",
  I thought that he was being light-hearted. He was not: he was defining new Labour's utilitarian vision for higher education. By contrast, the Liberal Democrats are a

  1149
  party holding true to its liberal past and the liberal promise to expand and not restrict the horizons of human imagination. That means a higher education system that caters for diversity through diversity and one that brings together universities, the further education sector and e-learning.
  We as a party have set out our proposals and said how we will pay for them. Under our proposals, no students would end their university days with debts for fees and top-up fees. Next year the electorate will have a decision to make—whether to support two parties that have put our students into debt, or a party that wants to invest in them.
  1.54 pm
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004; approves the further steps the Government is taking to widen participation, including the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, and enhanced bursaries; welcomes the improvement in support for part-time students being introduced by the Government, including the first ever grant package available from this autumn; rejects the Liberal Democrat policy of abolition of tuition fees, depriving universities of a dedicated income stream; congratulates the Government on maintaining fair and affordable loan repayment terms and rejects the policies proposed by the Official Opposition which would require those graduates who can least afford it to pay the most for their higher education; recognises the need to maintain UK universities at the forefront of world research and to equip the UK workforce with the high-level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace; congratulates the Government on record levels of investment in higher education, to almost £10 billion by 2005–06, with a 9 per cent. increase in research funding to 2007–08, additional income from variable fees, and further increases in Government funding to be announced shortly; looks forward to the introduction of a £2,700 maintenance grant for new students from 2006 alongside the improved student support package available from fee deferral, increased maintenance loans and loan write-offs for new students after 25 years; and welcomes the impact these policies will have on encouraging students from less well-off backgrounds to consider entering higher education."
  I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate higher education today. It is certainly one of the keys to the country's success and it happens to be a subject close to my heart, especially since last Thursday afternoon when I gained this appointment. I am grateful, too, for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and I look forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). Both Members invariably make thoughtful and helpful contributions, and the contribution of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was no exception.
  All in the House now agree that higher education needs additional funding. That is at least an improvement on last year's position when the Liberal Democrats and the Government both shared that view, but the official Opposition took the view that funding and student numbers in higher education could and perhaps should be cut. So higher education needs more funding: the question is how, and who pays. The Government's position is clear and we spent much of last year debating it. The Opposition parties also have proposals to answer that question, and we have heard
  1150
  one of the parties expound them at length today. I shall argue that they are proposals, but not necessarily workable alternatives.
  The Government have three main priorities in their higher education reform programme.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post? He has a hard act to follow, but I am sure that he will live up to it. Given that universities need more money, what does he think of the Liberal Democrat proposals to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry and therefore the science research funding? How will that help universities and where will the Liberal Democrats get the extra money from?
  Dr. Howells: Speaking as a Minister with three years' experience in the Department of Trade and Industry who worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science and Innovation, I have to say that my hon. Friend asks an intriguing question.
  Mr. Willis: I would not want the Minister to go away intrigued, without having an answer to the question. Of course the Liberal Democrats would not abolish the science budget. It would be transferred almost entirely to the Department for Education and Skills, which is where we believe it should be based. That is the interface with our university structure and that is what we believe should happen.
  Dr. Howells: I am grateful for that intervention, but I have to say that I did not share that perception when the proposals for the Department of Trade and Industry were first introduced. One assumed that that part of the DTI's budget would be scrapped, so I am glad to hear that it will not be. One wonders how many other parts of the DTI budget will not be scrapped either. However, this is a time for constructive debate and moving forward together. I am sure that the House will not want us to rake over that sort of question, which was dealt with admirably in last Wednesday's Prime Minister's Question Time.
  We have three main priorities in our higher education reform programme. First, we want to expand and widen participation. The country's needs, now and in the future, will depend on the knowledge and skills of our people. All the evidence shows that the need for graduate level skills will increase and that we are wasting too much talent, with too many of those born into less advantaged families still feeling that university is not for them, whatever their ability.
  Secondly, we want to give universities the freedom and resources to compete successfully in the international market—and it certainly is an international market, which is becoming increasingly difficult for universities the world over. We need to give institutions the financial security and stability to allow them to back our world-class researchers, invest in infrastructure and provide first-class teaching and services to students.
  Finally, we need to make the system of financial support for students fairer by abolishing the requirement to pay fees up front, providing for fair and

  1151
  affordable repayments for graduates, and helping students from poorer backgrounds with additional grants.
  This is a coherent strategy for reform, as set out in last year's White Paper, and the Higher Education Act 2004. The goal is to provide access to world-class higher education for all those with the potential to benefit. I shall look briefly at some Opposition policies, in the hope that we can have a constructive debate about them.
  As we have heard, the Liberal Democrats would fund higher education entirely from taxpayers' money, through a new supertax. They have said how much of that supertax they would spend on higher education, but they have not been clear about how much higher education needs to expand, or how future expansion would be funded. When the Liberal Democrat spokesman sums up the debate, I should be very interested to hear his thoughts on that.
  Also, there are no guarantees that the funding would be forthcoming if other priorities emerged, and quite a few other priorities have emerged already in the Liberal Democrats' plans. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough gave us some comfort when he said that his party would guarantee that HE would get the money. I am sure that we will all remember that in the months to come. However, his party has also guaranteed to provide free long-term care for the elderly, to cut council tax by £100, to cut taxes for the lower paid, to fund an increase in pensions, and to provide £500 million to abolish dental charges. Therefore, whether HE would really get the money is open to question.
  Dr. John Pugh: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: I will in a moment, but in many ways that is the nub of the problem. Being centrally dependent on the state means that HE has to take its chances with other competing priorities in public spending decisions. The record shows that that does not work out well in the long term.
  Before I give way, I remind the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we may have arrived at our current state precisely because of that strict dependence on central funding. For example, throughout the 1990s there was a very large reduction in unit funding for HE, which fell by 36 per cent. in real terms between 1989 and 1997. I know that the hon. Gentleman is passionate about education, and that he was very concerned about that fall in unit funding.
  Dr. Pugh: The Minister asks how we would fund HE, and our answer is clear: we would do it by means of progressive taxation. He asks what we would do about the future expansion of universities. Is it the Government's default approach that they will get any extra money that is needed from the student, and not from any other source?
  Dr. Howells: Part of the money comes from students, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, but the taxpayer gives huge subsidies to the universities, and
  1152
  that will continue. My argument is that the benefits that accrue from obtaining a degree—largely at taxpayers' expense but with some contribution from students—make it just about the best investment in the future that anyone can make. I should be very interested if the hon. Gentleman were to say that he disagreed with that.
  We have to remember two things: first, not everyone goes into HE—currently, just 43 per cent. of 18 to 30year-olds do so; and secondly, going into HE confers substantial benefits, both social and financial, as I just hinted. In particular, the average rate of return to people who have a degree is very substantial, and evidence from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that, in the UK, it is among the best in the world.
  It is therefore fair to ask those who benefit from HE to contribute to the costs. I remember being shocked, in 1997, when I read the report by Sir Ron Dearing, as he was then. The report spoke about the need for a contribution from students, but I belong to the generation that received what people called "free education". It was not free, of course, but was paid for by the other kids in my village who did not go to grammar school or university. I was lucky, but they were not, and they paid for me.
  Mr. David Rendel: I agree with the Minister that some graduates are likely to gain some financial advantage from going to university, but that should not be exaggerated. Has he forgotten that many graduates would probably have entered well-paid jobs even if they had not gone to university? They would have started earning sooner than those who started university, and their lifetime earnings would have been larger as a result. I agree that there should be wider participation in university education, but has the Minister also forgotten that as the number of people who go to university increases, the difference between the average salary of those who go to university and those who do not decreases? He should not exaggerate the case.
  Dr. Howells: I apologise to the House if I have exaggerated the case. I did not mean to do so, and the hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of those matters. However, as a general rule, it is true that, on average, graduates will have considerably larger lifetime earning than others. It is also worth bearing it in mind that in future we as a nation will not earn as large a part of our national income from manufacturing industry as was the case with previous generations. The nuts-and-bolts jobs that used to sustain many parts of the country are disappearing, and almost every prediction of future employment that I have read suggests that we need more and more skills of the sort that are taught in many of our universities these days. If we do not take that seriously we will have big problems. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The advantage of the Government's policy—that is, fees supported by income—contingent loans—is that the graduate still pays through the tax system, but that the universities are much more masters of their destiny, with an independent source of revenue. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who

  1153
  intervened earlier to say how the great American institutions get money in and sustain their income. We have a good deal to learn in that respect.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) seemed to think that only private institutions in America took that approach, but that is not so. Berkeley college is a state university, but it has a bigger endowment than Oxford university.
  Dr. Howells: I know little about these matters at present, and the hon. Gentleman knows much more than I, but I am very interested in the courses offering general access to university that are going on in and around Berkeley. They seem to be growing as a consequence of at least some of that income being sustained, and at a high enough level to allow experiments with other forms of higher education. Perhaps we will have time in this afternoon's debate to touch on what we call foundation degrees and work-based degrees. We have a good deal to learn from the Americans about that as well.
  Another aspect of the Liberal Democrats' policy needs to be examined. Under their proposals as I understand them—I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will correct me if I am wrong—students would study at home for their first two years.
  Mr. Willis indicated dissent.
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I shall string together a couple of questions for him, to check what his party's proposals are. First, what would their proposals mean for students who come from poorer backgrounds, or from parts of the country without an older university or one built in the 1960s? Would their ability to study at the best universities—I realise that that term is dubious—become a lottery based on where their parents live?
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to respond on that point. I realise that he has much reading to do in his early days as a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills, but I recommend that he read the Liberal Democrat policy document entitled "Quality, Diversity and Choice". It looks at HE and its relationship with further education and it recommends moving to a system based much more on credit, as is the case in the US, with a much more mobile student population. We do not want students to stay at home, in the strict sense, but we accept that the reality now is that roughly every other student is part time. Almost all of those part-time students study from home, and we must recognise that they are a very important part of the equation. Of course that should not preclude students from being able to apply to the most prestigious universities for the courses that they want to follow, but we should not say either that people who study at their local university are being offered an inferior product.
  1154
  If the Government say that, they are doing a huge disservice to mainstream universities, which offer a remarkable product, given the resources that they have available.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that Front Benchers will leave at least some time for Back Benchers to speak.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That point is well taken. Let us proceed with the debate as quickly as possible.
  Dr. Howells: I take that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall be guided by you.
  I would be the last person to imply that one would receive an inferior education from a university that used to be a polytechnic. My patch contains the university of Glamorgan, which is a superb institution, many of whose students live at home. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes an interesting point. If many thousands of students decide that they want to live away from home, it throws up questions about the financial model that he talks about.
  I shall deal briefly with the Conservatives' proposals, although I should have liked to deal with them at length. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to do so at some stage in the future. The Conservatives have said that they will keep our income-contingent repayment scheme. We need to follow the logic of that carefully, to see how income-contingent repayments would work with high interest rates. Income-contingent repayments are not like a mortgage. How much one pays in regular monthly payments depends on what one earns, not what one owes. People pay in proportion to their income above a threshold. So if someone is on low earnings, their repayments are low. If someone earns less than the threshold, the repayments stop altogether. That means that the loan takes longer to repay. With our system, that is not a problem, because the interest we charge just matches inflation. It does not matter if someone takes longer to repay: they only ever repay what they borrowed in real terms.
  However, with real rates of interest, it is very different. If someone takes a long time to repay, because their earnings are lower, the interest racks up and they pay back a lot more. If someone takes a career break, perhaps to start a family, the interest really begins to mount up. Two years ago, we exemplified some revealing case studies for the Education and Skills Committee and I hope that hon. Members will take a look at them. If interest rates were about 8 per cent., a low earner with a £10,000 loan who took a career break could easily have to repay £60,000, or six times what they borrowed. In contrast, a city earner with high earnings and no career break would repay just £15,000. It is hard to see how that is fair.
  Under the Conservative proposals, where would the money come from? It would not come from high earners. They would repay their loans quickly, so the burden of high interest rates would not fall on them. In fact, the extra money would come from medium and low earners, especially anyone unfortunate enough to take a career break. They would take the longest to repay and thus would bear the greatest burden of that policy. What impact would that have on widening participation?

  1155
  Greater interest rates would mean greater risks for the individual. Those less sure about entering higher education—the very ones we are encouraging to think about it—would be put off in their droves.
  Do the Conservatives' sums add up? We have identified at least three serious holes in the arithmetic. They have underestimated by £400 million the likely fee income by using data from 2003–04 instead of estimates for 2009–10. They have underestimated by £300 million the income lost the to the Exchequer if the student loan debt book is given away. Nor do the Conservatives' proposals make any provision to deal with the unfortunate consequences of high interest rates, and the cost of writing off loans for policy reasons. That is not tenable, and putting it right could cost another £400 million. So the Conservatives' sums are out by as much as £1 billion a year. Their new policy is grossly unfair, and the sums do not add up. I shall leave for another day the question of whether the Conservatives' proposals are actually feasible to implement. We have two different proposals from the Opposition parties, but as I said at the beginning, neither is a practical alternative.
  Everyone in this House knows and values the contribution made to national life by Lord Dearing. He has done great work in education for this and for previous Administrations. All have valued his independent approach. His committee of inquiry on higher education, in 1996 and 1997, espoused the principle that students should contribute to the cost of their higher education, and that led us to the introduction of fees in the first place. I remember it well because I took the Bill through the House and, temporarily, I was the most hated man in Britain. I am sure that someone took over from me fairly quickly. The logic of that conclusion is as strong today as it was then, if not stronger. Students should make a contribution, but it is better if they do so as graduates, and that is what our fee deferral plans allow for. Of course they must also contribute in a fair and affordable way. That means avoiding the shockingly regressive proposals from the Conservative party, which would have those who benefit least from their higher education paying the most.
  2.16 pm
  Mr. Tim CollinsLet me begin by adding my words of congratulation to the new Minister on his appointment. I do so warmly and for two reasons. The first is the cause of the vacancy—the deserved promotion of his predecessor. I am delighted that my recommendation that he should be promoted to the Cabinet, which I made on the record in the House some months ago, did not blight his chances. He engaged admirably with both Government and Opposition Members and thoroughly deserved his elevation. The second reason is that I enjoyed the exchanges I had with the new Minister when we both had responsibility for the Transport portfolio. He is a thoroughly nice and decent person and, like his predecessor, he is one of those Ministers who genuinely engages with the points made to him. I wish him well in his new job.
  I do not doubt for a moment the passion or sincerity of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who opened this debate in his
  1156
  characteristically robust fashion. He clearly genuinely cares for the future of higher education and for the life chances of our students. I hope that he would accept that he does not have a monopoly on concern over such issues. We may, and do, differ on the best means of securing our objectives, but we all wish to see a stronger financial position for our universities and an affordable pathway ahead for our students.
  All three parties have now set out their policies for funding higher education. We all acknowledge that our universities are badly underfunded and have been for many years, both before and since 1997. We all agree that unless that is reversed major damage will be done to this country's academic and economic standing, that universities therefore need a substantial annual extra injection of cash, and that that should be found in ways that ensure fair and equitable access to higher education, but there are important differences between us, too.
  The Government believe that the way forward is to impose top-up fees. That is a clear and open breach of Labour's 2001 manifesto, which stated:
  "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."
  Well, now they have legislated to bring them in. The Government's plans do not make sense for taxpayers, who will have to pay out £1.1 billion extra every year in order to give universities an extra £900 million a year, for students, who will face far higher debts under Labour's plans than under either of the other two alternatives, or for universities, which will face political control of their income, the creation of the widely loathed university access regulator, and no guarantee at all that Labour's second version of fees will be additional to, rather than a substitute for, existing grant. After all, Labour's first version of fees was clawed back in its entirety by the Treasury.
  There is an intellectual argument for unrestricted fees and a genuine market mechanism, and that is what some vice-chancellors and others would like to see.
  That is not what the Government legislation offers—indeed, Ministers have specifically ruled it out. Many of those who most enthusiastically support fees do so because they want, and hope, to see fees of not £3,000 a year but £5,000, £10,000 or even £15,000. Ministers cite some of those who hold that view in support of their case for fees, but then they turn round and tell their Back Benchers that, of course, there is no question of fees rising above £3,000 a year for many years. Somebody somewhere is being badly deceived.
  Then there are the Liberal Democrat proposals. They agree with us that there should be no fees but believe that more money for universities should be provided by raising income tax, at a time when every other G7 country is cutting it. While the rest of the world is following the UK's example of the 1980s and realises that lower tax rates, especially at the top, generate more revenue, increased investment and stronger competitiveness, the Lib Dems want to return to the days of the 1960s and 1970s when Chancellors revelled in asserting that the rich should be squeezed until the pips squeak. As both Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy recognised, we do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
  Furthermore, as we have already heard, Lib Dem plans would leave universities wholly and solely dependent for their income on the good will of the

  1157
  Treasury. Universities would have no independent revenue stream, no insulation against the ups and downs of the economic cycle, and no protection when funding higher education becomes a less fashionable cause than it is today.
  Both Labour and Lib Dem plans conceal an unhealthy obsession with class. The Lib Dems want to wallop the rich through taxes, and Labour believes there are too many middle-class people at our top universities. Only Conservatives believe that working hard and doing well are not sins for which people's children should be punished.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is patronising, and merely Lib Dem wailing, to continue to consider as statistically tied to his low-earning parents a student who is over 18, has left home and is probably about to earn more than the national average?
  Mr. Collins: I very much endorse my hon. Friend's point. The issue of fairness has already come up and it would not be going too far to say that earlier the Minister issued a challenge—I do not think he objects to that claim—when he said that it was the responsibility of those of us who disagree with the Government's plans to explain how ours would be fairer. To pick up my hon. Friend's powerful point, we do not believe that it is right for a dustman's son who becomes a merchant banker to be treated better by the system than a teacher's son who becomes a teacher. That is inherent in the Government's plan but not in ours.
  Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman said that the only way to make universities independent is to ensure that they have their own funding stream, but surely as long as the Government are giving anything towards the cost of universities their overall funding will always be dependent on a Government decision as to how much the Government portion of that funding will be.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that as long as the Government hand over even a penny to universities they might as well hand over 100 per cent. of the funding and control universities' income. I do not agree. Indeed, it would seem that his own colleague does not agree, because if I understood the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough correctly, he said earlier that he could see a scenario, albeit over a long time—I think he spoke of a period of 20 years—in which the top universities would become more independent. If he thinks that is desirable and possible, we should welcome progress in that direction. Although the Government's method is not the same as ours, both we and the Government agree that it is sensible to give universities some form of income that is not dependent simply on the view taken by the Chancellor of the day.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman briefly alluded to the fact that the Government believed that too many middle-class students are in higher education. The Select Committee has taken much evidence on that subject over the past two or three years and the message that has constantly come from the Government is not that there are too many middle-class students but that too few
  1158
  students of ability across the classes are entering higher education. If he ponders that, I think he will agree that it is a better interpretation.
  Mr. Collins: I always enjoy interventions from the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee. However, it is always important in the House to listen very carefully to what we each say. In fact, I said that Labour believe that there are too many middle-class people at our top universities. That is an unarguable interpretation of Labour's view, because our top universities neither want to expand nor are capable of significantly doing so. Thus the Government's proposal—to change the social mix of those who attend our top universities—would mean that to put some other categories in, some of those currently there would have to come out. That is the logical and unavoidable consequence of what the Government are doing. His point about wider access to higher education as a whole is valid, but I chose my phrase carefully, and he must accept that it is a fair interpretation of the Government's view on the matter—indeed, it is the only logical one.
  Mr. Willis: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generous comments he made at the beginning of his speech? Does he agree that under previous Conservative Governments and under two terms of the Labour Government no legislation has prevented any university from raising money privately? In fact, the systems are not mutually exclusive and many universities raise funds privately, especially Oxford and Cambridge, which have a proud tradition in that regard. The United States pays more of its gross domestic product to its universities than we do, so I do not understand how increasing the state's contribution to higher education would prejudice giving.
  Mr. Collins: We are making progress. Only a few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman described as fanciful the Thomas report recommendation urging that higher education should move towards endowment income of £600 million a year. Now he makes a strong case in favour of that, and I agree. Universities already have an income stream from private sources, and I think his intervention implied that that should be increased. That is very much part of our proposals.
  We also believe that both Labour and Lib Dem plans sadly fail to address the grave need faced by our universities not only to boost day-to-day income—all three parties have proposals for that—but to deal with the serious capital repairs backlog and, especially for our best universities, to begin to match the huge endowment funds available to their competitors overseas. The Conservative vision avoids those problems and rises to the challenges.
  We propose no fees, either up front or after graduation. Teaching for future generations in higher education should be free, as it was for everyone lucky enough to go to university before Labour came to office in 1997. There should be no means-testing for access to student loans, reversing the Government's mean-spirited attempt to pretend that joint parental income of £25,000 or £30,000 a year somehow makes families rich.
  A welcome element of the Government's proposals, which we intend to retain, is the introduction of a £1,500 a year student grant for those from the most

  1159
  disadvantaged backgrounds. Under our proposals, that grant would be available according to exactly the same terms and for exactly the same number of students as the Government propose. That, together with the abolition of fees, will ensure that access depends on ability to learn, not ability to pay.
  In that context, I regret the fact that last week at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister asserted that the Government were providing assistance to poorer students worth £2,700 per annum, while the Conservatives proposed to provide only £1,500 per annum, and that that was somehow less. Let us be clear. Both we and the Government propose a maintenance grant of £1,500 a year, but their plans provide for an additional £1,200 to pay fees. We would get rid of fees for everybody, so students would not need £1,200 to help to pay the fees. Nor do we believe in a taxpayer subsidy on interest rates on student loans. We would remove an expensive and unjustifiable item of public expenditure. Doing so would generate more than enough resources to replace every penny of fee income for universities.
  Dr. Whitehead: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about fees. He appears to believe that fees will continue to be charged up front and remitted, on the basis of the Government's proposal to introduce up-front grants for poorer students of £2,700. In fact, after 2006, up-front fees will no longer exist, so it is not possible to claim that a good proportion of the Government's proposed grant for poorer students will be earmarked for fee remission. It will simply be money in the pocket for university students to assist them with the costs they will encounter, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his suggestion.
  Mr. Collins: Unlike many of us who are in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Standing Committee that examined the Higher Education Bill. Had he done so, he would have heard the then Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education say again and again and again—as indeed the Secretary of State said again and again and again—that it was all right for the Government to introduce fees of £3,000 a year because there was a £3,000 a year package to deal with the consequences of the fees. The Government said that that would be organised by having a grant of £1,500, which would be retained under our proposals, £1,200 to help students pay off the fees in due course, and £300 of remission or bursaries administered by the higher education institutions. We would retain the £1,500, but we would get rid of the fees, so people would not need the £1,200 provided by the Government that, as Ministers repeatedly state, was intended to help to compensate poorer students for the consequences of introducing fees.
  Our other proposals include the outright abolition of OFFA—the university access regulator—and the removal of most of the HEFCE bureaucracy, setting universities free from political correctness and the form-filling culture alike. We will transfer the existing student loan book to the ownership of the higher education sector, giving it a major new asset, a guaranteed and
  1160
  independent future income stream and the ability to raise £3 billion in capital in the next five years. Moreover, our plans will provide universities with £500 million a year over 18 years in matching funds for contributions to endowment funds—a massive boost to those who are competing for the best minds with the Ivy league.
  Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman says that he would get rid of a lot of bureaucracy by abolishing both OFFA and HEFCE. I understand that he would also introduce—if he gets the chance to do so—a national scholarship scheme, under which presumably every student would need to administer, either for themselves or by another mechanism, the money going from them to the university to pay for their fees. A vast extra bureaucracy would be needed to deal with that per student, rather than per course, as is done at present.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman and I genuinely disagree about that. Our proposal is indeed to abolish OFFA outright and to get rid of the bulk of HEFCE. We do not propose to abolish HEFCE in its entirety. I must tell him that a number of vice-chancellors support us—not least a gentleman to whom I wanted to refer earlier who has written a very positive piece in The Guardian this morning: Dr. Peter Knight, the vice-chancellor of the university of Central England. In a piece that I slightly blush to quote at length because it is so very friendly towards us, he says that he welcomes our proposals to cut bureaucracy. As a vice-chancellor, he does not believe that those proposals will be subject to the disagreements and difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has identified.
  Our plans will involve much less debt for students, who would, on average, have to pay back £7,000 less than under the Government's proposals. I listened carefully to the Minister when he tried to say that high interest rates are worse than low interest rates, as people must pay more. He seemed to leave out a major element in the calculation: under our proposals, students would not have to pay fees, so their debts would be £9,000—about half what they are now—and the vast majority would have a substantially better package than under the Government's proposals, given the amount that they would have to repay and the time that it would take them to repay it.
  We, and we alone, have come up with proposals to tackle the major capital and endowment needs of universities. The Conservative party is offering substantially more to universities than either the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, who are essentially offering, as we do, an annual increase in income, but unlike us, are not offering additional capital or a major new asset for the higher education sector. We, and we alone, believe that universities should be free to set their own admissions criteria, to pick their own students and to choose their own spending priorities.
  No wonder that our plans have been welcomed by Professor Michael Sterling of the Russell group. There was a time, not many months ago, when Labour Members used to pop up and ask—I confess that it was an awkward question—whether we could name a single vice-chancellor who supports the Conservative approach to higher education. I can certainly name at least one, and there are rather more than that these days.

  1161
  I do not claim that it is yet all of them, but a number of them are much more positive about our proposals than ever before.
  I commend to the House the excellent article written by Dr. Peter Knight in today's edition of the Education Guardian. As I say, it would be embarrassing to quote all of it because I regard none of it as other than deeply flattering, but his bottom line is that the Conservatives
  "abolished fees, cut bureaucracy, slain a few unpopular dragons such as the Office of Fair Access and come up with proposals that address the funding needs of universities. The circle is well and truly squared, absolutely brilliant and actually credible."
  The choice is clear: massive debt under Labour; tax rises under the Liberal Democrats; or the best deal possible for students, universities and taxpayers under the Conservatives. Labour breaks its promises. Liberal Democrats know that they will never have to keep their promises. The Conservatives will deliver on our promises.
  2.34 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I always have an interesting role in such debates: as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, I try to refrain from getting too much into the party slagging-off match, which we have had previously. This has been quite a healthy and robust debate, and it has been conducted in much better temper than some of the debates that I have been privy to over the past three years. I want to look—reasonably objectively, I hope—at some of the issues that have been rather missed out today.
  I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his new post. We on the Select Committee are looking forward to an early appearance by him before the Select Committee. As he knows, he will take over his predecessor's engagements, and within a month, he will be coming to the Wilson Room to meet us.
  I find days like this a little embarrassing: you were once a student of mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Minister shared a room with me in the House for many years. I know as many secrets about him as he does about me, so if I scrutinise him too hard on the Select Committee, I may regret it, but I genuinely welcome him to the post. He is very knowledgeable about education and higher education. I am sure that, as he becomes as immersed in higher education as he was in the railways—can people be immersed in the railways?—he will become a formidable repository of knowledge about Government policy.
  I wish to push my hon. Friend on one issue. Some of us strongly supported the Government's view on flexible fees. At the time of the debate, he will remember that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and many others who spoke for the Government urged support for the policy on the basis that OFFA would have very strong powers to ensure something that the Select Committee recommended in its report on access to higher education more than two and a half years ago. I refer to greater powers for HEFCE to set benchmarks for fair access, based on ability, to all the institutions, using the long-tried method of setting benchmarks and finding out whether colleges and universities would meet them. If they did not meet them, or did not show that they had plans to do so, they would not able to charge increased fees.
  1162
  During the press conference held by OFFA yesterday, apparently, it was said almost as an aside that there would be no relationship between OFFA and universities and colleges having to meet any targets at all. I should be happy if the Minister would clear that up either in his winding-up speech or by intervening on my speech now. Is there such a relationship any longer; or, in effect, has OFFA been neutralised in that respect?
  Dr. Howells: OFFA has certainly not been neutralised. It is a very powerful body. Indeed, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and I discussed the issue yesterday in Committee when debating the regulations for OFFA. He complained to me in vigorous terms that OFFA was far too swingeing and powerful and had too many weapons in its arsenal. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take from that my reassurance that, where transgressions take place if universities charge higher fees than they may have set out in their prospectuses and where that breaks the access agreement and plan, OFFA will be able to act very decisively.
  Mr. Sheerman: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I hope that his comments have put the issue to rest. I will look at his words with some interest in the cold light of day tomorrow.
  I wish to move on by saying that most of the Schwartz recommendations that we read this morning are to be welcomed. Indeed, many of them paraphrase the report on access that the Select Committee produced two and a half years ago. Certainly, we strongly recommended post-qualification access. We could not see the sense of admitting people to university on the basis of predicted results.
  That leads not only to confusion but to injustice in terms of who gets into which institutions. We believe that such a change, which has been widely welcomed by vice-chancellors and many others in the sectors, should be speedily addressed. Many recommendations have been made and they include one from an influential Committee chaired by one of my predecessors, Chris Price. It proposed just such a change.
  Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State's support for the Schwartz proposals for making applications after the results are known would bring forward in the school year the A2 examinations and the vocational level 3 examinations? The time that staff have to teach students post-16 is getting narrower, and the universities and the examination system, rather than the teaching and learning profession, must bend to that.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There will be teething problems and things can be done better or worse. Sensitivity and give and take between universities and schools and colleges are important in getting things right. However, I think that he and I share a view about the principles involved in assessing students.
  In the evidence that we took and in our trips to elite institutions on the west and east coasts of the United States, the Committee found that universities there were able to judge a candidate in the round using four or five

  1163
  different criteria. We felt that using just the straight A-level results was too blunt an instrument to judge a student accurately. We believe that a SAT score, college examinations, the submission of a piece of work and a teacher's report add up to four or five different factors that could be weighed before a student was accepted into a college. It is interesting that the one thing that bound the six elite universities that we visited was the fact that they did not believe in interviews. I remember—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) does too—that one president told us, "If we wanted more people like us, we'd interview."
  By and large, I welcome the Schwartz proposals. They move in the right direction, and it is important that we get things right. Select Committees have consistently agreed on an all-party basis that ability should determine who gets into any university. There should be no equivocation about that, and there should be no special selection for minority groups if that overrides ability. Ability must be the criteria, but a perceptive way of judging ability must be the absolute priority.
  This is a debate about higher education and, in a sense, the debate about flexible fees and top-up fees—whatever one wants to call them—has obscured some of the most important issues that came out of the higher education White Paper and some of the issues that the Government have still not answered. I am sorry to address this point to the Minister on his first day at the Dispatch Box in his new job, but when we consider what gave rise to the debate, we realise that it was not just Dearing. We know that the Dearing report made a great contribution to the debate, but the Universities UK analysis of what was needed to equip universities for a new generation of competition against many global competitors also represented a significant milestone.
  We should also maintain the secret of higher education success in this country. I say to the Minister and to those on the Opposition Front Benches that the key to our success in higher education, when compared with other university systems in mainland Europe, has been our emphasis on excellence not only in research but in maintaining the quality of undergraduate education. Indeed, the Select Committee has consistently emphasised—I believe this passionately—the need for a relationship between teaching and research in the same institution. That relationship has been long forgotten and abandoned in most of our neighbours in Europe, and they have certainly suffered from that. Because of that, many people in the other 24 member states of the European Union would come here for an undergraduate education as well as a postgraduate education if they had the choice, the mobility and the language skills.
  Mr. Collins: Although we have obviously had our differences in the course of the debate, I thoroughly endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying at the moment. I hope that it will be possible for us to find a cross-party basis on which to build on what he has said about the commitment to excellence and the
  1164
  relationship between teaching and research. They are fundamental to the United Kingdom's strength now and in the future. He is quite right about that.
  Mr. Sheerman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He may not like what I shall say in a moment, but I will try to make my remarks not too party political. The Universities UK review said that there was a £8.79 billion resource gap for higher education. Hon. Members will realise that the Select Committee had a close look at the White Paper and I wish that people would read and re-read the Select Committee reports. We could have saved a lot of money on the Schwartz inquiry if they had been read thoroughly. As I said a couple of weeks ago about the exam results, if people had considered our recommendations about examinations and A-levels, they might have saved themselves some trouble.
  The Select Committee put its finger on the problem in our evaluation of the White Paper. We said yes to flexible fees and agreed that Dearing was right. Higher education needs diverse sources of income. That is healthier for universities. I am a governor of the London School of Economics and we are quite good at finding other sources of income because we are a global brand. However, that is much more difficult for Huddersfield university or even the university of Birmingham. There is no doubt that an institution is more able to find sources of income if it has international alumni with a tradition of giving. The LSE has been lucky and assiduous in that regard. Some institutions are better than others at finding funds.
  Money from research institutes, foundations and alumni is all very good. Given the tradition of our country, I expect expectations to ratchet up. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is probably right. Expectations should not be set too high, because the culture of giving is very different and all the work that I have done suggests that it takes a long time to turn that culture round. It is beginning to change, but not that quickly.
  We want diverse sources of funding, but more than that we need secure funding for research. The Select Committee said that the research part of the White Paper was more important than the discussion about, and the proposals for, undergraduates paying something towards their education. That issue and the funding gap have not gone away. The work that I have done suggests that, even on the most optimistic estimates, flexible fees and top-up fees will bring in £1.5 billion. That is a ballpark figure. Let us be generous and say that it is £1.79 billion, but that still leaves a £7 billion gap.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will surely remember that the Universities UK analysis of the UK funding gap was broadly divided into two parts: £3 billion worth of capital, which is addressed by our policy, and £5 billion that was revenue grant over three years and not over one.
  Mr. Sheerman: I am not talking about Conservative party proposals. We will evaluate them as time goes on. My remarks are addressed at all three parties—and the governing party, in particular. There is still a large gap in higher education resources and budgets.

  1165
  That is of great concern to vice-chancellors owing to its impact on capital and the deteriorating state of some of our universities. I visit schools all the time, and they are looking pretty good these days because of investment in new buildings and modernisations, but I have visited universities with severely out of date equipment and buildings, which worries me greatly. I am directing my comments mainly at the Minister at the moment because we seem to be living in an era in which we like to avoid such difficult questions. Yes, it seems to be all right that we will get more money from flexible fees, but there is cap on that for a significant time, so such large sums of money will not come only from student contributions.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West will agree that there has been tremendous investment in pre-school and school education across the piece and an increase in educational maintenance allowances, but money becomes thinner as one moves up the age range because spending on higher education is significantly less, although we welcome the fact that it has grown. We want to meet the challenge of staying at the top on research and our research-rich universities—that is the proper euphemism that we use these days if we do not want to call them the best universities—but big science is enormously expensive.
  The Committee also criticised the White Paper for the way in which research funding was being focused on fewer universities. All the evidence that we took was pretty unanimous in suggesting that taking away research money from research departments with a rating of 3 or 4 continues to be a disaster and that we will reap the dividends of a lack of investment in such institutions as time goes on. Sir Richard Sykes, the provost of Imperial college, said that he wanted research investment to be concentrated on a handful of universities. We asked him if he meant a handful to which he said, "Yes, five." That would mean that most research universities were concentrated in London and the south-east and that there would not be even one premier research university in each of our regions. As a Welsh Member, I am sure that the Minister could not accept that. The Committee's report suggested that we must have at least one premier research university in each of the country's regions.
  The Committee also commented on evidence taken regarding a lack of investment in lower-ranking universities. The pattern of research success shows that many innovations come from aspirant universities that are struggling to move from 3 ratings to 4, 5 and beyond. The Government have not tackled the resource gap and the other parties have not addressed it significantly. Our attention has been taken off the matter because of our debate on higher education top-up and flexible fees. During that debate, vice-chancellors and others in the sector said, "Whatever you think about this debate, isn't it wonderful to have higher education on the front pages of every newspaper—even the tabloids?" Yes, it was, but we need a genuine debate about fundamentals, and we were partly taken off track by the obsession with student contributions.
  Let us get back to considering the overall role of universities in our society and the fact that universities are the largest employers in most cities and towns where they are found. The fate of communities rests more on their local universities than anything else, and that is
  1166
  true of York, Huddersfield, Oxford, Cambridge and London, with its 34 institutions. Imagine the impact on research, education and the way in which universities contribute to our economy if they were taken out. That consideration brings us back to a more holistic approach to what universities mean for our society.
  It is uncomfortable for the Government and all of us to consider investment for universities merely in terms of how much money is going in, because we must also consider more and more the quality of what is coming out. I have been one of the greatest opponents of talk about Mickey-Mouse degrees and easy courses. I have never found such a degree because they do not exist. Students are not daft and will not join a bad course in a British university that would not lead to employment or something worthwhile.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: No; I am coming to the end of my speech.
  I am worried that universities might be turning out rather one-dimensional people. Although they may be good at their subjects, their education is less broad and well balanced than previously. When I talk to students in the United States, where I have taught as a visiting lecturer in Cornell university for many years, I find a greater breadth and depth across the piece than in our students. We must think about the quality and dimension of our university education and consider whether we are turning out what used to be called well rounded and multi-dimensional individuals. To be elitist, such people used to have an understanding of the arts, philosophy and a broad range of subjects. We did not just turn out social scientists, mathematicians, chemists, doctors and dentists. All our parties must consider the people whom we are turning out.
  On the night before John Smith died, I heard him make a moving speech, part of which questioned the way in which the educational system no longer seemed to turn out enough people who wanted to enter public service. I must say that he was talking towards the end of the Thatcher era. He thought that too many people who left education wanted to be have a high income with a job in the City. He talked about the need for people to be motivated towards public service—albeit properly rewarded—and dedicated to giving something back to the country in which they lived and to which they owed much. As we talk about higher education in the coming months before the election, I hope that that tone can be inserted into the debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members are clearly hoping to catch my eye in this relatively short debate. If their remarks are concise, more may be successful.
  2.58 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: It is always a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee and I shall endeavour to be briefer than he was.

  1167
  We are all grateful to the Liberal Democrats for offering the obscurity of one of their Supply day debates to enable the House to discuss the current state of, and future prospects for, higher education. That is especially useful now because we are plainly in the run-up to a general election, but we have not yet reached a point at which strategies and policies are set in stone, so there is still time and an opportunity for all parties to reflect on what is said in today's debate, as I am sure that they will want to do.
  I feel today an optimism about the prospects for our universities that I have not felt since the late 1980s when the Conservative Government in which I served took the first steps down the road on which the Government are making such good progress. We have reached and passed a historic turning point. With luck and good leadership, we will move steadily towards the high-quality, large-scale, diverse and accessible higher education that Britain needs as global competition intensifies and the new knowledge economy unfolds.
  There are a number of people whom we have to thank for this happy development, and I would like to mention them. Most immediately, there is the Secretary of State and the former higher education Minister, the right hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), now deservedly promoted. I wish his successor all success; as has been said, he has a hard act to follow. The Secretary of State and his former junior Minister picked up a difficult brief and delivered on it with a combination of charm and brutality that has been widely admired. Above and beyond them, however, there are two other important figures whose role also deserves acknowledgement.
  In the first place, obviously, there is the Prime Minister, together with his immediate advisers. They deserve the credit for recognising that a radical change in direction was needed and for giving the strong and courageous lead that was required. Then there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is customary nowadays to dwell on differences between No. 11 and No. 10; indeed it was said at the time that there were differences between them on the question of university fees. I shall return to that in a moment. However, it is important to recognise what the Chancellor has personally contributed to the more hopeful university scene that now lies before us.
  Since 1999, there has been steady growth in the funding of higher education. Above all—I know this from my constituency, which has so much science in it—the Chancellor, with Lord Sainsbury, has recognised the importance of investing in scientific research, and it is right to pay tribute to him for that. It is said that the Chancellor's concern about the fees policy related to two key issues: equity and accessibility, and the efficiency and effectiveness of university governance. Those are perfectly reasonable concerns, but I believe that experience will show them to be unwarranted. Let me explain why.
  As the stream of income paid by students increases, many universities will reach a "tipping point" at which their overall income from sources other than the Higher Education Funding Council will give them a real sense of responsibility for shaping their own future. As that happens, I believe that they will sharpen up their act and
  1168
  improve their internal governance in ways that no amount of Government exhortation and interference, of which we have had so much over the last two decades, can possibly hope to achieve.
  The concern about equity and accessibility will be met in the same way. Under the new policies, the universities will have a serious economic incentive to recruit and retain students. That will do more for equity and accessibility than 100 regulators. The Chancellor is known to be committed to evidence-based policy. I urge him to keep an open mind about the working out of the new policy, and I urge the Government as a whole, in framing their manifesto, to seek to retain the political flexibility to respond speedily to the positive evidence of success that I firmly expect to emerge in the new Parliament.
  So much for the Chancellor's concerns. Let me just mention two of my own concerns. The first, I know, is shared by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the biggest challenge now facing many universities is the introduction of the new two-year vocational degrees, with rising take-up for them and a high-quality learning experience for those who go into them. The chief justification for the massive expansion of higher education is that it will expand the skill base of the new knowledge economy more effectively than older forms of work-based vocational training. It is critical for the universities and the country that that expectation is met successfully.
  Turning to my other concern, I do not know whether the Secretary of State shares it, but it has an important bearing on the decisions that he will have to make soon about the Tomlinson proposals for the future of school qualifications. My concern is this: for many years, since as long ago as when I was a Minister, it has been fashionable to say that British education does well by the most academically gifted but lets down the rest. There may indeed have been some truth in that claim, and of course it is right that opportunities for every type of student should be increased and expanded. But there is a danger that we may make the mistake of taking for granted the quality of our offering to the brightest students. In a world economy that competes not only in skills but in brains, the whole country will suffer if we do not challenge and stretch our best young brains.
  That something is awry is very evident. We can see it very clearly if we look at the figures for the proportions of A grades at A-level in hard subjects that are achieved by students in the independent sector. Until 2000 the statistics on that were presented in a more transparent way than they are currently, and they showed that in that year the proportion of such students from independent schools was in the range between 42.1 and 46.1 per cent. in maths, chemistry, physics and biology. That is to say, in those subjects almost half the A grades at A-level went to students in independent schools. Yet the independent sector educates only 7 per cent. of our young people. There is clearly a lack of real academic challenge and aspiration in the state sector. There is a danger that the Tomlinson proposals will make the situation even worse and perhaps widen still further the academic gap between the public and the private sectors. To coin a phrase, we need academic challenge and aspiration "for the many, not the few".

  1169
  It is right that I should say a few words, in conclusion, about my own party's recent announcement of its policy for higher education. My message is simply this: it is still not too late to think again. There are two main elements in what is proposed, and both involve a regrettable sleight of hand. The Conservative party proposes to introduce vouchers for higher education. That is presented as a great boost to university freedom, but in any voucher system, or system of per capita funding, the critical questions are, "Who fixes the numbers of vouchers and their value?", and "Can the vouchers be topped up?" Since our universities already admit their own students and their teaching funding is already based on student numbers, there will be nothing new in them administering a voucher system; in fact they already do something of the kind. But as compared with the Government's policy, the Conservative proposals, I fear, represent a step back in terms of university freedoms.
  The effect of the Government's policy will be to enable each university to fix the value of its voucher for all its students and for each course, by allowing a top-up subject only to an upper limit. By contrast, the Conservative proposals will retain a system in which the centre decides both the number of the vouchers and their value. That will in practice mean the state deciding, first, how many students there should be in total; secondly, how many students there should be at each university; and, thirdly, how many students will be admitted to each course. The paradox is that the Government's policies represent a real liberalisation of higher education, while the Conservative proposals represent a real move back to "big state, small people".
  The second Conservative proposal is to commercialise the student loan system by charging a positive rate of interest for student loans, and to use the revenue from that to fund universities. I welcome the advocacy of a positive rate of interest; the idea was proposed by the Select Committee. The current level of taxpayer subsidy to graduates is not justified by any evidence that it really supports access. But the Conservative proposal envisages, on the one hand, an increased charge to graduates, and, on the other, the use of the funds arising from that
  "to improve the teaching infrastructure of universities".
  It does not, as advertised, retain the principle of free higher education.
  The fact is that a surcharge will be applied to the repayment of loans for student maintenance, and that revenue will be used to pay for university teaching. The proposal thus smuggles in a graduate contribution to university teaching costs—to use a phrase with which the shadow Secretary of State will be familiar, it smuggles in top-up fees "through the back door". As compared with the Government's much more transparent policy, that indirect approach is again to the detriment of university freedoms. Because the vehicle for the new charge is to be the financing of the student loan book, the sums arising will have to be centrally administered. The Conservative proposal is that that will be done at arm's length from Government by way of a new charitable foundation. But I do not think that there would be much difference in practice between such a foundation and the funding council system. The real difference between the Government's policy and the Conservative proposals is that the Government are
  1170
  giving an initiative to the universities, working from the bottom up, while the Conservatives would retain top-down resource allocation from the centre. Once again, it is a question of "big state, small people".
  To conclude, the future of our universities is not a central issue in electoral politics. Nevertheless, their strategic importance in the new global knowledge economy is immense. We look to the universities as a prime source of intellectual innovation and increasingly as a vehicle for flexible skills training. As things stand, it is clear that the Government understand that fundamental point, but I fear that that cannot yet be said of either of the two Opposition parties.
  3.10 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is forthright and clear on a subject about which he knows a great deal. It is a matter of regret all round that he does not appear to have been centrally involved in the construction of his party's new higher education policy. Perhaps it would have been different if he had been.
  We have concentrated this afternoon on the details of higher education policy. I suspect that as we move into a general election campaign the significance of such detail will be forgotten, but it is extremely important, as hon. Members have said, that we get it right, because it will allow students to know whether they can afford university fees, and pay them in reasonable instalments over a period of time. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, payment should allow for career breaks and other personal choices. The detail of our policy will allow universities to plan their funding, tuition and research requirements in the medium and long term. That is the essence of recent debates in the often difficult passage of the Higher Education Act 2004, which made considerable progress in closing the gap, acknowledged by everyone, between the funding requirements of higher education tuition and research and student contributions. Under the new system, students will be able to pay those contributions from their future income and universities will have an income stream to meet their requirements. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that that does not lead automatically to a closure of the gap, and I suspect that in future there will be a substantial debate about universities' research requirements. Nevertheless, as a result of the passage of the amended Act and the changes that it will introduce, the detail of the long-term situation is much clearer.
  Another hidden issue is access for students who have never considered going to university before. The proposals from both Opposition parties that we are considering this afternoon resile from the notion that about 50 per cent. of young people should go to university. It has been suggested that that figure was plucked out of thin air, but that is not true. According to projections, in future, about 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds leaving school or college will have the qualifications to go to university. The Opposition parties, however, would tell those students that, even though they have the qualifications to do so, they cannot go to university, which undermines a fundamental principle of higher education that the House should espouse. We must enable school leavers to go to university so that on

  1171
  graduation they can contribute to our economy and society. If we start to pick and choose students to reduce their overall number we will let those people down.
  In contrast to the Government's detailed policy on higher education, the proposals of the Opposition parties are bottles of snake oil, albeit two very different ones. The Conservative bottle is an enormous jeroboam. The ingredients of that concoction, however, do not add up, as has been said. Asking students to repay loans at commercial interest rates would make an unacceptable connection with a mortgage. Students will not have the choice of taking a career break and there will be no allowance for people who do not earn enough money to pay off the loan. As a result, the clock will be ticking on the interest that they have to pay and, as analysis shows, the money to be repaid will pile up. The idea of throwing out the loan book to match funding for endowments is absurd. The loan book, however, is a means of providing loans for students in the long-term. If we sell that long-term future to achieve a short-term fix for university funding we will simply find that the sums do not add up. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the books can only be made to balance by a radical contraction of student numbers, and that is the problem at the heart of the Conservative proposals.
  The Liberal Democrat proposals, as I said, are a different kind of snake oil, although it may be unfair to characterise them as such. They are a medicine that works in its own right, but the problem is that the same bottle of medicine has been promised to every single person in the GP's practice. My hon. Friend the Minister outlined a number of Liberal Democrat proposals that flow from the 50 per cent. tax increase that they would introduce. A little while ago, I attended a debate in the Chamber on Liberal Democrat proposals for local income tax in which they said that they could achieve the transition from council tax to local income tax by means of their 50 per cent. tax increase. They would introduce a cut in council tax, free long-term care for the elderly and various other things, including higher education reforms, some costed, others not, that go far beyond their central pledge to abolish tuition fees.
  The Liberal Democrats propose loans to cover maintenance, the reintroduction of maintenance grants of £2,000 a year for poor students, and free eye tests and prescriptions for students. They would like to restore housing benefit to students during the summer holidays. They want to pay fees for part-time students who, they say, will also be eligible on a pro rata basis for means-tested loans and grants. In addition, they would like to put more funds at the disposal of individual universities to help meet cases of unexpected hardship.
  Perhaps as a result of those additional internal uncosted commitments, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), whom I greatly respect for the tenacity and thoughtfulness of his contributions—
  Mr. Rendel: So do we.
  Dr. Whitehead: I am paying a straightforward compliment to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, not a barbed one. I imagine that it was
  1172
  precisely because of that thoughtfulness and commitment that he circulated a memo to members of his party last year, pointing out that there was a hole of between £1.5 billion and £2 billion in the Liberal Democrats' commitments that would need to be filled.
  The Liberal Democrats also seem to suggest not just that a number of students would study near their homes, but that, in the words of their leader, normally students would study at universities near their homes. That runs contrary to the idea that access means students have access to all courses on the basis of their qualifications, wherever those courses are. In an economy where the elite universities attracted the movement of students, most universities did not. A state college system would cut directly across the idea of access, which we consider important.
  Mr. Rendel: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that there are now as many part-time students as full-time students. As almost all those part-time students are studying from home, it is true even now that the majority of students are studying from home.
  Dr. Whitehead: Yes, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is true that a number of students are studying from home, and that a number of students who are doing full-time courses go to local universities. I take issue not with that fact, but with the apparent notion enshrined in the Liberal Democrat proposals that it would be normal to study at home—that pretty much everybody would study at home or at their local university. That is a considerable bridge over which Liberal Democrat policy leaps.
  Mr. Sheerman: I have heard it said several times today that the majority of students study at home. I have not seen that statistic and I should be interested to know whether it is legitimate. If a party believes that most students should stay at home and study rather than go away, it may suit that party to present that as the current situation. I should like to know the legitimacy of the statement that most students in higher education study at home. I have not seen it for myself.
  Dr. Whitehead: Neither have I. As I granted the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), it is accepted that a substantial number of students, particularly part-time students, study at home. I have looked at the figures for students studying locally in my own city, at Southampton institute and Southampton university. There is an increasing trend, but it is by no means normal for students to study at home. It is by no means the case that most students study at home. As my hon. Friend says, to make that claim in order to bolster a policy that would greatly enhance that number is a bridge too far.
  The hon. Member for Newbury may not have stated that students would normally attend a college or university near to where they lived or worked, but his leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), stated that in a speech to Liberal Future on 5 June 2003. The idea seems to be a fundamental part of the assumptions behind Liberal Democrat policy.
  Whether or not one agrees with everything in the package proposed by the Labour Government, the policy is clear for students and universities. It is clear

  1173
  about access and the long-term future of universities, students and access. My concern this afternoon is to contrast that with two policies that, in varying ways, mortgage the future for the present. We need look no further than the extraordinary quote in the motion—I have not seen many such quotes in motions—which states that the
  "Times Higher Education Supplement/Opinion Panel Research opinion poll of students … finds that 47 per cent. support the Liberal Democrats, 20 per cent. support Labour and 23 per cent. are backing the Conservatives".
  That would largely explain the wildly over-extensive and substantially uncosted prospectus that the Liberal Democrats are presenting to students. Those who do not look at the detail may be taken in by it. It may be a clear election ploy to try and enhance the support of those people, but because the debate is all about details, it is essential to stick with the details. Those who look at them will realise that we should not mortgage the future of higher education for quick fixes. We should make sure that higher education is funded not just for current students who are voting in polls organised by The Times Higher Education Supplement, but for students in the next 30, 40 or 50 years who may benefit from their university and benefit the country, and for universities of which we can be proud.
  3.26 pm
  Alistair Burt: I appreciate the chance to take part in the debate and will do my best to be brief, as one or two others still want to get in. Some of my remarks derive from the time when I occupied the Front-Bench position now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) as shadow higher education spokesman, before I became batman to two successive leaders of the Conservative party—though a batman with no aspirations to climb on to a ledge of the palace. Some of my remarks are sourced from my continuing fellowship of the Industry and Parliament Trust and Universities UK. I am grateful to the universities of Holloway, Kingston and Bristol and to Imperial college London for the access they have given me over the past couple of years, though I stress that the opinions I express and the comments I make are mine, rather than theirs.
  I warmly welcome the Minister to his position. We have known each other as friends for many years. He has always carried out his ministerial duties ably and competently—it says in my notes—and I see no reason why that should not be the case in his present position. We know that he will put into it all his endeavour and effort.
  I strongly welcome the debate, as much as I welcome the change and development that have taken place in higher education since the 1960s. That more people go to university now is obviously good news, and that universities are different in their style and in what they provide for both graduates and undergraduates is also to be welcomed. Universities are not as they were. In most respects, that is to be welcomed, although one or two things are not so good and candid friends need to say so.
  There are many issues in higher education that we could debate on the basis of the motion, but I shall deal with a theme that has emerged from one or two
  1174
  comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) first raised it and it is a point not truly brought out in the motion or the amendment. My colleagues have a better grasp of the issue—that is, the independence of the higher education sector.
  The Liberal Democrat motion and the Government amendment imply that higher education is and will remain almost solely a creature of Government. Higher education and Government should, of course, form a partnership. The nation has expectations and interests of which higher education must take account, but a too close, too dependent relationship between higher education and Government is not a good thing.
  I shall pick out a couple of examples of that relationship being overdone in this country. The regulation and direction of funding through the Higher Education Funding Council has been commented on. Although they may be improving, universities still complain, and they are right to do so on occasion. Not only is the task of applying for funds time-consuming and frustrating, but almost all funds come with strings. Universities long for a system that rewards their professionalism and integrity with earned autonomy by which they can use money to fit in with their long-term plans and aspirations. Subsequent irresponsibility can be punished, which is what random inspections are for, but more trust and autonomy would be warmly welcomed.
  I therefore welcome my hon. Friends' development of our ideas for greater autonomy by changing the funding mechanism for universities and encouraging more voluntary giving. Voluntary giving raises some challenges, which are set out in the excellent paper prepared by Professor Eric Thomas of Bristol university earlier in the year. If we could get the £600 million to which he and my hon. Friends refer, which works out at £400 per student, it would be of great assistance.
  Of course, money will not come in equally to all institutions, and I recognise the fears expressed on that point, but two things follow. First, as Professor Thomas makes clear, endowment and voluntary income does not replace money from students or taxpayers, so room exists to correct imbalances, if they occur. Secondly, and most importantly, we cannot and should not expect all universities to receive equal resources, because they are not all equal, in the sense that they do not all tackle the same role in a modern higher education sector. Some can and must conduct blue-sky research. Some want to run courses for the sheer hell of it, and some students take those courses for the same reason.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills made some unfortunate remarks suggesting that education for its own sake is not valid and that universities should be more vocationally driven. We are right to reject that proposition. Somebody, somewhere should defend education for its own sake, and it should be the Secretary of State. This country needs a tier of universities that receive wholehearted support and that are recognised as being of world stature. They must compete internationally and draw the best researchers and teachers here in order to deliver the highest quality skills to our students, which benefits everyone. Such universities are likely to be better funded than others.
  Not all universities can fulfil such a role, and others of them may perform different jobs with a degree of excellence: teaching may take precedence over research;

  1175
  care for students who need the greatest help may be of the highest quality; and relationships with particular industries may ensure that a university supplies a niche market. Individual departments of excellence can and do flourish in virtually all universities, and a system that enables those individual jewels to be recognised and supported is required.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Alistair Burt: No; the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) wants to speak.
  Not recognising the difference between universities and seeking to hold back those of the highest intellectual and research capacity because not all are equal is bogus and likely to inspire a complete breakaway by a handful of universities from the rest, which would be to no one's advantage. Greater autonomy will lessen that risk.
  Who goes to the university is the second area in which the Government threaten independence. My message to the Government is simple: leave it to the universities. All universities that I have visited in the past three years are searching for the best students, and no admissions tutor is unaware of the effort required by a student from a difficult background to achieve top grades at a school that may not have everything. Universities know how to make allowances and do not need the Government to set quotas for them.
  The more the Government go on about that matter, the more likely it is that individual injustices will take place: youngsters will not be judged on their merits, individual rights will become subordinated to group rights and public confidence in the honesty and integrity of the admissions system will be fatally compromised. The issue is not unrelated to the Government's aspiration for more people to go to university, which is good, and their 50 per cent. quota, which is not good.
  Interfering with independence is dangerous in two respects. First, continued emphasis suggests to the nation that only higher education is worth having and that those who pursue further education, and even those who learn on the job, are somehow second class, as are those who teach such courses. I absolutely reject that notion. We cannot truly talk of "parity of esteem" for post-16 destinations if we give such an impression.
  Secondly, a quota increases the likelihood that someone will be encouraged to take a course they do not want, in a university that they do not want to go to, in order to fulfil the quota and ensure that a university stays in business. That neglect of the interests of the individual student, who is considered as a commodity to fill a quota, is sad and wrong.
  The pressure on universities to widen and increase access and to make allowances for quality runs the risk of taking the spotlight off secondary education, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage mentioned, and its responsibility to ensure the best outcomes and grades for its students.
  The problem of ensuring that a strong group of applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds is ready for higher education is not solely the responsibility of the universities, and their efforts to address that are
  1176
  helped substantially when secondary schools act in partnership with them and increasingly support such efforts.
  Let us take on the next phase of higher education. Let us give universities as much autonomy as we can and a light regulatory regime. Let us give students the sort of support that my hon. Friends propose by ensuring that they do not pay fees, cutting their debt and enabling them to borrow enough to live on at university—a message that was missed out of the Government's original White Paper. I strongly support my colleagues' package of measures, which is designed in the best interests of universities and students.
  3.35 pm
  Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we are coming to the end of the debate, and I am grateful for just a few minutes to put one substantive point to the Minister, whom I too welcome to his post.
  My constituency does not have a great tradition of higher education: that was not generally what people from the old boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey did. The one notable exception was the great teaching hospital of Guy's, which won prizes around the world and had dental and medical schools that were preeminent for a century. After that, things moved on. We had Borough polytechnic, which became South Bank polytechnic and is now London South Bank university, which is doing very well in terms of widening access. We have students living in premises south of the river who go to the London School of Economics and Westminster university.
  I was prompted to make this contribution by figures that alarmed me when I got them from the then Minister in July; I mentioned them in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). They suggest that something is badly wrong as regards opening up access and encouraging people to go on to higher education in London, our capital city. I have since asked questions relating to the other parts of England, and those figures will be available when we come back after the next break.
  The figures show some worrying trends that I want to put to the Minister. They relate to the 32 London boroughs—the City of London is excluded—and cover the years 1996 to 2003, the last year for which figures are available. In the past year, 20 of the 32 boroughs experienced a decline in the percentage of students going on to higher education. Four local authorities—this is not a party political point—have experienced a decline over the whole period, which means that a smaller percentage go to university now than in 1996. They are Camden, with a 4.5 per cent. drop; Hammersmith and Fulham, with a very small 0.5 per cent. drop; Kensington and Chelsea, with an 8.5 per cent. drop; and Richmond, with a 1 per cent. drop.
  There are huge variations in the level of attainment. In two boroughs, only 12 per cent. of school leavers go on to higher education: Barking, which is a traditional working-class area, but an outer London borough; and Hackney, an inner-city borough with all the educational problems that we have heard about. At the other end of the scale is Harrow, where more than 40 per cent. of students go on to higher education. In 1996, the figure was about 30 per cent.—there has been a huge increase in that relatively affluent borough.

  1177
  Six local authorities have experienced good increases since 1996 in the numbers of students going on to higher education. When I list them, hon. Members will see that, again, I am not making a party political point. They are Harrow, with 9 per cent.; Newham, with 8.5 per cent.; Redbridge, with 9 per cent.; Waltham Forest, with 8 per cent.; Wandsworth, with 8 per cent.; and, I am pleased to say, my own borough of Southwark, with 8 per cent.
  Those are the best performers. Overall, however, the London figures have started to turn down rather than up for the first time in seven years. For the first time, we have an indication that people in Greater London are not going on to higher education—I am not referring to the 50 per cent. target to which the Government aspire—because the figure for the capital is less than 25 per cent.
  The best conclusion that I can reach—I do not draw on a great amount of research; I am happy for the Government to conduct the research—ties in with conversations in my constituency and anecdotal evidence that I have picked up across London. More and more people say that they will not go to university because of the cost and risk of debt.
  I am not trying to bolster my party's case for the sake of it. As a London Member of Parliament who hopefully knows the subject relatively well, I simply want to share the fact that the evidence on the ground suggests a worrying trend. If that is the case, although we have the Higher Education Act 2004, the orders have not been laid and I hope that the Government can think again, not only about whether they insist on breaking their earlier commitment but about whether it would be wise in the foreseeable future to increase the contributions that students are asked to make to tuition fees. There is a danger that the people who need university most may be most put off and that the opportunity for widening access to which we all say that we aspire may not be fulfilled.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: It is nice to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). It is the first time that I have done that, and I am pleased to have that opportunity and to welcome the Minister again to his new position. I had a chance to do that yesterday in Committee and I am glad to do so today on the Floor of the House. I look forward to further debates in the next few weeks and months.
  I start by making one point about Conservative policy that has not yet been raised. It is an interesting issue, and I hope that Conservative Members can answer my point. The Conservative party states in its paper that under its scheme the average debt with which graduates end their university careers will be lower by £9,000 than under the current Labour scheme. I take the difference to be caused by the fact that, under the Conservative scheme, students will not have to take out a loan to pay three times £3,000 of tuition fees, which they must do under the Government's top-up fee scheme. That is the only logic that I can perceive behind claiming that the debt would be £9,000 lower. If that is the only difference, Conservative Members appear to be assuming that the amount of the loan that is taken out for normal living costs will be precisely the same under both schemes—
  1178
  some £10,500 on average at the end of a normal undergraduate career. That means that the Conservatives have failed to increase the figure by the extra interest that they would charge before the student begins to pay off the loan in the April of the year after graduation. That implies a subsidy.
  Chris Grayling: I am delighted to say that the models that we put together and published last week include interest on the debt that accrues at university under both the Government scheme and our own.
  Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to hear that, but I am a little surprised, because the difference between the figures given is only £200. That implies that the amount that the Conservatives have accepted as the extra interest on the debt in the period before it starts to be paid off is only £200. Given that the real rate of interest that the scheme implies is some 4 per cent., and that the undergraduate is expected to borrow approximately £3,500 a year, only £200 seems a small amount of interest. I cannot get the sums to add up. The figure should be closer to £1,500. Some questions remain.
  Another aspect of the Conservative scheme is that it raises the maximum amount that can be borrowed by students. Conservative Members must therefore assume that at least some students will take out more than they are allowed under the Labour scheme. Surely that implies that the average loan will be greater, and therefore a greater average amount must be repaid. There are therefore two fundamental concerns.
  Mr. Collins: I would like to make it clear that the extra amount that students could borrow would not displace money that they were borrowing at 3 per cent. interest. It would displace money that they are presently borrowing at credit card rates, which can be anything up to 18 or 20 per cent.
  Mr. Rendel: I understand that point. Nevertheless, the amount that the average graduate could borrow would be higher under the Conservatives' scheme, and would therefore take longer to pay off.
  I would like to turn briefly to some of the points that have been raised during the debate. When we talk about the extra money to be raised through income tax on earnings above £100,000, we have made it clear again and again that that money would pay for three things, and three things only: the higher education changes that we intend to make; free personal care for the elderly; and some help for local authorities to keep down their council tax bills. Those are the only things that will be paid for out of that money.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the difference between the United States and elsewhere, and how US universities have been able to encourage a lot more private endowment. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made the important point that public spending on higher education in the US represents a higher proportion of gross domestic product than it does here: roughly 0.9 per cent., compared with 0.7 per cent., according to figures produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That makes it clear that it is the public commitment to higher education—the fact

  1179
  that the public authorities demonstrably believe in the importance and value of higher education—that encourages the extra endowment from the private sector. To suggest, therefore, that endowment from the private sector could take the place of public funding would be fatal, as it would almost certainly lead to a reduction in the endowment coming in, rather than an increase.
  I made a point in an intervention on the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the bureaucracy involved in his national scholarship scheme. He simply did not answer my question, so I shall raise the matter again. If the Conservatives introduced a national scholarship scheme, someone would have to administer it, and the amount of bureaucracy would be far worse if it had to do be administered on a student-by-student basis. Each student who gained a place at university would have to ask the university exactly how much money was involved, then apply to someone—it is not clear who—to ensure that they got that money to give to the university. It would be a hugely bureaucratic system, and I suggest that it would cost an awful lot more than the current one.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale also seems to have a conflict between two ideas. One is that it would be entirely up to the universities to give places to whomever they wanted, and that they would then be able to get scholarships to pay for those places; and the other is that a minimum proportion of those scholarships would be allocated to certain subjects. Quite how that would be administered, alongside the universities having complete freedom to give places to whomever they wanted, in whatever subjects, I fail to understand.
  A fundamental point about the Conservatives' policy is illustrated by the fact that the hon. Gentleman failed to answer the criticism made by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that the Tories' scheme would inevitably involve money being taken from the poor and given to the rich. That would happen because the poorer graduates—those in less well-paid jobs—would take much longer to pay off their debts, so the bulk of the money that would replace the current fees would come from them.
  Mr. Collins: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under his proposals there would still be loans that had to be repaid at the end of they day? Under his scheme, someone who went into a well-paid job could pay off their loan faster than someone who went into a less well-paid job.
  Mr. Rendel: Yes, but since the increase is only to be at the rate of inflation, there would be no real effect there. That is clearly an important difference.
  There have been various claims that the Tories were going to pay the capital amounts demanded by universities, and that we were not. Because of the possible early introduction of our higher rate of income tax, we would be providing a lot more money to the universities than the current Labour scheme, and the Conservatives are quite wrong to pretend that that is not the case.
  1180
  The most fundamental criticism to be made about the Government and the Conservatives involves their lack of vision about higher education in general. Ministers come up with only one answer to the question, "What is higher education for?" They say that it is there to serve the needs of the economy by creating a skilled work force. They believe that the kinds of study that are not deemed economically useful and fail to meet a consumer demand are not worthy of support. We agree that higher education is vital for the economy, but we do not believe that knowledge is valuable for that reason alone: it is of intrinsic worth both to the individual and to society as a whole. We regret that Labour and the Conservatives are now uniting around the position that the value of studies is determined by the number of student customers that a course can attract, or by some centrally determined test of economic usefulness.
  Let me give one example of how the position now taken by the Government and by the Conservatives can be spectacularly short-sighted. How many people were arguing before 11 September 2001 that there was an urgent and pressing need to train more people who can understand and converse with the Muslim world? A recent report by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies argued that we are not training enough people with knowledge of the middle east and competence in Arabic. Clive Holes, professor of the study of the contemporary Arabic world at the university of Oxford, argues that we are seeing
  "the gradual loss of a national resource for teaching Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages, and … because of the concomitant staff cuts, the loss of expert advice which should be available to government, the diplomatic and intelligence communities, and business."
  That is the logic of the market as envisaged by the Secretary of State and the Conservatives.
  There is now a significant divide in politics on the future of higher education. The choice is between those who want to tax learning whether through fees or interest rate charges, which applies to both the other main parties—and those who believe that it is the duty of public policy to ensure that every individual is able to expand the humanist wall that we need in our community. The Conservatives are advocating a policy that unashamedly redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich—socialism for the wealthy—and the Government, too, have promoted a policy that disadvantages the less affluent. Their desperate war of concession and reassurance during the Higher Education Bill debates, promising grants and bursaries all over the place, was a tacit admission that that is the case. If tuition fees and top-up fees are so benign in their consequence, why did Ministers decide that all those sticking plasters were necessary?
  The Liberal Democrats therefore have nothing of which to be jealous in the other two parties' policies. Our position is principled and consistent with our party's values and history. It is also popular with students, university staff and parents, which cannot be said of our opponents' policies. One of the most striking comments in recent days was that of the National Union of Students president Kat Fletcher, who said:
  "Though the Tories stood by the NUS in our battle over tuition fees, we now recognise that their promises for a fairer funding situation for higher education were merely rhetoric."

  1181
  A policy that is principled and popular and will create a higher education system fit for the 21st century is a policy that we will be proud to take to the country.
  Let there be no doubt: this will be one of the deciding factors of the general election. Both Labour and Conservative will be standing on platforms that make those who go to university pay for the costs of the education they receive. We have a different answer. Because society as a whole benefits from the highest levels of education, the cost of that education should be met from taxation, and in particular, we would replace fee income with taxation of earnings above £100,000. As a result of the chasm that differentiates our policy from the policies of both the other two parties, we are looking forward to the next election with relish.
  3.53 pm
  Dr. Howells: I have seven minutes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he needs the leave of the House.
  Dr. Howells: I am dreadfully sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wrote that down on my brief in thick black handwriting.
  With the leave of the House, I now have about six minutes.
  May I begin by wholeheartedly endorsing the support voiced for the intrinsic value of university education, although I must tell hon. Members that I still grind my teeth occasionally at having once lost out in a shortlist to someone who was studying the effects on warfare of horsemanship in 13th-century Castile? I have my doubts about whether my subject of research was much more useful—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What was it?
  Dr. Howells: It was the coal industry, which the hon. Gentleman will know about.
  This has been an interesting and informative debate, which has made clear the depth of feeling in the House about higher education. My esteemed predecessor as Minister, now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, would have enjoyed the debate, because it has underlined the importance of ensuring that we get this right. I was especially encouraged to hear expressions of support from both sides of the House for maintaining what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred to as the commitment to excellence in the quality of teaching and research in our universities. He posed some central and difficult questions about how we can ensure that the highest-quality research—the excellence to which we have referred—is funded properly, and located throughout the regions and nations of this country. Our policy remains to concentrate research funding on the best institutions, but we do not propose to take all funding away from 4-rated departments, for example. In 2003–04, there was only a moderate reduction—about £20 million, or 2 per cent.—in the overall research budget of the Higher Education Funding Council for England for such departments. HEFCE will continue to
  1182
  provide £17.5 million in capability funding for departments rated 3A and 3B in 2004–05 to support the seven emerging areas in the next research assessment exercise.
  The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) highlighted some of the problems with his own Front Bench's proposals. One interested me particularly: the proposal to replace HEFCE's funding arrangements and tuition fees with a voucher arrangement. Let me add to his timely and constructive questions one or two of my own.
  The Conservatives do not say how they will control the number of places. At present we do that through HEFCE. If a university recruits too many students, grant will be lost. How will the Conservatives manage with a voucher system? Will they ration the number of vouchers that they hand out? If they do not, they will have written a blank cheque: they will be giving a voucher to anyone who is admitted to university. How can they possibly do that, and control public spending? They will have to ration the vouchers—but how? How can they say who is worthy and who is not? Will that not amount to taking centralised control of the university admission process?
  The hon. Gentleman posed those questions in his usual elegant fashion, but I am afraid that none of us has received answers of any description, elegant or otherwise.
  Maintaining and building on the success of higher education is essential, not only for students and graduates but for our economy and society as a whole. Just as a successful higher education can bring great benefits, making the wrong decisions, or no decisions at all, could cause great damage. I am confident that the vision set out in the 2003 White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", and subsequently enacted in the Higher Education Act 2004, is the right vision to deliver successful higher education. It represents a carefully considered and decisive package for reform, and for the creation of a higher education sector that will stand the tests of time and international competition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) reminded us that higher education plays such an important part in any modern economy that we must be absolutely clear and precise about how we pay for it. He challenged the Opposition parties to give us that precision, because the Government face tough spending choices. The country's future economic success depends on our getting higher education policy right. There can, indeed, be few more important topics. It is not realistic to think that now, with 44 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds going into higher education, we can fund it in the same way as we did in the mid-1960s, when the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and I went into higher education. Less than 8 per cent. of our cohort did so then. We are living in an entirely different world now—one in which we must get more and more students into higher education.
  We accept that going for tuition fees was not an easy option, and, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, it is not a popular one. We do not care to play that game. He was right to cite figures showing the great popularity of the Liberal Democrat policy, but it is a different matter to try to pay for it. In government it is necessary to make real

  1183
  decisions. The Liberal Democrats will never face that opportunity, so they can say what they like. It is, of course, one long wish list.
  We think that our policy is the right one, and the only realistic way forward, and so do many of our competitors. In Europe, for example, universities in Germany are pressing the federal Government to change the constitution to allow fees; the Netherlands is already going ahead with tuition fee pilots; and even in Sweden, which has traditionally taken the position of having high public spending financed by high taxation, voices are beginning to be heard from the higher education sector arguing in favour of fees. Then there is the OECD. Its UK economic survey of 2004 praised the Government's approach to higher education, stating that it could provide "a role model" for other European countries.
  The message is very clear. If our economy is to remain competitive, our higher education must remain competitive—and that means fees. We either face up to that or we face long-term decline as a nation. Put that way, it is not so tough a choice; it is precisely what we have to do.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 386.

  Division No. 242]

  [4:00 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Baker, Norman

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Barrett, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Moore, Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Dinefwr)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Fife)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Rendel, David

  Chidgey, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Doughty, Sue

  Stunell, Andrew

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Teather, Sarah

  Gidley, Sandra

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Thurso, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Abingdon)

  Weir, Michael

  Heath, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Willis, Phil

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Wishart, Pete

  Keetch, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Inverness)

  Sir Robert Smith

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Amess, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  1184

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crudas, Jon

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Baird, Vera

  Curry, rh David

  Baldry, Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barker, Gregory

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barnes, Harry

  David, Wayne

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Bayley, Hugh

  Stamford)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Howden)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bennett, Andrew

  Denham, rh John

  Bercow, John

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Betts, Clive

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Blackman, Liz

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Blunkett, rh David

  Efford, Clive

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Boswell, Tim

  Etherington, Bill

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Farrelly, Paul

  Surrey)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Westminister)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fisher, Mark

  Brady, Graham

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brazier, Julian

  Flight, Howard

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flook, Adrian

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Follett, Barbara

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burns, Simon

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Burnside, David

  & Rye)

  Burt, Alistair

  Foulkes, rh George

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Francois, Mark

  Cairns, David

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Cameron, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Challen, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Goggins, Paul

  Barnet)

  Goodman, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Grayling, Chris

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Pentlands)

  Greenway, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Grogan, John

  Chryston)

  Gummer, rh John

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hammond, Philip

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Collins, Tim

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Connarty, Michael

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Conway, Derek

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Rhymney)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Healey, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Heatcoat-Amory, rh David

  1185

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Macky, rh Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  McKechin, Ann

  Heppell, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heyes, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Hinchliffe, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  McWilliam, John

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Maples, John

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Sefton E)

  Shettleston)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Urmston)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, rh John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Coldfield)

  Illsley, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mole, Chris

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morgan, Julie

  Jack, rh Michael

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Norman, Archie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kidney, David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Ottaway, Richard

  Bow)

  Owen, Albert

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Page, Richard

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Paice, James

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Paterson, Owen

  Lammy, David

  Perham, Linda

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Picking, Anne

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Leigh, Edward

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lepper, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pollard, Kerry

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Randall, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Love, Andrew

  Redwood, rh John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Robathan, Andrew

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roberston, Hugh (Faversham &

  McCabe, Stephen

  M-Kent)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roberston, John (Glasgow

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Anniesland)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  McDonnell, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  MacDougall, John

  NW)

  McFall, rh John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roe, Dame Marion

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Rooney, Terry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rosindell, Andrew

  1186

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Touching, Don (Islwyn)

  Ruffley, David

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Trimble, rh David

  Chester)

  Truswell, Paul

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Simmonds, Mark

  Ward, Claire

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  White, Brian

  Finsbury)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Bill

  Soley, Clive

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Spring, Richard

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Lochaber)

  (Macclesfield)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Streeter, Gary

  C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woolas, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Yarmouth)

  Syms, Robert

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellors for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Stephen Twigg

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 185.

  Division No. 243]

  [4:17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Best, Harold

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blizzard, Bod

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Baird, Vera

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Browne, Desmond

  Battle, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burnham, Andy

  Beard, Nigel

  Cairns, David

  1187

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Casale, Roger

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Challen, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Howarth, rh Alan Newport E)

  Chaytor, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Sefton E)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Pentlands)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Urmston)

  Chryston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cranston, Ross

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kidney, David

  David, Wayne

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bow)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Denham, rh John

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lammy, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lepper, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Efford, Clive

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCabe, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, rh Derek

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  MacDougall, John

  amp; Rye)

  McFall, rh John

  Foulkes, rh George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWalter, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Merron, Gillian

  Rhymney)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Healey, John

  Miburn, rh Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mole, Chris

  Heyes, David

  Morgan, Julie

  1188

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mudie, George

  Finsbury)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Lochaber)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Perham, Linda

  Stringer, Graham

  Picking, Anne

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Timms, Stephen

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Kemptown)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Anniesland)

  Ward, Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Waston, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  NW)

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Chester)

  Willis, Michael

  Salter, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Yarmouth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wyatt, Derek

  Short, rh Clare

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Derek Twigg

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Allan, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Amess, David

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Fife)

  Baker, Norman

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Barnett)

  Barrett, John

  Chidgey, David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Collins, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Conway, Derek

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cotter, Brian

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James (Baverley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Curry, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Brady, Graham

  Stamford)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Davis, rh David (Haltermprice &

  Brazier, Julian

  Howden)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Burnett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Burns, Simon

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Burnside, David

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Fabricant, Michael

  1189

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Westminster)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Flight, Howard

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Maclean, rh David

  Forth, rh Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Francois, Mark

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Coldfield)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Moore, Michael

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Norman, Archie

  Goodman, Paul

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Grayling, Chris

  Öpik, Lembit

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Page, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Paice, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Paterson, Owen

  Hancock, Mike

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Dinefwr)

  Abingdon)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Heald, Oliver

  Randall, John

  Heath, David

  Redwood, rh John

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rendel, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Holmes, Paul

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Howard, rh Michael

  M-Kent)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ruffley, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Sanders, Adrian

  Inverness)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lamb, Norman

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

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Kincardine)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  1190

  Streeter, Gary

  Weir, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Syms, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilshire, David

  Teather, Sarah

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Thurso, John

  (Macclesfield)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Wishart, Pete

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Trimble, rh David

  Young, rh Sir George

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Gregory Barker

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004; approves the further steps the Government is taking to widen participation, including the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, and enhanced bursaries; welcomes the improvement in support for part-time students being introduced by the Government, including the first ever grant package available from this autumn; rejects the Liberal Democrat policy of abolition of tuition fees, depriving universities of a dedicated income stream; congratulates the Government on maintaining fair and affordable loan repayment terms and rejects the policies proposed by the Official Opposition which would require those graduates who can least afford it to pay the most for their higher education; recognises the need to maintain UK universities at the forefront of world research and to equip the UK workforce with the high-level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace; congratulates the Government on record levels of investment in higher education, to almost £10 billion by 2005–06, with a 9 per cent. increase in research funding to 2007–08, additional income from variable fees, and further increases in Government funding to be announced shortly; looks forward to the introduction of a £2,700 maintenance grant for new students from 2006 alongside the improved student support package available from fee deferral, increased maintenance loans and loan write-offs for new students after 25 years; and welcomes the impact these policies will have on encouraging students from less well-off backgrounds to consider entering higher education.

  Older Women
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on the impact of Government policy on older women. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that women have historically always been the poorest pensioners and believes that they will continue to be so unless urgent action is taken; further notes that the average basic state pension entitlement of a newly retired woman is barely £50 per week; recognises that women's state pension rights are frequently damaged by periods of caring for children or people with disabilities and by periods of low paid employment; further notes that the improved rights for carers under the state second pension do not apply to women with children over the age of five, do not apply to carers not in receipt of carers benefits, will take decades to be fully implemented, and will still produce a pension that leaves most recipients needing a means-tested supplement during their retirement; condemns the policy of the Government to force pensioners to surrender their pension books, a policy which affects women in particular; expresses concern that age discrimination within the NHS means that many older women are not invited for routine breast cancer screening; expresses further concern that the Government has failed to abolish mixed-sex wards in all hospital trusts, a practice which many older patients find particularly distressing; and calls on the Government to introduce a decent state pension, based on a citizenship requirement, provide real choices for older people, take steps to tackle age discrimination, and put an end to mixed-sex wards.
  The Government's amendment on such occasions is always a good giggle. It is always a good laugh to see why the problem that we have all found in our constituencies and heard about from the people to whom we speak is actually not only not a problem, but a triumph for the Government. Today's Government amendment is no exception to that.
  We have sought to bring before the House the failures of the Government to deal with the needs of older women, in particular, and our motion highlights pensions, but also issues relating to the health service. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) will catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that she can focus her remarks on those issues.
  I shall concentrate especially on the position of women and pensions.
  I start by agreeing with the Government. I shall not do that too often in the rest of my contribution, but let me start with a note of consensus, because we know that our electors want consensus on pensions. At the start of the amendment, the Government ask us to congratulate them on the fact that their pensions Green Paper was the first ever to include a chapter on the needs of women pensioners. It is good news that they finally included such a chapter in response to years of campaigning by the Liberal Democrats. The chapter was a list of problems facing women pensioners. The Government are good at listing problems—so good, in fact, that they produced quite a long chapter detailing the problems. One might reasonably assume that after listing the problems they might have felt the need to do something about them, but that aspect of the equation has not happened, because precious little of what came forward from the Green Paper was of benefit to older women.
  1192
  The Government's amendment goes on to call for further praise for the Government because they are committed
  "to report next year on the pensions position of women".
  As those who follow the minutiae of such matters will know, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) moved an amendment in the Committee that considered the Pensions Bill to get such a report, to which the Government graciously acceded. The Government now want praise for the fact that they will report on the pensions position of women, but they had no intention of doing so until a Labour Member made such a suggestion. The argument in the rest of the amendment must be pretty thin if its strongest claims are that there was a chapter about problems and that there will be a report.
  The essence of the problem that we are trying to address is that women are the poor relations on pensions. If pensioners feel like second-class citizens, women pensioners are often third-class citizens. As the Equal Opportunities Commission puts it, given that women form two thirds of the pensioner population, if we do not get pensions right, women are the ones who will suffer disproportionately. It is true that there has been a historical problem and that the old-fashioned system, which was based on the assumption that men worked and women stayed at home to bring up children, meant that women got a poor deal from pensions, but it is a myth that that is all ancient history. I want to dispel that myth today, because far from being over, the ancient history is with us today, and it is set to remain with us for generations to come unless the Government get serious on the issue.
  I have figures about women who retire today, rather than extreme cases of women who have been retired for decades and lived their lives in a different era. A typical woman who retires today will receive a combined income from state pensions of £65 a week. A typical man retiring today will receive an income from state pensions of £105 a week, so there is a gap of £40. I do not want to be harsh on the Government because I am in a consensual mood today, so I praise them because the figures that I cited are better than those for the year before. The gap between men and women closed by 40p a week between 2002 and 2003, so that represents progress. At that rate of progress, I calculate that it will take a century before the gap of £40 closes. Liberal Democrat Members are patient and realise that progress takes time, but we think that 100 years is a little too long to wait to close the gap between men and women, especially for today's pensioners.
  What is the origin of the problem and what can we do about it? A typical newly retired woman in 2003 drew a basic pension of £53.90 a week, but the full basic pension was in the high £70s. How did that situation arise? One would assume that, by the start at the 21st century, women who worked would have protected their pension rights and those who looked after children would have protected their pension rights. Why did they not receive full basic pensions? One problem is that women who retire now base their pensions on a working and caring life that typically goes back to the 1960s. They carry the baggage of a system that was generated in the post-war era on the assumption that they did not work and that that did not matter because they just depended on their husbands.

  1193
  So although in the 1980s we had a system whereby when a woman was bringing up children, her pension rights were protected, many women retiring today do not benefit from that system and retire on a pathetically inadequate pension.
  One reason the Liberal Democrats have taken the view that we need to act quickly on pensions is that this injustice has gone on for too long. We cannot wait for decades for all those historical anomalies to work their way through the system because, frankly, many of the women that we are talking about will not be around to see the benefit. That is why our priority, as reflected in the motion, is a pension increase, particularly for the oldest pensioners. They simply cannot wait.
  That contrasts with the approach taken by the Conservatives, who have said that there should be limited, across-the-board increases for all pensioners proportionate to the pension that they draw, which means that women, once again, will get a raw deal. If a woman draws a smaller pension, an increase proportionate to that amount will be smaller than for a man. How can we put up with that discrimination any longer? We have a wholly inadequate basic pension, the value of which has been eroding for a quarter of a century relative to earnings, and we have to take urgent steps to deal with it because it is women who lose out.
  In their amendment to the motion the Government are saying, "You don't need to worry about that because there is the state second pension"—what used to be called SERPS—"and that is good news for women." In fact, Ministers have been known to say that 20 million people will benefit from that pension. The state second pension is their response to the question, "What have you done for women?" Looking at the figures, I found that the typical woman retiring in September 2003 draws a SERPS or state second pension of a grand total of £9.73 a week; the typical man draws £22 from that source. That pension, which is meant to be the answer to the problem of women, is worth less than a tenner to the typical woman.
  Why is it that, as ever, there is a huge gap between the Government's rhetoric on pensions and the reality for women pensioners? First, the Government say that women should have their pension rights protected while they are bringing up children, but only until their children are five. After that, the Government expect them to go out to work and earn above the earnings limit, and if they do not, or if they do part-time work, their pension rights are not protected. The new second pension, which is supposed to be the answer to all the problems, does not help women in that position, even starting from now. That seems wrong to us.
  Secondly, the Government say that for the first time they are protecting the pension rights of carers, and anyone drawing the carer's allowance receives credits towards the second-tier pension. However, there are hundreds of thousands of women out there, doing caring work, who do not satisfy the 35-hours-a-week rule or the test that the Government set them. If a woman spends 20 hours a week caring for an elderly relative, and another 10 hours a week doing a rather pathetically paid part-time job in which she does not pay national insurance, the Government's response is that none of that matters. None of that has value in their eyes because none of it earns a woman a penny in pension rights.
  1194
  This is the critical point: the history of pensions has been that the only thing that the state values is paid work above a certain level, and we are saying that that injustice has to stop. We as a society must surely value people who bring up children and care for elderly relatives, and we must surely value those who do a couple of part-time jobs, neither of which qualifies them to pay national insurance, leaving them without any pension rights.
  Vera Baird: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point about carers? It is relatively easy to decide when a woman is at home caring for a child because one can see the child. At the moment, what triggers a woman's receipt of a carer's credit is the fact that the person for whom she is caring receives the disability living allowance, which requires 35 hours of care. That is a very clear trigger that makes it easy to attribute the credit. If we are to allow part-time caring and part-time work to be taken into account—which I accept is right and is what, in reality, many women do—how will we trigger the award of the credit? That is a very difficult issue.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. and learned Lady makes a critical point, and suggests why we concluded that the answer to the problem of national insurance is not to invent increasingly complex ways of plugging all the gaps. Instead, we should sweep the current arrangements away and base pension entitlement on citizenship. She is quite right—if we give money to full-time carers, there are practical problems in working out what we would give to part-time carers or people with two low-paid jobs and so on. I pay tribute to her and organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Age Concern and the Equal Opportunities Commission for raising those issues, but I disagree about their strategy which, although it may be realistic about how far the Government are willing to go, would plug the myriad gaps in the system. However, if one did so, the pension would still be 100 per cent. inadequate and operating it, as she suggested, would be complex and difficult.
  The Liberal Democrats want the money that is currently spent on bureaucracy, qualifications, rules and regulations to be spent on pensions. It should not be devoted to bureaucracy but should go to front-line pensions. My response to the hon. and learned Lady, therefore, is that we should not devise ever more complex rules to bring more people into the net. Instead, we should say that citizens who satisfy a test of residency are entitled to a decent pension.
  Mr. Frank Field: The women of this country should know exactly what the hon. Gentleman's policy is. He will know that a large number of women did not opt for the married woman's pension, but voluntarily paid the full contribution. His reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggested that the Liberal Democrats would abolish those distinctions and qualifications, so is he telling those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of women who deliberately did not choose the lower rate but wanted to pay for the full pension that they were foolish to do so?
  Mr. Webb: Women who paid the full stamp currently qualify for a wholly inadequate basic state pension of

  1195
  less than £80 a week. We propose a citizen's pension, which would be paid regardless of someone's contribution record at a rate of £105 a week for the over-75s. We would not make a distinction between people who had paid different rates, people who had been carers or had brought up children, but the women highlighted by the right hon. Gentleman would be substantially better off than at present. Like me, he knows that many women made the wrong choice about whether or not to pay the full stamp—they were misled or did not have accurate information and have retired in penury. We believe that that injustice needs to be put right.
  Mr. Field: Would not the Liberal Democrats' position be stronger if they dropped all that old claptrap about a citizen's pension and merely said that they are going into the election with a strong policy on a significant increase for the oldest pensioners? That might win them support in very different places around the country.
  Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman's antipathy to the concept of a citizen's pension may derive from the fact that he has never had any time for shirkers. He has a horror of people who, for want of a better phrase, I shall call surfers, who spend their entire life surfing and draw a full pension on retirement because they are citizens. However, the citizen's pension does not allow people to be surfers or shirkers. We will not allow them to draw social security benefits or credits unless they satisfy rules on searching for work or unless they make a contribution. The people whom the right hon. Gentleman is worried about are bound by the present system to seek work and so on if they want support. It is therefore inconceivable that someone could spend their entire adult life shirking and drawing money from the state before receiving a pension on retirement. The citizen's pension proposal is therefore not vulnerable to the problems which, he believes, would affect a citizen's income proposal. That is not what we are proposing at all.
  Mr. Field: I am merely suggesting that there is a more attractive way of presenting the hon. Gentleman's policies. It is important that we achieve agreement, so it is not a question of whether or not we go down the citizenship pension route. Nobody in their right mind thinks that people will deliberately make certain decisions so that after 15 years of receiving a pension they will qualify for other benefits under the Liberal Democrat proposal. It is not a question of citizenship—the greatest need is among the oldest pensioners, and that issue unites all the parties. Talking about citizenship pensions or non-citizenship pensions divides our forces instead of uniting them.
  Mr. Webb: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we agree about the particular needs of the older pensioners, and I am happy to concur with him on that. Suppose, however, that we were to add £25 to whatever pension a pensioner over 75 happened to draw, many of the women to whom I am referring draw such abjectly pathetic pensions that even £25 on top would still leave them below the poverty line and needing to claim the sort of means-tested benefits on which the right hon. Gentleman wants less reliance.
  1196
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman and I share a view, first, that the older pensioners are particularly needy and deserving of further support. Secondly, he and I want to reduce reliance on means-testing. My worry about his proposal is that if we had an across-the-board increase for the over-75s but left the contribution-based pension intact—not the citizenship-based one—there would still have to be quite a lot of means-testing, which both he and I want to get rid of.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's proposal for a citizen's pension depends crucially on a residence test, but I have unaccountably been unable to find any details of how that test would be defined or how it would work. Can he assist me?
  Mr. Webb: Certainly. There are already residence tests of the sort we have in mind in the social security system. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the pension—I think it is the category D pension, although I am open to correction on that—payable from the age of 80 onwards, which is non-contributory in the existing system and is subject only to a residence test. What we have in mind are residence tests of the sort that are already in the system, but one of the problems is that the data available to us as an Opposition party, which would enable us to come up with a precise definition, are very limited. We know that the general approach would be that people could not come straight off the boat at Dover and claim a pension—that is not how it would work—but would need to have established a significant connection with the United Kingdom, including in the period up to retirement. We will consider the exact details in due course—perhaps at my earliest opportunity, should I form part of the first Cabinet of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy).
  Kevin Brennan: If that is the hon. Gentleman's proposal, is it not wrong to call it a citizen's pension? Does that not mislead the public? Many of my constituents are not citizens of the UK and would feel excluded by that title. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Call it the people's pension.
  Mr. Webb: Perhaps my right hon. Friend has been spending too much time with the Prime Minister's former press secretary lately.
  The point that we want to establish is the distinction from a contributory national insurance-based system, which has been described as a system of exclusion. National insurance these days is about excluding women, carers and the lower-paid. We value caring. We value bringing up the next generation. We value looking after older people. We support people who, through no fault of their own, have to do grotty part-time jobs that none of us would ever want to do, and we say that they have had a hard enough time for long enough. The injustice cannot be allowed to roll on for decades. Let us sort it out now.
  Vera Baird: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but all the women who do not have a full basic

  1197
  state pension and have to claim means-tested benefits would still have to do so until they were 75. Why should they wait that long, when others do not?
  Mr. Webb: Indeed. One of the points about pensions policy is that we need both a long-term destination and a route map. We need to know where we want to be and how we are going to get there. I contrast the Government's destination which, as the hon. and learned Lady well knows, is mass means-testing, with our destination, which is precisely as she describes—a citizenship pension, paid at the level of the means test to obviate the mass from requiring means-testing, and linked to earnings so that that standard of living is available across the board.
  We have, however, had to be realistic about how far we can rescue an entirely inadequate pension. The fact that the pension has fallen so far behind the means test means that were we to stand up and say, "Vote for me and I'll give everybody lots more money", we would rightly be ridiculed. We have had to make what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) would call a tough choice, and rightly so, to begin with those most in need—those over 75. But the hon. and learned Lady is right: the argument applies equally to those under 75, and we want to extend the principle as quickly as we can.
  I move to the third plank of the Government's approach to financial support for women. We have seen the inadequacy of the basic state pension of barely £50 a week. The answer, apparently, is the second state pension, which provides barely £10 a week. The Government would say, "Yes, but it's just building up. Give it a few years", but it is a pension that takes a generation to be truly awful. By the time it is fully in, a typical woman—not an extreme case—on a full basic pension and a full second pension will find during her retirement that she falls below the poverty line and has to claim a means-tested top-up.
  Even if we give the second pension 40 years, it will be so poor that it will not keep people clear of means-testing in their retirement. If that is the answer, one wonders about the question.
  The basic pension is inadequate for women and the second pension is woefully inadequate for women, which brings us to the Government's real triumph, the pension credit. The Government amendment states that the pension credit is the answer. The pension credit gives more to women than to men, but that is because women are so poor. It also misses more women than men. The Minister did not say "yeah" to that, but "yeah" would have been appropriate.
  Older pensioners are the least likely to take up the pension credit, and they tend to be women, particularly widows. The pension credit is like a scattergun: it hits some—we do not doubt that those people are grateful—but misses many. How long can we rely on a system that gives way when pressure is exerted? How long can we rely on a system which is meant to plug the holes in the basic pension and second pension, but which misses more than 1 million of our fellow citizens, who are predominantly women?
  Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman took my point that his proposal would only give equality to women over 75.
  1198
  Since that is his proposal's consequence, he must try to come up with a solution to the problem that I raised before—how to allocate carers' credits for part-time caring; otherwise he will disregard all women aged between 60 and 75 who are carers and who do not receive credits towards their pensions. He must look for a solution to that problem, as well as offering a solution for the over-75s.
  Mr. Webb: The Government do not pay women who have reached that age group a penny. Many carers, who perhaps care for elderly relatives, are angry because, when they reach pension age, the Government say, "You can either have your meagre retirement pension or your carers' money, but not both." Many carers resent that treatment.
  We accept the principle that caring must be valued and want to make progress towards valuing it, but we cannot achieve everything at once. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West said, what have the Government been doing? The fact that the figures that I quoted are after six years of a new Labour Government makes one realise the scale of the problem.
  We welcome the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to his post. He is widely regarded as an able politician—I mean that in the nicest possible way—and I look forward to forming a constructive working relationship with him. The cynics in my party said that if one wants to sack 30,000 people, why not put in a trade unionist? I would not say that. I welcome him to his post and look forward to finding the consensus on pensions that is everywhere except in the new Labour Government—hopefully, we can take one extra convert with us.
  The basic pension and second pension are inadequate, and the pension credit misses out far too many women. Where do we go from here? The Government strategy is gradualist, which may not be ideal for those who are 83. The Government say that the second pension will be worth a bit more in a decade or two, but it will be so inadequate that one will need to claim a means-tested top-up. They say that all will be well with pension credit after another phone line, advertising campaign or leaflet drop, but they fail to recognise the endemic problem—the people who need it most do not take it up.
  We do not need incremental change of the sort proposed by the Conservatives, which would deliver £7 for a man and £5 for a woman. I do not know whether the wider British public recognise that that is Conservative policy—the increases would occur over the course of a Parliament and are pro rata to what women draw. The 21st-century Conservative party should not be in favour of such a measure, but perhaps I am wrong.
  It is not good enough to introduce incremental change. We cannot say, "Those people have already retired. We will write them off, but we will do something for the next generation." Retired people have often given their best to this country, to bringing up their families, to caring and to fairly menial work that does not pay enough to pay national insurance.
  Liberal Democrat Members believe that radical reform rather than marginal incremental change is required.

  1199
  That is why I was proud last week to join my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats in proposing a dramatic change to the basis on which pensions are paid. We want a pension based on citizenship that says, "We value you for being a citizen of this country, not because you've done better-paid work." We want a pension that lifts people clear of the unnecessary processes of means-testing that leave many in poverty and keeps pace with the living standards of the majority. That is the radical approach that we are advocating.
  It was worth coming back to the House for a second week to talk about pensions, because none of those ideas was properly explored in last week's debate moved by the Conservatives, who are still thinking in the old way of a few pounds here and a few pounds there. The fact that they have not tabled a motion on women's pensions makes one realise how low a priority they attach to the issue.
  It is time that the injustices that older women have faced are tackled. This motion suggests how we should do it, and I commend it to the House.
  4.55 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Pensions Green Paper as the first ever statement of government policy to explicitly consider the needs of women; further welcomes the commitment by the Government to report next year on the pensions position of women; supports steps to improve the incomes of women pensioners and enable more women than ever to build up pensions; welcomes in particular the introduction of Pension Credit, benefiting over two million women, and the state second pension, helping millions of the lowest paid women and women with caring responsibilities to build up a second pension; believes that both main Opposition parties' policies are unaffordable, unworkable and do nothing for the very poorest; notes that the Liberal Democrat policies will be financed by scrapping DTI programmes, which boost the wealth of the nation through investment in research and innovation; supports the conclusion of the Pensions Policy Institute that 'the average woman will lose' under proposed Conservative policy; notes that 99 per cent. of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; and, as there are 10,000 wards in use across the NHS, congratulates the Government on this achievement; applauds the extension of breast screening to women aged 65 to 70, resulting in an additional 200,000 women being invited since April 2001; commends the Government's historic commitment to tackling pensioner poverty, which is continuing to do most for the poorest women pensioners; and welcomes the £10 billion extra that the Government is spending on pensioners this year compared with the 1997 system."
  I, too, start by welcoming our new Secretary of State, fresh from the TUC conference in Brighton. I very much look forward to working with him.
  As I like to be generous on these occasions, I acknowledge that the Liberal party has, historically, made a substantial contribution to British social politics. I mention once again the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, the introduction of the original national insurance
  1200
  scheme before the second world war, and of course the seminal report of 1942 by that great Liberal, Sir William Beveridge.
  Sadly, however, since the 1940s the Liberals have had a rather thin period. To be blunt, there has been nothing much to report in the past 60 years. We have seen the strange death of Liberal social reform; I hope that the more literate Liberals will understand a reference to a great and important book. That great gap in six decades of Liberal history has not been put right by today's announcements or by the speech by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), despite the help that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tried to give him. I always see that help coming and duck.
  Yet, as I say, I want to be kind. I welcome another opportunity to debate pensions having done so last week. We do not have a pensions debate for a few weeks and then two come along at once. This time I want to address the subject in a slightly different way by discussing two key themes that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon: women and pensions; and the needs of the most hard-pressed elderly people.
  The Liberals are keen on addressing issues about women. They even have one or two women MPs to help them along, but when I look at their Benches I see more gender inequality in terms of political representation than I do when I look at my own.
  Women's pensions must be analysed in the context of changing social structures, gender roles, work patterns and caring patterns in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Since the 1940s, substantial changes to key trends have added up to a fierce hurricane that has battered the post-war welfare state and the assumptions that underlie it. As a keen student of social policy and of William Beveridge, the way in which things have changed is perhaps best illustrated by looking at some of the assumptions that underpinned Beveridge's great report of 1942, in which he said that
  "all women by marriage acquire a new economic and social status, with risks and rights different from those of the unmarried. On marriage a woman gains a legal right to maintenance by her husband as a first line of defence against risks which fall directly on the solitary woman; she undertakes at the same time to perform vital unpaid service".
  That was what William Beveridge wrote in 1942. Although, from a modern and feminist perspective, one could almost make fun of that rather sexist view of women, I suspect that it would have been prevalent in all our political parties at the time. I cite the quote so that I can talk about subsequent changes.
  Since then, changes in employment patterns and patterns of care, divorce and separation, the growing number of one-parent families and women's changing attitudes and ambitions have presented new challenges and raised fresh questions. What are the implications for women's pensions? First, I would argue that anyone who is concerned about women's pensions should start not with pensions but jobs and incomes. If women earn well during their working lives, they are more likely to have decent pensions in retirement. We are therefore working to reduce the pay gap.
  We gave a boost to low-paid workers' pay, 70 per cent. of whom are women, with the introduction of the national minimum wage, which is, therefore, a key part

  1201
  of pension strategy. Approximately 1 million women have benefited and it has contributed to a 2 per cent. drop in the pay gap since 1997. We are reducing the gap further by making it easier for women and men to take up equal pay claims by simplifying and speeding up existing tribunal procedures. For example, we introduced an equal pay questionnaire procedure in April 2003 and we are committed to a target of 45 per cent. of large companies undertaking pay reviews by April 2008.
  Other matters are important to women's earnings and careers. The part-time workers' regulations that the Government introduced will ensure that 6 million workers, the majority of whom are women, are not treated less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions. In a sense, access to affordable and good quality child care is part of the pension strategy. We want to provide an extra 250,000 child care places by 2006, helping with the costs through the tax credit system.
  If we start with an analysis of employment and pay, we should go on to ensure that modern pension systems are not based purely on a traditional idea of an economy and a male-dominated perception of work. In recent decades, home responsibility payments have therefore credited young mothers with children into the national pension system. Despite the traditional cynicism of the hon. Member for Northavon about social progress, I make no apology for introducing the state second pension to boost the pensions of low and moderately paid employees. It provides, for the first time, additional pensions for carers and long-term disabled people. That will especially help women, many of whom work part-time or as carers. Almost all the 2.5 million carers who will benefit from the state second pension are women, as are approximately 70 per cent. of the 5 million low earners.
  Stakeholder pensions are another part of the story because they will help women in the modern labour market who often move between employers and occupations and may, at different times, be self-employed or employed on a limited contract or a permanent contract. Flexibility means that stakeholder pensions are a good option for women who take a break from work, for example, to raise a family, because they can stop and restart their contributions without penalty. Stakeholder pensions are open to non-earners and, therefore, enable women or others who do not work but can afford to save something towards retirement to do that. Stakeholder pension rules allow family or friends to contribute towards someone else's pension. That may help the large number of women who are carers. During their first year, a third of all stakeholder pensions were taken up by women. There are currently approximately 2 million stakeholder pensions.
  Other measures that are in place or proposed in the Pensions Bill will improve the position for women by making pensions cater more fairly for those with fragmented working lives. For example, our proposals on full transfer value for early leavers will allow people in short-stay jobs to take the full value of their pension with them when they leave such jobs. Often in the past, women who worked for relatively short periods essentially lost much of the build-up of their pension rights.
  1202
  Our informed choice programme, which offers help, such as workplace financial advice, will benefit those who have most often been excluded from pension provision in the past.
  I have spoken about today and the future but we are also presented with demands about pensions that are inherited from the past.
  So, just as we need to look forward many decades to plan for an uncertain future—the pension protection fund will be crucial in that regard—we also need to understand past decades if we are to tackle current problems. New policies will affect pensions that are drawn in 2050 and beyond, but our policies also affect those elderly people whose life chances and incomes were perhaps determined in the 1920s and 1930s.
  In 1997, the Labour Government understood that all too graphically. Some pensioners were struggling on as little as £69 a week, such was the debilitating impact of the Tory inheritance bequeathed to us. That is why we make no apology for seeking to focus some of the additional resources that we have put into pensions on the poorer and more pressed elderly person. Hence the pension credit, which provides a guarantee that no pensioner need live on less than £105 a week. That means that the poorer third of pensioner households are now £1,750 better off in real terms than they would have been, compared with the system that existed in 1997. That is an extra £33 a week.
  Opposition Members say that they object to the indignities of the means test. Perhaps they have forgotten the days when the Tory means test meant that prudent pensioners who had made modest provision for their retirement saw their benefits reduced pound for pound because of their savings. The days of 40-page-long claim forms, of having to visit unpleasant local offices in inconvenient locations, and of having to tell the DSS—as it then was—about every change in their finances have gone.
  The new Pension Service—we are the first Government to have such a specific service—means that people can claim their pension credit over the telephone, where one of our advisers will fill in the form on behalf of the elderly person or her carer, or people can go to advice surgeries in all our constituencies. Alternatively, they can arrange for a home visit. More than 500,000 home visits have now been carried out by the Pension Service.
  Mr. Michael Weir: I hear what the Minister is saying about pension credit, but how does he explain why so many pensioners seem reluctant to claim it? Why does the Government's own target project that a considerable number of pensioners will fail to claim their pension credit up to 2006?
  Malcolm Wicks: I am pleased with the progress that has been made. About 3.1 million individuals are now claiming pension credit, and the number of those on the guarantee element has increased considerably, compared with a few years ago. We are not complacent, however, and we want more and more people to claim pension credit. I am bound to say that I think there is a role for Members of Parliament in spreading the word about pension credit, rather than spreading cynicism, as sometimes happens. Whatever their views about income

  1203
  testing, I hope that Opposition Members will accept that the pension credit is a million miles away from the income testing of the past. That is a fact, and MPs who find out about pension credit and our local Pension Service know it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it, too. Perhaps he is going to acknowledge that fact now.
  Mr. Weir: The Minister is missing the point. Most of us will encourage our constituents to take up what they can get under this system, whether we agree with the means-testing or not. The point is that many pensioners are not applying for pension credit. Why are they not doing so, if to claim for it is as simple as the Minister suggests? Many will not do so, and we cannot persuade them to do so. What will the Government do about those pensioners?
  Malcolm Wicks: Well, the scheme only started in October. More than 3 million individuals are claiming, and our survey shows that those who have been through the process would recommend that their friends and neighbours should apply. This is a popular policy, but it raises a traditional issue. With any extra resource that we can devote to pensions, should we give every pensioner the same increase? The Liberals offer a variation on that question, with their proposed boost for the over-75s, and I shall come to that directly. Should we give everyone the same increase? Should the person with the big investment income and an occupational pension adding up to £50,000 a year in retirement get the same number of pounds extra each week as the 83-year-old widow trying to live on £80 or £90?
  That is the issue—of course it would be simpler for us to give everyone the same increase, but simplicity is not a primary goal in social policy. Fairness is a primary goal, which is why we are investing in the pension credit.
  Mr. Waterson rose
  Malcolm Wicks: I was about to ask what the Liberal party says to that, but I am equally interested in what the Conservatives might think, so I shall seek an answer.
  Mr. Waterson: My commiserations to the Minister on not being reshuffled to the Foreign Office or somewhere less dangerous and more palatable. Will he confirm, however, that the age-related payment that his Government are giving in relation to council tax increases will go to everybody—the duke and the dustman? Can he confirm that the great attraction of increasing the basic state retirement pension is that the take-up rate is more or less 100 per cent?
  Malcolm Wicks: I was implying that the art of judgment, which I would commend to the hon. Gentleman, is to get the balance right between what we can do for all elderly people—which is why the winter fuel payment, for instance, goes to all elderly people in certain age groups, to which I shall refer later—and what extra we devote to the most hard-pressed. Although targeting raises issues and challenges in relation to take-up, and we are determined to meet those challenges, I nevertheless think that if we are concerned not just with simplicity but with fairness, targeting has a place.
  1204
  Let me move on to the Liberal Democrat proposals. Although we heard something about a citizen's pension, it seemed to be anyone at all's pension—I heard nothing about the concept of citizenship, rights and duties or of the idea of what one puts in, one takes out. It is fascinating that the Liberals, who could claim credit for inventing social insurance because of the great Beveridge and the initiatives of the early inter-war years, are now going to overthrow it totally.
  What the Liberals propose is not a citizen's pension but anyone at all's pension. The hard-working British citizen who has contributed by providing care and working hard for their country will get exactly the same as anyone at all who might have spent their time in prison, down the pub or doing whatever. It is anyone at all's pension, so please do not stain the decent concept of citizen with it. I will give way to a hard-working citizen.
  Hywel Williams: I find it difficult to square the Minister's support for the contributory principle, which has been the basis of the social security system for such a long time, with the huge growth in means-testing under his Government. How does he square that circle?
  Malcolm Wicks: As I was saying, we must strike that balance. One of the difficulties with the insurance concept in practice—not the principle—is the carers issue: people caring for young children have been credited rather late in the day by Government. When it comes to retirement age, the great majority of men retire on more or less a full basic state pension, but very large numbers of women do not. That has been the flaw in the practice of social insurance but not, in my judgment, in the principle of it.
  The Liberal Democrats, who have advocated an anyone at all's pension, have some sense of costings and economics, although they would abolish a whole Department—in fact, they would not actually abolish the trade and industry but many of the things that support it, which we shall discuss later. Because they have some sense of arithmetic—I know that the hon. Member for Northavon has his own calculator—first, they say that they will only pay the extra money to the over-75s. I think that I have that right. As is often the case, the hon. Member for Northavon starts with an interesting, important notion: the relatively poorer status of the very elderly or the over-75s. Sadly, with that important idea, and a bit of evidence base behind it, he gets over-excited, and, instead of the need to improve that status becoming a strand of policy, it determines, dominates and ultimately destroys the credibility of his whole pension plan.
  Let us look at the evidence. Yes, older pensioners have lower incomes on average—pensioners over 75 have only about 90 per cent. of the income of those under 75; but it is 90 per cent., not 60 per cent. or 70 per cent.
  A significant reason for the fact that older people have lower incomes is—among other things—their lower private pensions. Let me give the hon. Gentleman some evidence. Pensioner couples with a head of household

  1205
  under 75 receive an average of £139 a week from private occupational pensions; when the head of household is over 75, they receive an average of £108. So far I am with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I think this should be a strand of our social policy. But—and these are important qualifications—although older pensioners are on average poorer than younger pensioners, there is a wide variation in circumstances. In fact, over half—about 56 per cent.—of pensioners in relative poverty are under 75. [Interruption.] I am trying to have a serious debate with the hon. Member for Northavon. He must pull himself together, because these are important statistics.
  At the other end of the income spectrum, a quarter of all pensioner couples with a head of household over 75 have net income of over £308 a week. In other words, age—although an interesting factor—should not be a dominant guide for policy.
  On 27 February 2003, there was an interesting exchange between our former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and the hon. Member for Northavon. My right hon. Friend said to the hon. Gentleman
  "In the interests of open debate on distributional issues, which the hon. Gentleman says he welcomes, does he accept that the cost of his strategy is not only that some older rich pensioners get money that they arguably do not need so much, but that younger poorer pensioners do not get money that they do need?"
  The hon. Gentleman replied
  "I accept that."—[0fficial Report, 27 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 442.]
  So the hon. Gentleman has accepted the difficulties involved in his own position.
  I think that there are also serious issues relating to financial sustainability. The Liberals' proposals would cost an additional £16 billion over five years, which would double over 10 years. I thought that the Liberals were going through a period of financial stricture, yet here is a major financial commitment.
  As soon as an Opposition party starts saying that it is going to abolish things to pay for social programmes, I become wary. Later the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will tell us that his party is going to abolish the whole new deal. Never mind the fact that that micro-labour market policy has contributed to a move back to full employment; never mind the fact that it is helping a lot of lone parents back into work; never mind the fact that in many places—most places—we have abolished long-term youth unemployment because of the new deal. The Conservatives are going to abolish it in order to pay for their rather wobbly pension proposals, which we took apart—I think fairly effectively—last week.
  For the Liberals, it is obviously a learning game. They scratch their heads: how can they pay for their policy? They ask parliamentary questions. I reply because I want to be helpful, and because I am committed to an evidence base. At the end of the day, however, they cannot make the policy work within social security.
  1206
  They are going to abolish trade and industry, or at least the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a wholly incredible policy.
  Kevin Brennan: In taking apart the Liberal Democrat position, has not my hon. Friend shown that a means test—particularly a light-touch means test—is much fairer than a crude age test?
  Malcolm Wicks: That is the issue. We are now spending £10 billion more on pensions each and every year than when we came to office. Much of that goes to all pensioners.
  We do recognise the importance of the age factor. I am trying to persuade the hon. Member for Northavon to be slightly calmer about that. An age factor is involved in winter fuel payments: there is more for the over-80s. The same applies to television licences, and to the extra £100 for households containing people aged 70 or over to help with the council tax burden. The hon. Gentleman, however, has become over-excited about the age factor: it dominates his whole pension policy. A fascinating statistic has coloured his judgment, and supposedly that of the financial managers of his party. That is the difficulty. We are not against an age factor, but we want to put it in context.
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman may have changed his mind, of course, now that he has heard the evidence.
  Mr. Webb: Will the Minister consider another facet of the age question, which is that pensioners over 75 do not have long to go? His softly-softly, slowly-slowly, "over a generation we will sort this out" policy is all very well, but those people need the cash now. Is there not an urgency to this matter for older pensioners?
  Malcolm Wicks: First, I do not accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "Say yes".] I am not going to say yes, because it would be a silly answer. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's gloomy prognosis. Many people who reach the age of 75 often have a reasonable life expectancy—[Interruption.] Look at the figures; it can be demonstrated. What the hon. Gentleman says is an argument for some selectivity and targeting to try to help the poorest groups. Getting over-excited—I use the term again—about the age issue means that the hon. Gentleman is over-egging or over-ageing the pudding. The distribution of much of the extra money he proposes will not be focused. I have already made it clear that we accept the value of help for TV licences, winter fuel payments and so forth, but, to be fair, we have to achieve the right balance between making general provision for older people and targeting. Almost half of the extra £10 billion that we are spending is going to the poorest one third—mostly women, which is important to note in the context of the debate.
  Vera Baird: Is there not another problem about linking things so wholeheartedly to age—the considerable gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest? In my Redcar constituency, men's life expectancy is about 10 years fewer than for men who live

  1207
  in the south-east, so giving extra money solely on the grounds that people are getting older has the problem that some people will not live long enough to get any enjoyment from it.
  Malcolm Wicks: There are equivalents to the north-south divide in all regions. For example, there are some very affluent and healthy people over the age of 80 while other people, because they have had a long and difficult working life in difficult industries, may be quite frail in their early 60s.
  To conclude, I welcome the debate and I have acknowledged the historic role of the Liberals, while expressing some disappointment about the last 60 years. I have suggested that the Liberals have not got the balance right, whereas the Labour Government have, particularly in respect of fairness and social justice. We do not pretend that we have all the answers and all the strategies on women's issues, which is why, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggested a report on pensions, I was willing to accept the proposal. That report will be published some time next year and I hope that it will provide a focal point for further debate. However, I am not saying today simply that we are going to have a report. I am reporting the action and endeavour that we have taken to help women pensioners and, indeed, all poorer pensioners in Great Britain.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I greatly welcome the opportunity to debate these issues today and I am delighted to welcome the new Secretary of State to his post—I see his receding form departing from the Chamber. He is on a steep learning curve. When he was appointed, I could not help remembering—the story may be apocryphal, but I doubt it—that when the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) was appointed Secretary of State for Health, he is reputed to have walked into the Prime Minister's study at No. 10 and, having looked at the Prime Minister's face, muttered to himself "Oh,"—expletive—"it's health"! I cannot imagine that a similar expletive would not have escaped the lips of the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Despite that, we wish him well.
  I congratulate the Liberals on finally producing a pensions policy, as well as on securing today's debate. Their policy is peppered with contradictions and full of flaws, but better late than never. I shall return to that point in more detail later.
  It gives me great pleasure to see the Minister for Pensions in his place. As I said earlier, he must have hoped against hope that he might be released from this living and waking nightmare of the job that he does. Sadly, he will remain chained to his oar until the ship finally sinks beneath the surface.
  However, we are pleased that he is still here, and his engaging stories about Beveridge are always great fun.
  The Minister has taken the credit for producing this report on women's pensions. That is becoming a habit. I seem to recall that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) tabled in Standing Committee an
  1208
  amendment that was supported by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. The Minister was not at all keen to make that commitment until he realised that he might be forced to do so by a vote in Committee. We are pleased that he made it in the end, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady is pleased too, but he should not give the impression that the report was his idea.
  Vera Baird: No one is pretending to be the parent of the idea, which emerged from the Fawcett Society campaign. I want to make it clear that there was no reluctance of any kind on my hon. Friend the Minister's part. Even before we debated the matter in Committee, he met me outside and offered to make this report. Furthermore, I emphasise that he improved on what I was asking for. The amendment to the Bill that I wanted need not have come into force for two or three years, and my hon. Friend the Minister offered me instead a report to be published next year. That was an improvement on what I wanted.
  Mr. Waterson: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Lady is so pleased with that concession. The Minister is usually a stickler for accuracy, and I am merely saying to him that he should not rewrite history.
  I shall now deal with how the Liberal Democrats' recently announced pensions policy might impact on women. The Liberal Democrats want to extend the citizens pension to all pensioners, and suggest that that could be financed through the use of contracted-out rebates or by raising the state pension age. I do not remember that that was their headline when they launched the policy. Perhaps the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), when she winds up the debate, will expand on that. Is it Liberal Democrat policy to make people work longer than they have to at present?
  As the Minister mentioned, both last week and this, it is astonishing that the Liberal Democrat policy paper contains no detailed costings, nor a real explanation of how the policy would be financed. We are told that scrapping the Department of Trade and Industry could save £7.5 billion over the lifetime of a Parliament. Another suggestion—that the Office for National Statistics should charge more realistically for its services—sounds like they are grasping at straws. Government Departments are among the ONS's major users on a daily basis, so that may be an entirely circular argument.
  We should not be too bothered about all that, I suppose, as one great benefit of being a Liberal Democrat is that no one—including the media—ever looks into the details of the party's policy, for the obvious reason that it is all a bit academic. However, I shall soldier on and look at the so-called "residence test". This is interesting, as the Liberal Democrats say that, in government, they would devise residence rules in detail, based on Government data.
  Leaving aside the Liberal Democrat party's self-delusion that it may one day be in government, let me point out that being a responsible Opposition party means that one works such things out before getting into government. The reason is that the figures and facts may not add up when one finally gets there. The Liberal Democrats talk about a person who has spent a

  1209
  "significant" amount of his or her life resident in the UK. If they hope to be taken even remotely seriously by anyone—including women pensioners and would-be women pensioners—they need to try and flesh the policy out a bit.
  As has been noted already, the Liberal Democrats' policy means that they are saying to people who have paid their contributions every week, month and year of their working lives that none of that matters any more. Under that policy, a person who has made no contributions at all will end up getting the same amount in pension as everyone else.
  The Lib Dems' policy paper does not make it clear whether only the new so-called "citizen's pension" will be subject to a residence test or whether the test will also apply to the basic state pension received by people under 75. A clarification would be welcome when the hon. Member for Romsey winds up.
  The Liberal Democrats do not make it clear how the state pension for people aged under 75 will be increased over time. One has to assume, therefore, that they would increase that pension in line with prices. On the figures that I have looked at, that means that 59 per cent. of pensioners would not gain from the proposals. The Liberal Democrats also say that pensioners aged under 75 would keep their current pension entitlements along with any means-tested benefits they currently claim. They do not say, of course, at what rate they would increase the pension credit. Again, we have to assume that it would rise with prices rather than earnings. So, unlike the Conservative policy, the Liberal Democrat approach would do nothing to float pensioners under the age of 75 off means-tested benefits, which would affect very many women.
  The Liberal Democrats say that the state second pension should be phased out, but they do not explicitly say that people aged 75 or over would not receive payments over and above the citizen's pension in respect of the money they have paid into SERPS. It seems likely that pensioners aged 75 or over would get no more income as of right if they had paid into SERPS throughout their working lives than if they had merely lived in the UK for 20 years. I may be wrong about that, but I would be grateful for some clarification.
  The Liberal Democrats also talk about the Government's financial assistance scheme, which we debated at some length last week. They say that the figures are inadequate, and we agree. However, they suggest that the taxpayer should pick up the bill for the balance, which they estimate at £2.3 billion, minus the £400 million already committed by the Government in their package. Is that a new spending commitment? Is it included in the calculations that I have already set out?
  Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the Liberal Democrats' proposals—it has not received much prominence, probably because they did not give it much prominence when they unveiled their policy—is the scrapping of tax relief on pension contributions for higher rate taxpayers, which would amount to a £6 billion raid on people's dwindling pension pots. We all know that one of the ways under the present system that women are able to establish a decent pension in retirement is by getting into an occupational pension scheme. One of the ladies given as an example in the excellent report produced by Age Concern and the
  1210
  Fawcett Society is a constituent of mine. She faced the unfairness of the present system because she had her children and brought them up, but she then requalified and built up a pension in her new occupation. That is how many women try to catch up in the pension stakes. However, many women would be deterred by the Liberal Democrats' new proposal. It will affect not only the super rich; millions of hard-working people who do the right thing by saving for their retirement, despite all the deterrents introduced by the Government, would be hit by a double whammy. They would be taxed on their pension contributions when they get their salary and again when they receive their pension income.
  Mr. Webb: I need to nail one or two myths before they get going. The hon. Gentleman appears to have read our policy document. Did he read the sentence in paragraph 6.2 that states:
  "The central part of the Lib Dem approach is to promote simplicity, and with the other changes we are currently proposing we believe that it would create more confusion than simplicity to change the tax reliefs as well."?
  There is no proposal to change the tax reliefs: that is a complete fiction.
  Mr. Waterson: That is not my understanding, and I hope that the hon. Member for Romsey will deal with that point in a little more detail when she winds up. The Liberal Democrats do not appear to take seriously the option of occupational pensions as a way for women to catch up—although I accept that it is only one way and is available only to certain women.
  On the whole issue of women's pensions, there is no denying that under successive Governments, and due to the sociological shifts of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, considerable unfairness has grown up that affects many women. I have already referred to the report produced by Age Concern and the Fawcett Society; indeed, I attended its launch. However, the Minister, the noble Lady Hollis, who was also present, made it apparent that the Government were not likely to accept the report's recommendations.
  It is no good for the Minister for Pensions to clutch at straws by talking about the pension credit. Even after tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on advertising it, almost 2 million people are still not claiming it. As we know, the Government's working assumption is that 1.4 million people will never get around to claiming it and many of them will be women.
  The Conservative party is looking at women's pensions, too, and at how to address the problems—possibly by amendments to the contribution rules or through a carer's credit, to reflect the role of carers who bring up families and look after disabled relations and so on. Recently, we unveiled for consultation our proposals for a lifetime savings account, which we think will be extremely attractive in encouraging young women and men to save for their retirement.
  Let me deal briefly with mixed-sex wards. It is absolutely disgraceful that they still exist in this day and age. When a Conservative Government are in power, we expect them to become a thing of a past—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) obviously agrees.
  There is also a worry about the level of screening for breast cancer among older women in some parts of the country.

  1211
  Last week, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that
  "when Labour came to office we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest".
  That is a damning indictment of the Government's record; it affects women, and men, too. However, the Prime Minister has recently taken an interest in pensions. Yesterday, at the TUC conference, he said:
  "There is no easy solution. The blunt truth is that the population is ageing; people live longer."
  My goodness, that man has his finger on the pulse. He talked about finding solutions to the problems.
  More interesting than the Prime Minister's words has been the briefing, over the past few days, about possible solutions. There is the plan for taxpayers to pay an extra 1.5p in the pound for national insurance, which is a typical Government strategy. They would keep all the wasteful, unsuccessful schemes—such as most of the new deal—but charge people even more to get a decent pension when they retire. Interestingly, No. 10 seems to have woken up to the wisdom of scrapping means-testing and finding a different way out. It seems to be joining the consensus about which we spoke last week: means-testing must be addressed and rolled back.
  The only person who is not part of the consensus is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps he will simply tell the Prime Minister to mind his own business. We do not know. The worry, which is a real problem for the new Secretary of State—who has obviously gone away to continue his study of pensions—is that pensions are being drawn into the eternal battle between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. If it is true that the Prime Minister has finally realised—albeit, no doubt, for electoral reasons—the idiocy of proceeding down the route of mass means-testing and has concluded that many of our party's policies are correct, I commend that. There should, if possible, be a broad element of cross-party unity on pensions, but I think that the Chancellor will not let the Prime Minister come to that conclusion.
  We have a great deal of sympathy with most of the motion. We agree with what it says about mixed-sex wards, real choices for older people, a decent state pension, breast cancer screening and direct payments at post offices. With the single exception of the proposal for a citizens' pension, which is unworkable and impractical and will not deliver what is promised for it, we would support the motion, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so in the Lobby this evening.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to have been called in today's debate, and I should like to make two brief contributions: I wish to welcome the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—indeed, I want to go further than that—and I wish to suggest to those on the Treasury Bench that, although it is necessary to have the normal party fights over new ideas during such debates, the Government go away after the votes tonight and seriously consider the Liberal Democrat proposals to find out whether we should lift them and include them as part of our proposals for the general election.
  1212
  First, like practically every hon. Member, I welcome the appointment of the new Secretary of State without any reservation whatsoever. From my personal experience, I know that he is someone of moral courage, which will not come amiss in the issues that he must face in putting in place Labour's strategy on pensions for the election. He is also someone with very considerable political abilities. Indeed, I doubt whether he shares the Prime Minister's view that, with his appointment, we can now see the light at the end of the pensions tunnel. My guess is that someone of my right hon. Friend's experience realised that it was not the light at the end of the tunnel but an oncoming train, largely manned by pensioners, and irate pensioners at that.
  My right hon. Friend knows, even if other members of the Government do not yet fully appreciate it, that the next general election will be the first election when a majority of voters who turn out will be pensioners. When we add to that total those who are within 15 years' striking distance of that age, the likelihood is that 80 per cent. of voters next time will be either coming up to retirement or will be retired. I make a plea to him that he use the extraordinary good will and leeway that he has, and his ability to think differently from previous incumbents, to ensure that we have the strongest possible pension policy when we face that elderly electorate at the polls, probably next year. In doing that, I want to make a plea for looking seriously at the Liberal Democrat proposal.
  My very honourable Friend the Minister for Pensions has already moved some way, but he has seen what an old claptrap idea it is to link the proposal to citizens pensions and all that. It is almost as though he was stripping down the idea and getting it ready for Labour to put its imprint on it. I want to return to his argument: in an age when social bonds are dissolving all too fast, what a folly it is to make another attack on the national insurance scheme, which is one of the clear bonds that most of our citizens know and appreciate.
  In advocating that we look seriously at the Liberal Democrat idea, I want to refer those on the Treasury Bench to the Warwick agreement. We have got rid of clause IV. We have got rid of most of the ideas, the maps and compass that used to guide me when I was a younger member of the Labour movement. Now we have the Warwick agreement. In that agreement, which has been signed by the Government and the trade unions, there is a whole section on pensions. Prominent among those commitments is the phrase,
  "Steps to make Pension Credit payment automatic and move beyond means testing".
  That is now one of the cornerstones of the Warwick agreement.
  My hon. Friend has a St. Sebastian complex—so much so that he now cannot even see an arrow without getting his body in the way. Of course, none of this is intended to be a criticism of his contribution, which, as always, I found exciting and comprehensive.
  However, there was just a tiny gap in his contribution. There was not one word about how we might fulfil the Warwick agreement and about how we, as a party, are going to move away from a policy of mass means-testing to one in which there is automatic entitlement.

  1213
  Before my hon. Friend came into the House and when he was in the House and making contributions from the Back Benches, there was no stronger advocate of universal provision and no one stronger in pointing out the folly of the Conservative Government thinking only of selectivity in terms of income. He said that they should consider selectivity in terms of age. However, because of his St. Sebastian complex, I will not detain the House by reading out any of those quotations. I merely point out that he has always made the case for a selective approach that tries to consider how one can designate other than by income the groups that are overwhelmingly poor. Age is one factor that one can use.
  Malcolm Wicks rose—
  Mr. Field: I shall happily give way to St. Sebastian.
  Malcolm Wicks: I have not seen an effective arrow coming my way. However, does my right hon. Friend recognise that our argument is that we need to get the balance right between universal provision using the national insurance system, and a more selective approach? When I cited some of the evidence to show that although an older age criterion has some sense, it is nevertheless imperfect because many poor people are under, and some richer people are over, the age of 75. Did he hear the evidence? Has he yet been able to assess it, and is there just a chance that it might affect his thinking?
  Mr. Field: It did not do that. I am sad to hear that St. Sebastian now needs an eye test. If he did not see any arrows aimed in the opposite direction, goodness knows what occurred.
  The importance of the Prime Minister's position is that, of course, any social security system will have means tests in it. The question is whether we are increasing the scope of means tests or lessening it. The truth is that, up to the reshuffle, it looked as though we had a strategy of increasing the numbers on means-testing. It now looks as though we have an option of opposing that. One of the better ways of doing that is to use age, rather than income, as the basis.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) did not suggest that this one move alone would solve all our pension difficulties. It does and could play a part in a short-term strategy of reversing the tide to run against means-testing. There is, of course, a need for the Government and perhaps the Opposition parties to have an idea of what their major and longer-term reforms will be. When the Adair Turner Pensions Commission report is published, there may not be a hiding place for a political party that does not have longer-term or fundamental proposals to put before the electorate next May, if that is the correct date.
  After all the good old razzamatazz of the debate, I make a plea to my hon. Friend that we consider seriously such ideas. I welcome his cutting through the typical Liberal Democratic claptrap of looking for a trendy phrase and almost sinking a good idea because of it. Somehow it does not matter how hard or long one has worked. That record will be ignored.
  If we lived in a 1950s-type society in which social bonds were strengthening rather than weakening, if we did not have major problems of family and social
  1214
  breakdown in our constituencies, and if more and more younger people felt that they had a sense of belonging not only to their own towns but to their country, there might be a case for saying that we can be cavalier with the idea of what national insurance has meant to people in the past. However, in the circumstances of vast social disintegration, it would be folly to do that.
  Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman thinks deeply about these matters, so one must think deeply about what he is saying. Does he acknowledge the flipside, which is that the national insurance system has failed to value many things that he values, such as caring and low-paid work? We are not saying that people who have contributed nothing to society should have something, but that people who have contributed to society, yet receive nothing, should get something. Surely that would contribute to social cohesion.
  Mr. Field: Of course it would, so we would keep the baby and the bathwater rather than throwing both out. I thought that my hon. Friend the Minister was saying to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) during their interesting interchange that when the report is published next year one suggestion that follows on might be to make good some of the glaring gaps in the national insurance system by ensuring that credit is given for jobs such as caring for vulnerable old people, to be taken into account when computing people's pension entitlement.
  We must be able to pay for any proposals that we make in the election campaign. I agree that the Liberal Democrats have come up with a slightly hazy scheme of abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry, especially given that they want all its functions to be carried out elsewhere.
  I leave this point with my hon. Friend the Minister, because I suspect that he knows the figures and he used to write about such matters when he was a free agent. This year is the first in which higher-rate taxpayers will take half the tax subsidy that goes towards pension savings. It is not the case, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested, that if we allowed such subsidy at only the standard rate—meaning that everyone was treated equally—we would rip £6 billion from the system. We would, however, find an extra £2 billion with which we could make payments to schemes such as those advocated by the Liberal Democrats. Given that our present tax subsidies support those with the most generous pension provisions to the greatest extent, we should have a little courage when fighting the next election and decide to redistribute some, but not all, of that money to the poorest people. That would go a long way towards ensuring that we could significantly increase payments to the over-75s through the national insurance system. Such a payment would have nothing to do with whether those people were citizens, but it would have a lot to do with whether they would vote for us.
  5.52 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I am sorry that this debate is necessary, because I hate to hear women being talked about as though they are a race apart or a bunch of lame ducks—we are half the population, after all. I look forward to the day when such debates are no longer required.

  1215
  Today's debate has focused mainly on pensions, and I shall not go into the technicalities of pensions and benefits in the august company of many experts, but I know that a large percentage of older women left school young without qualifications and that many never worked outside the home at all. There are also those who had a mixed record of wartime outwork—if anyone can remember what that was—during which they collected bulk items of sewing to do at home or did light assembly work. They also split mica, and although I am not sure what mica was or what it was used for, women used to split it and it was jolly unpleasant. Women also cared for their families—both the older and younger generations—and worked in their homes without the benefit of modern appliances. They juggled that with spasmodic periods of low-paid employment outside the home, all of which meant that they had no personal pension to show for an arduous existence. Some older women had rewarding employment, paid national insurance contributions and earned a pension in their own right.
  The Liberal Democrats' policy is unfair in that respect—the effort of those individuals should not be disregarded.
  I recall the 1960s, when married women were given the option of giving up paying the full national insurance contribution and paying a reduced married woman's contribution. There were obvious risks in that, not least the failure of the marriage, or if the wife was much younger than the husband, there was a considerable wait until he was 65 before she could draw a pension on the strength of his contributions. My personal recollection is that the provision of information was very good, and I was in no doubt whatever about what was being offered and what the likely pitfalls were, but I accept that many women claim that they did not understand at the time the disadvantage that they were storing up for themselves in the future.
  May I commend to the House the Conservative party policy, which will link the pension to earnings? The Conservatives will increase the single person's pension by £7 a week and a couple's pension by £11, on top of increases for price inflation, over four years. The pension credit will not be abolished, but of course as the state pension increases in line with earnings, fewer pensioners will be eligible.
  Vera Baird: I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Lady says, because if the basic state pension is to be index-linked, there will be no increase in the number of people coming off pension credit, as that too is linked to earnings. The two things will increase in parallel. The Conservatives will help off the minimum income guarantee element of the pension credit only those people who currently are about £6.99 below the MIG level—no one else will ever move off it. That is unless, of course, the basic state pension will go up with earnings but the Tories will freeze, and link to prices, the minimum income guarantee. That is the only way that it can be done. Is that what is going on?
  Angela Watkinson: I was going to thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, but I am now
  1216
  reluctant to do so. Her assumption about the parallel lines is misguided. The differential will change, and the value of the pension will rise so that more pensioners will be lifted out of means-testing.
  Mr. Waterson: I am listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. As she knows, no one would lose under our proposals, but is she aware that despite several opportunities to speak up in the Chamber the Government are still being very coy about whether it would be their intention, if by some mischance they were elected to a third term, to increase the pension credit in line with prices or earnings? Is it not a bit rich for them to criticise us when they, the current Government, have not even formed a view about it?
  Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification.
  There is another in-built advantage to our proposals in that, as pensioners no longer rely on the means test, their savings will be freed from Government scrutiny, and a pound saved for retirement will mean a pound more for income in retirement.
  David Taylor: I believe that one of the hon. Lady's political heroines is Lady Thatcher. Is she aware that it is now almost 25 years since that meanest of Acts resulted in the decoupling of pensions from pay? Does she accept that that has contributed more towards the poverty of present-day pensioners, particularly elderly females, than any other single Government move in recent times?
  Angela Watkinson: One of the main reasons for women's inadequate pensions and their poverty in old age is the fact that they have been unable to work outside the home or they have not had the same opportunities as men to do so. We will put that right by linking pensions to earnings.
  The policy has received support from such august sources as the Institute for Public Policy Research, an editorial in The Observer, no less, the Equal Opportunities Commission and that robust and quite scary body, the London Pensioners Forum. If anyone has ever done battle with the latter, they will know that it is a force to be reckoned with. An Age Concern survey found that
  "nine out of ten pensioners receiving Pension Credit want the Government to provide a higher Basic State Pension…73 per cent. believe that means testing puts people off applying for the benefit".
  On a related subject, elderly women in particular like to receive their pension using their pension book at their local post office. Upminster, which is part of the London borough of Havering, is subject to the Post Office's urban reinvention programme—a weasel-worded way of saying, "We are going to close your post offices." Many elderly women who have never worked outside the home regard the collection of their pension as a social occasion, because they meet people and know the sub-postmaster. All their life, they have budgeted in cash on a weekly basis, and that is how they wish to continue. The changes have therefore been very upsetting for them. If their post office has closed, they have to rely on a neighbour to collect their pension, or

  1217
  if they still have a post office, they have been pressed to have their pension paid into a bank account, which many of them do not want. They are supposed to have the option of opening a Post Office card account, but they have to be very persistent to do so, because the system is extremely off-putting. Small details such as remembering a PIN number are a distressing change of habit for them, and are a break in the way in which they have managed their finances all their life.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: The hon. Lady will be aware that more than 3 million people have already opened a Post Office card account. We have the means to ensure that whatever account people choose they can access those funds at the post office. She is right, however, that we need the post office network, so does she accept that the Liberal Democrat proposal to wipe out the £2 billion that we are putting into that network by scrapping the Department of Trade and Industry will not help those women pensioners?
  Angela Watkinson: In one post office in my constituency, the good ladies genuinely believed that they would be listened to if they responded to the consultation and that it would make a difference if they signed the petition. Their post office, however, has been closed, and the alternative is two bus rides away, so the closure programme has resulted in some worrying injustices.
  Vera Baird: I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, but what have the Conservatives ever done for women pensioners in the past? Home responsibilities protection was a Labour measure, and everything introduced since 1997 to help women out of poverty has been a Labour measure. What have the Conservatives ever done for women pensioners?
  Angela Watkinson: The Conservatives have done a great deal for women, because the country became wealthy under a Conservative Government, and that prosperity was available to everyone, including pensioners, who are part of the community.
  I want to refer to mixed-sex wards, which are an utter disgrace. I accept that there are moves to do away with them, but they still exist. It is upsetting enough to go into hospital, but older women find it humiliating and embarrassing to be in a mixed-sex ward. When my mother-in-law was in a geriatric ward in Whipps Cross hospital, she shared a room with many elderly gentlemen with prostate difficulties who had to get out of bed every few minutes. They had to walk up and down the ward using certain appliances in front of ladies, which was a wholly unsuitable arrangement. The patients do not like such arrangements, which are as bad for men as for women, and neither do the staff. I look forward to the day when a policy of no more mixed-sex wards is implemented.
  A new hospital in Oldchurch in Romford, covering the London borough of Havering, is due to be opened next year. I asked for a reassurance that there would be no mixed-sex wards in that hospital, but I did not get an unequivocal response. I was told that there would be separate bays for male and female patients, with partitions, and that there would be separate facilities for
  1218
  them, but that is not quite the same as completely segregated wards, which is what patients want for privacy and dignity. I believe that that would be supported by staff.
  Finally, breast cancer screening has focused on women up to the age of 70. I welcome the extension of screening to women between 65 and 70, but there is no mention of women over 70 in the programme. They are encouraged to make their own appointment. However, many older women are of the old school, where one did not make a fuss. If asked whether they were all right, they would always say they were, even if they were not. My own mother was a case in point. We need to include women over 70 in the programme or introduce some method whereby they are reminded that they need to continue having regular screening, as that age group is most vulnerable to breast cancer.
  I look forward to the day when we no longer need policies for women—when we just need policies.
  6.6 pm
  Vera Baird: I was slightly disappointed by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who offered many fine words but no proposals to help women now aged 60 until they are 75, with the legion problems of pension eligibility that have been discussed today, and which were discussed last week and in all the proceedings on the Pensions Bill.
  Among recently retired men, 90 per cent. have a full basic state pension. Only 25 per cent. of recently retired women have a full basic state pension. The hon. Member for Northavon has nothing to say about them except that they will come to a second retiring age, so to speak, when they are 75. At that point they will start to get as of right, on some curious and not fully explained basis, an increment that will bring them up to the level of the minimum income guarantee, which many of them will have been getting before that on a means-tested basis. I am disappointed that even though the hon. Gentleman says that he is proposing a new idea, he does not deal with the problems that concern pensioners now and will concern those who are due to retire in the next 15 or more years.
  The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) seemed to think that the Conservatives' policy was marvellous. As I understand it, the Tories would restore the link to earnings, which they destroyed 25 years ago. They more or less—this is not unfair—froze the level of the basic state pension for a very long time indeed, leading to the vast numbers of pensioners who were in poverty when we took office and requiring us to bring in the minimum income guarantee.
  Now, by way of redress 25 years later, the Tories would link the pension to earnings so that over the four years of a Parliament, a person with a full basic state pension would have it increased by £7. That is all that would be given. However, as I mentioned, 75 per cent. of women do not have a basic state pension, so what would they get out of this great gift from the Tories? At best, £5 on average, on £50 over four years. How will that help? It is proposed as some kind of answer to means-tested benefits that will start the crusade towards a good basic state pension and a reduction in the means-testing of benefits, but of course it will not achieve that.

  1219
  The proposal means that men who are £7 below the level of the pension credit will get to the level of the pension credit.
  People with an income £6 below the pension credit of £105 will be out of means-testing by £1 after four years. The band of people who are up to £6.99 below the minimum income guarantee may have the satisfaction of being brought off means-tested benefit by a penny or two, but that is a relatively small number of people, and guess what—the Conservative party favours the better-off. Only those who are close to the minimum income guarantee will get any benefit at all, but the benefit is trivial.
  Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. and learned Lady oppose the restoration of the link to earnings for pensions?
  Vera Baird: I oppose the absurd notion that current Tory policy bears any relation to the problems in the pension system. It is utter falsity to suggest that it has anything to do with significantly rolling back means-tested benefit. The figures produced by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) suggest that approximately one quarter of pensioners will be brought off means-tested benefit. I doubt whether that is right, but if it is, in many cases pensioners will be brought off means-tested benefit by a matter of pennies.
  Those who are not on means-tested benefit will get £7 on top at the end of four years and be £7 richer, but they were richer in the first place, because they were not on means-tested benefit. On the shadow Secretary of State's own figures, three quarters of the people who are currently on means-tested benefit will still be on it at the end of four years. The policy will not roll back means-testing in any way.
  Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. and learned Lady accept that pensioner bodies have demanded the restoration of the earnings link for some considerable time?
  Mr. Webb: Twenty-five years.
  Vera Baird: Yes, pensioners demanded the restoration of the link 25 years ago, when the Tories scrapped it. Happily, the current climate among pension pressure groups is to re-examine that demand, not to set it aside, and to consider eligibility, which the Conservative party completely ignores. How is the Conservative policy a boon to women pensioners, whose problems were admirably set out by the hon. Member for Northavon? Save for £5, if they happen to be within £5 of the minimum income guarantee, how will it help them? The policy is a fake.
  The other flaw in the argument is that it is alleged that the first four years, which will provide £7 extra and bring those who are just below the minimum income guarantee above it, are just the start of the policy. Conservative Members claim that in years to come the basic state pension will keep increasing because it is index linked to wages and, as the hon. Member for Upminster puts it, more and more people will come off means-tested benefit.
  1220
  The minimum income guarantee element of the pension credit is also linked to earnings, so it runs side by side with the basic state pension. People will come off means-tested benefit only if the minimum income guarantee is frozen, which means that the income of the other three quarters of pensioners, whom the shadow Secretary of State is content to leave on means-tested benefit throughout, will gradually decrease, and they are, by definition, the poorest pensioners. The Tory policy really amounts to giving more money, and not very much of it at that, to the rich.
  How will giving a little bit more money to the relatively rich be paid for? The new deal, which has put 1 million people back in work, including enormous numbers of people in constituencies such as mine, would have to be scrapped. If the Conservatives have any interest in the regions, scrapping the new deal is another risible policy, and it is class-based.
  David Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend is lucidly describing the effect of the Conservative policy on pensioners on the minimum income guarantee, which would be the reintroduction of the decoupling of pensions from inflation and wages in the economy of a sort that we last saw 25 years ago. The Conservative policy has an awful echo.
  Vera Baird: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a strong point. In terms of public confidence in who will look after the pension system, the bottom line is how much money will he put into it as a whole. The Conservatives often say that there is a need to cut public spending, and I do not think that the public are fooled for one minute by their vote-chasing attempt to deceive them into thinking that if they vote Tory, means-testing will be over and their pride will be restored to them. They know very well that the Tories scrapped the earnings link, that they will keep the poor poor, and that in the end, however they try to tweak their policies, they will never put enough money into the pension system for people to have the proper basis for a contented retirement.
  Women have needs that the hon. Member for Upminster has not even considered. They have huge difficulties in getting a full basic state pension. The hon. Member for Northavon mentioned some of those difficulties; let me run through a couple more. Home responsibilities protection is a Labour measure; whatever the hon. Member for Upminster says, I am afraid the Tories did nothing for women caring for children or for older people. HRP gives a credit of a year at a time. A woman who will have to work for 39 years to get her pension entitlement and takes a year off to look after a child will then have to work for only 38 years, and on it goes to a maximum of 19 years. That is an unwieldy way of giving a credit, and for many women it does not work very well. Because it has to be based on a complete year, the woman will lose the first year if she does not have her baby on 6 April; and she will lose the last year as well if he does not eventually go to university on 5 April.
  There are more serious problems than that, however. For example, many women go back to work part time when their children start to go to nursery or to school,

  1221
  thereby losing their home responsibilities protection. If they fall into the category of working below the lower earnings limit, they neither pay a national insurance contribution nor are they credited with one, even though they are working. A woman who works 30 hours a week looking after children and 16 hours a week on the minimum wage will not get pension credit from either source, however long she carries on working long hours every day.
  Then there is the problem of the carers credit. A person gets a carers credit only if they are caring for somebody who is entitled to disability living allowance, which means that they require 35 hours of care. Many people do not require that much time. Many women take a part-time job rather than a full-time job in order to give 10 hours or 18 hours to an elderly relative, or to give 10 hours to each of two elderly relatives, or to share the care of an elderly relative with a sister. They will not get the carers credit, because they are caring for someone who needs only 18 hours or 20 hours' care, or they are sharing it with someone else, and the part-time job is not sufficient to bring them the credit either. They fall between two stools.
  Another problem is the left-over iniquity of the 25 per cent. rule, which says that even those who have worked sufficiently to qualify for 24.5 per cent. of a basic state pension are, for some bizarre reason that must be left over from the days of book keeping by quill pen, not entitled to a penny piece of it. They have to have 25 per cent. entitlement or they get nothing. That equates to an enormous amount of money. Twenty-five per cent. of £70—the basic state pension—is around £17.50. Over a decade, that robs £8,750 from a person who has worked and paid their national insurance.
  Only 25 per cent. of women have a full basic state pension on retirement—enormous numbers of them fall below that level because of all the difficulties. There is no excuse for that.
  David Taylor: Would my hon. Friend include on her list of smash-and-grabs on the oldest and poorest pensioners the decision by the previous Government to halve inherited SERPS and then to say nothing about it, leaving this Government to pick up the pieces?
  Vera Baird: Again, my hon. Friend makes a clear and strong point.
  The report that the Government will produce on women and pensions next year is a big step forward. It will clearly be an assessment not only of pensions policy but, as the Minister said, of all the other aspects that help contribute to women's pension position. It was requested because the Green Paper states that we have introduced the minimum wage, which helps lots of women; we have equal pay for women—of course, we have it only theoretically but are working towards it; more women work; more women spend shorter periods of time out of work caring for children; they are all gravitating towards the Beveridge model of a working person, and they will all eventually qualify for a full basic state pension in the ordinary, national insurance way, or approach such qualification. I overstate the case that the Government make, which is not nearly so glib. Nevertheless, it is necessary to review the position from time to time to ascertain whether such factors are
  1222
  genuinely moving matters forward and helping women to get better national insurance contributions and thus progress towards better state pension provision.
  It is clear that all the factors that I have outlined, which, by and large, go in the right direction for achieving women's eventual qualification for full basic state pension, are not enough. It is never likely to be the case that women will conform to the Beveridge model of a long working life. They will almost inevitably be the primary carers for children for a long time. Hence one returns full circle to the need for inadequate credits for caring to be rectified. Frankly, even if women are not the primary carers and men take on that role, they, too, will fall foul of the inadequate credits for child care and elder care. It does not matter who does the caring, but it is likely that women will do it.
  We must re-examine the current position instead of the one the Liberal Democrats advocate, albeit only for those aged over 75. If all the credits are improved so that it becomes the aim to cover women who are in work, women who are out of work and caring, whoever they care for, and to make the ability to get credits for national insurance open to them all, most people will qualify for a full basic state pension. Do we need to take the extra step that the Liberal Democrats advocate, albeit only at a late age, to scrap the national insurance system, and to start on a different basis to give people a pension for doing nowt or summat?
  I am worried about the Liberal Democrat proposal to abandon entirely the national insurance principle. I have concerns about who is a citizen and who is not, how long people have to be resident before becoming a citizen, and how else someone is chosen to qualify. What happens to people who are not citizens? What do they get? Is there any point in going beyond making national insurance inclusive rather than exclusive? Is there any need to scrap what, I believe, is politically dear to people because it gives them a sense of contributing to what they get back? Is there any purpose, in terms of future social cohesion, in scrapping that principle? What is to be gained by it?
  The discussion has put eligibility for the basic state pension at centre stage. The main problem with the Liberal Democrat proposal is the way in which it will be financed. I have already referred to my constituency of Redcar. A couple of weeks ago, a happy announcement was made that an American business called Huntsman, which had been in Redcar since 1999, when it bought an ethylene plant from ICI, would invest in a polyethylene plant—a downstreamer from the ethylene plant. The ethylene plant employs 800 people; the polyethylene will secure those jobs because it is a downstream plant for the ethylene plant, and polyethylene is sold throughout the country. Currently, the ethylene is exported and re-imported as polyethylene—that is crazy. The new plant will secure the existing 800 jobs and generate another 120. Huntsman made it absolutely clear that the £16.5 million regional selective assistance grant from the Department of Trade and Industry made the difference between investing in the new plant or accepting that the cracker—the ethylene plant—was becoming less viable and profitable and would, in due course, have to be closed down.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Northavon that at least 920 people in Redcar are very pleased indeed that the DTI exists and that it has an industrial development unit

  1223
  capable of providing such grants. I would ask him to consider the peril that he would put the regions in if he scrapped the DTI.
  When Huntsman proposed making more investment, it was bombarded with offers of grants from many other parts of the EU, notably Rotterdam, and it was essential for us to compete. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that the way to finance his pension proposals is by scrapping the means to do that, I would point out that he might be paying out to the very old, but he would be attacking the younger generation in order to do so. He would be depriving people in regions such as mine, where unemployment is still very high, of much needed employment, and that would be too high a price to pay. That is the fundamental flaw in his seriously flawed policy.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: Several themes have run through this debate. One was the need for consensus, although I have seen very little in what has been said so far. Another was the serious problem of pension provision, particularly for older women. That is largely a result of current pension provision being based on labour market provision, which discriminates against those with an interrupted employment history—particularly women and carers. Because of that link, many such groups find that poverty during their working lives translates into poverty in old age.
  Although much of what we have discussed today has concerned state pension provision, it is also relevant to occupational pensions. Fewer women than men belong to such pension schemes: 52 per cent. of men, compared with 39 per cent. of women. The interrupted occupational histories of many women mean that they have had less time to build up pension rights.
  Also, significantly for women who are getting near retirement age now, it is only in recent years that women gained pension rights through divorce. I have to say that Scotland was well ahead of England in this regard. Until recently, pensions were not treated as an asset on divorce, although they were a significant family asset. That is now changing. Many women now reaching retirement age have not had the benefit of that, and therefore face greater poverty in retirement.
  We have discussed the destruction of the link between earnings and pensions, but perhaps the link between labour market provision and pensions should have been the one that was broken. That is the main attraction of the citizens pension, because it would do that. It would provide a basic pension for all citizens, notwithstanding the difficulties in ascertaining what citizenship involves in certain instances. When the Minister talked about means-testing, he suggested that the difficulty with a citizens pension as opposed to a means-tested one was that someone with a large occupational pension would get the same benefit from a citizens pension as someone on a low income. That is not true, because in the example that he cited, the person getting a £50,000 occupational pension would pay tax on that pension.
  The citizens pension would ensure a basic living pension for everyone. That is important, because we know that one in five of our pensioners still live in
  1224
  poverty. The Government have gone down the road of means-testing, through the pension credit, even though they derided the Tories for doing so when they were in opposition. Means-testing is an inefficient way of dealing with a problem that is rooted in the fact that pension entitlement is attached to the labour market. The fact is that, under the present provision, more than half the over-65s in the United Kingdom were eligible for the means-tested pension credit on its introduction, and that proportion is rising. It will reach nearly three quarters by 2025.
  I pointed out in an intervention on the Minister, to which he did not really respond, that many pensioners— particularly the older ones—are not taking up the pension credit, despite our best efforts to get them to claim whatever they are entitled to under the present system, whether we agree with it or not. Even the Government's own take-up target involves less than three quarters of pensioners by 2006. That will leave a considerable number of pensioners being missed out, and continuing to live in poverty.
  The oldest pensioners are at greatest risk of poverty and in greatest need of pension credit, but are least likely to claim. That may be the reason for the Liberal Democrat idea of targeting more on older pensioners, but it seems to me that the proper role of a citizens pension is to provide for everyone at a reasonable level, and to allow a foundation on which to make additional savings.
  The question of savings is important. One of the problems with mean-testing—which the Government should not brush aside—is that many who have saved something towards their retirement feel that they are being discriminated against because of the effort that they have made. That should be taken into account. Again, the citizens pension idea will get round that to some extent.
  I am conscious of the lack of time and that other Members want to speak in the debate. Although it may be outside the strict confines of the debate, we must consider the question of savings and how people save towards their retirement. Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have tried to get people to save more towards their retirement, to lessen the burden on the state pension. Private and company pensions are the subject of a considerable amount of distrust following the Maxwell case and recent cases such as Allied Steel and Wire, and those problems must also be dealt with.
  The motion refers to more than pensions. I notice that it says a lot about hospitals, which are a devolved matter in Scotland, and I will not comment much on it, other than to note that the Liberals are in coalition with the Labour party in the Scottish Executive, and are therefore partly responsible for hospitals in Scotland, which are the cause of some concern. The Scottish Health Minister has even been summoned to London to appear before Labour MPs today for a grilling.
  The motion also mentions the issue of the pension book. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) spoke at length about that, and I agree with much of what she said. I gave the example of a constituent whom I helped to apply for a Post Office card account. She went through all the forms, complicated though they were, and went back and forward. Eventually, she was told that she was getting

  1225
  the card. She went down to the post office, which said that it had no record of her and gave her another pension book. Two weeks later, of course, the Post Office announced that it was going to close that post office, although I am happy to say that a campaign that I organised was successful in stopping that closure. Therefore there is some hope that closures can be stopped. It is a small matter, but it is very important to pensioners, and the Labour party fails to take that on board at its peril.
  6.33 pm
  Paul Holmes: I shall try to be as concise as possible in the few minutes that are left. The background to this debate is that the pension system in this country is in crisis. There are two legs to the pension system. The basic state pension is completely inadequate, as we have often heard, and the mean-tested pension credit system, which the Government favour as the solution to that, is failing to reach almost 2 million of the poorest pensioners in the country.
  Private pensions, which are needed to take people above the basic state pension, are also experiencing many problems. Not enough people save for a private pension, not enough people save soon enough, and not enough people save enough. Those who do have been hit by stock market problems, by the Chancellor's £5 billion pension fund raid, by the mis-selling scandals that resulted from the previous Conservative's Government deregulation of the selling of pensions, and by the loss of occupational pensions more recently, which has affected constituents of mine who work at Chesterfield Cylinders, Dema Glass and Coalite.
  All that is leading to a spiral of decline in the private pension sector. One of my constituents who worked for Dema Glass received on her 60th birthday, instead of a letter telling her how much pension she would get, a letter telling her that she would get no pension at all or at best 30 per cent. at some time in the future, but it was not certain when. As a result, her daughter, who is in her mid-20s and works for a very good international firm based in Chesterfield, said, "I was going to take out a private pension with the company but what's the point? If that can happen to my mother after a lifetime's saving, there's no point me saving." Confidence must be restored in the private pensions system if that is to be overcome.
  If all that is true of pensioners in general, and of male pensioners, it is even more true of female pensioners, as we have heard.
  Sixty per cent. of pensioners get a bad deal, but most of them are women. Women make up 64 per cent. of the overall pensioner population, but a far higher percentage of the poorest pensioners. Typically, women receive 57 per cent. of the male pension, while only 12 per cent. of women get the full basic state pension in their own right; 25 per cent. of single women pensioners live in poverty. A recent joint report from Age Concern and the Fawcett Society showed that women accounted for 75 per cent. of pensioners on income support. As we have heard today, the origins of that lie in the earlier role of women, who used normally to work in low-paid and part-time jobs and would take long stretches of time out to care for children and other members of the family, the elderly and the sick.
  1226
  We have heard that that may change, but very slowly. The women of today begin work on much more equal terms, with equal pay and a different attitude to life. It will take 30 or 40 years for that to feed through, so that they receive decent pensions in their own right when they retire. The Minister and his colleagues, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), have said in the past two or three hours that they are happy with that situation. They are happy with what they are doing for pensioners, and happy with the fact that any benefits that are generated will take 30 or 40 years to have an effect. In the meantime nearly 2 million pensioners, most of them women, must continue to live in poverty.
  I hope that the Minister will have time to answer a specific question. The Minister for Pensions was full of praise for the Pension Service and its attempts to break down the barrier of means-tested benefits and get people on to pension credit. I have said the same in the House and in Committee debates. I have observed the good work that the service is doing in Chesterfield, for instance. Last Wednesday, however, along with two of the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues, I met members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. They said that one suggestion relating to the proposed job cuts of between 30,000 and 40,000 would affect workers in the Pension Service. If that innovatory service has indeed proved effective, can the Minister reassure us that it will not be hit? That would undermine the one bit of good work that is being done. I agree with the Minister for Pensions about that.
  The recently announced policy of the Liberal Democrats is to give all those over 75—mostly women—a decent pension of £105 a week. That would avoid the present deterrent of means-testing. It has been welcomed across the board—not by the other two major parties in the House, but by financial commentators in the last week. It has been welcomed throughout the press, from the normally Conservative-supporting elements to others, as being realistic, costed and achievable, and as a first step towards a fair basic pension for all.
  I hope for the sake of the poorest pensioners—most of them women—that the Minister takes the advice of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. I hope that he borrows our policy and implements it, because that would be for the good of the poorest pensioners in the country. If he fails to do that—as I imagine he will—I look forward very much to fighting the election, in a few months' time, on our policy of providing a fair deal for the poorest pensioners in our society. It is the first time that that will have happened. Let me refer to our earlier debate, and add that I also look forward to fighting the election on our policy of scrapping the tuition fees introduced by the Government, and introducing a much fairer system of free access to higher education.
  6.38 pm
  Sandra Gidley: I am afraid that, owing to limited time, I shall be unable to respond in detail to some points that have been made. However, I will say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that it would probably help if he listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), because a number of his questions were answered in my hon. Friend's speech.

  1227
  It was clear from the length of time for which the hon. Gentleman spoke that, although the Conservatives may have some sort of pensions policy, its bearing on women was an afterthought. It seems to have been a case of "We have a problem; what are we going to do?" I have little to add to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who highlighted the considerable flaws in the Conservatives' policy.
  I want my winding-up speech to supplement the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, who has long recognised the particular problems faced by older women and has carried out a huge amount of campaigning work on the subject, particularly on the injustice of the married women's stamp. He has highlighted the fact that many of those women did not know that they were signing away their rights to a pension. A generation of women thought that they would be looked after in their old age only to find out that that was far from the case.
  Within that context, the self-congratulatory nature of the Government amendment is particularly distasteful. The motion might just have been acceptable one year into the new Government, but it appears that they believe that it is something to brag about, even though the Government admit that it will be next year before they even report on women pensioners, let alone do anything about it. I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar had to highlight the work of the Fawcett Society before it became an issue that the Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged. I am delighted that has happened now, but why could it not have happened six years ago? I sometimes despair.
  The rest of the Prime Minister's amendment fudges the other issues mentioned in our motion in similar fashion, but I want to concentrate on the health of older women. Groups of pensioners will talk at length about their pensions. It is something that they are rightly indignant about, interested in and engaged in, but once that discussion is out of the way, other issues come to the fore. Our motion could have been much longer, but we wanted to focus on a few specific issues.
  The Government happily announce in their amendment that 99 per cent. of NHS trusts provide single-sex accommodation for planned admissions and they give themselves a big pat on the back for that. That simple statement is a masterpiece of deception and I want to draw the House's attention to Prime Minister's Question Time on 19 November 1996. The then Leader of the Opposition—now our Prime Minister—asked the then Prime Minister:
  "Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?"— [Official Report, 19 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 831.]
  We should note that there was no mention of planned admissions or sleeping accommodation. If that issue was worthy of righteous indignation as long ago as 1996, why is such a simple measure taking so long to achieve?
  Naturally enough, when the Labour Government came to power—I was pleased that the Tories were no more—the then Secretary of State for Health took the expected action. He blamed the Tories. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
  1228
  "As far as we can see, under the programme that they left us with, in very many hospitals there was no possibility of eliminating mixed-sex wards in the 20th century. We will speed up that process."—[Official Report, 20 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 492.]
  The Tories at least had their much maligned patients charter, which made it clear to patients that they had the right, except in emergencies, to be told whether they would be in a ward for men and women. It was stated that in all cases people should "expect" single-sex washing and toilet facilities. It also clearly stated:
  "If you would prefer to be cared for in single sex accommodation (either a single sex ward or 'bay' area within a larger ward which offers equal privacy) your wishes will be respected wherever possible."
  We all know that the patients charter disappeared to be replaced by something called "Your NHS", which was by no means as specific about patients' rights in this matter.
  The amendment before us today says absolutely nothing about washing facilities. It may not be a big issue compared with pensions, but I shall explain why it is a big issue for some people. I can assume only that the Government do not believe that single-sex facilities are important or even desired by elderly people in hospital.
  I visited Southampton general hospital only last week. It is an excellent hospital in many ways, but I was surprised to find that the toilet bays were often not single sex. There were male and female cubicles side by side, but before a male could access the male toilet, he had to walk past the washing area, which was screened off only by a very flimsy curtain, offering absolutely no privacy whatever.
  I suspect that many other hospitals provide similar facilities, so I assume that that shows that the Government are interested only in sleeping accommodation, and that they are not concerned about the wider picture.
  The sad thing is that in many cases it is not a question of extra money. With a little thought, the problems could be solved by rearranging the existing infrastructure, but hospitals are so fixated on hitting every Government target that they simply do not deem such issues to be high priority. I can understand that: if I worked in Southampton general hospital, I would want to keep my job too.
  People who think that this is not such a big issue should speak to a constituent of mine. I shall not reveal her name so as to protect her privacy, but she was placed on a mixed-sex ward in the Royal South Hants hospital in Winchester. I am not complaining about the original placement, as it was an emergency, but she was still there after several days, even though she had asked repeatedly to be moved, and even though one of the male patients kept on exposing himself to her. That is totally unacceptable, and it should not have happened to my constituent or to any other patient.
  The Minister may say that the national service framework for older people is in place, and that NSF standard 1 reduces discrimination. When the NSF was launched, Professor Ian Philp, the national director for older people's services said:
  "The NSF will mean that a person can expect to receive high-quality care and treatment, regardless of their age or whether they live. This will make age discrimination a thing of the past. Older people will be treated as individuals, with respect and dignity".

  1229
  My constituent saw no evidence of dignity. Hers may have been an extreme case, and one that I hope is not replicated widely, but mixed-sex toilets and washing facilities do not provide dignity either. I urge the Government to ensure that what happens in hospitals reflects their rhetoric. I hope that they will change the words that they use to produce the right results.
  The House should not just take my word for this. A recent Mind report entitled "Wardwatch" stated that 23 per cent. of recent and current in-patient respondents had been accommodated in mixed-sex wards. A further 31 per cent. of respondents did not have access to single-sex bathroom facilities.
  Disappointingly, the Government's response was to belittle the report. They should take seriously the problems highlighted in it, and find out what is going wrong. Professor Philp stated also that age discrimination was a thing of the past, and that is the impression that the Government also like to portray. Therefore, I shall talk briefly about the most prominent example of age discrimination in the NHS—the cut-off age for breast cancer screening.
  The cut-off age was 65, and I am delighted that the Government are to raise that to 70 by the end of the year, but that is for people who are routinely invited for screening by the NHS and it completely ignores the fact that 40 per cent. of breast cancer cases involve women over 70. That is bad enough, but it also promotes the dangerous misconception among older women that they have a decreased risk of contracting breast cancer. Therefore, although women over that age may request screening, the low level of awareness of the risk means that tumours may not be detected until it is too late.
  According to the Breakthrough Breast Cancer research centre, the most important risk factor is age. Many consultants have gone on record to say that increasing the cut-off age to 80 would be a cost-effective measure.
  In 2002, 6,320 women aged 70 and over died from breast cancer. That is more than 55 per cent. of the total number of women of all ages who died as a result of breast cancer in the same year. Who knows how the numbers might have changed if the screening had been available?
  That is just one example of discrimination, and it is Liberal Democrat policy to outlaw the denial of treatment on the basis of absolute age barriers. We would also require the NHS executive to issue national guidance to tackle the problem of discrimination on the grounds of age.
  The Government deny that age discrimination exists, but Age Concern has received reports of both implicit and explicit age discrimination at all levels in the NHS. It issued a report in 2000, but little seems to have changed since. Despite the lip service paid by the Government to age discrimination, many people know that the problem is a real one.
  To sum up, the Liberal Democrats are tackling the issues that affect pensioners. Our proposals to axe the council tax have not been mentioned today, but they would benefit 70 per cent. of pensioners, and our pension proposals would tackle the particular problems faced by older women.
  1230
  There are other problems, but we cannot do everything at once. There is still a huge mountain to climb. Above all, however, we will be serious when in government about eliminating age discrimination in all its forms.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): It seems only last week that we debated pensions on an Opposition motion and, indeed, it was. We have heard many thoughtful speeches today from Members on both sides of the House and I am delighted to welcome those Liberal Democrat Back Benchers who have been able to join us for the last few minutes of the debate on their motion, but who were not able to be here earlier.
  The constant theme of all the speeches was that women pensioners do not enjoy as comfortable a retirement as they deserve. The Government recognise that the majority of pensioners are women and we are committed to ensuring that pension reforms improve women's rights. That is why the Government's priority has been to tackle poverty among the poorest pensioners, many of them women. In the year before we took office, 35 per cent. of single female pensioners were living in relative poverty. As a result of the action we have taken to tackle pensioner poverty, that figure is down to 21 per cent., even before the pension credit comes into effect. But there is clearly more to do if we want all pensioners to share in the nation's rising prosperity.
  As we heard from my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions earlier, the root of the challenge lies in the uneven distribution of opportunities during working life and of caring responsibilities. That is a problem that has gradually gained importance as a result of the breakdown of the model Beveridge family. But we have come a long way since Beveridge's time. The Government have introduced a range of important measures to benefit women and we do not intend to stop.
  Our measures to help women differ from the advice given by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) not so long ago, when he recommended that one way to respond to demographic challenges was for women to have more babies. Our measures do not expect today's women to have children so that they can enjoy a comfortable retirement. Instead, our most significant measure to benefit today's pensioners has been the introduction of the pension credit. Having sat through two debates this afternoon with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I have to tell him that he is developing an unfortunate tendency to sneer. The pension credit has had a huge and immediate positive impact on the living standards of many women pensioners. Two thirds of those entitled to pension credit are women, and half are aged 75 and over. More than 2 million women are now receiving the pension credit and we abhor the Opposition proposals that would take that away from the poorest pensioners. I can tell the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) that although we always envisaged that the number of people working in the Pension Service would decline once the pension credit had been launched, we are committed to maintaining the level of service to pensioners.

  1231
  Pension credit has not been our only response to pensioner poverty. The introduction of winter fuel payments has helped 11.5 million pensioners, more than half of them women. Those payments are worth £200 a year, or £300 for households with a person aged 80 or over. In addition, more than 5 million households will gain from the over-70s additional payment. Some 60 per cent. of those aged over 70 are women, as are 66 per cent. of those aged over 80.
  The state second pension, which the Conservatives plan to scrap along with the new deal if they get the chance, will boost the pensions of low and moderately paid employees and, for the first time, provide an additional pension for carers and long-term disabled people. As we have heard in this debate, that is of particular benefit to women, many of whom work part time or as carers. In fact, some 70 per cent. of the 5 million low earners who will benefit from the state second pension are women, as are almost all of the 2.5 million carers who will benefit.
  We have also done much to improve the pension position of tomorrow's female pensioners. We are ensuring that all pensioners have as fair as possible an environment in which to save. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred to wartime and post-war outworkers.
  I think the hon. Lady will agree that it was sad that when the person she described as her heroine was in office she abolished the minimum wage for those very outworkers and home workers.
  By tackling poverty during working age, we are giving people the means to avoid poverty in old age; for example, the minimum wage and the working tax credit overwhelmingly benefit women, thereby increasing their savings potential. The Government have also made a substantial investment in additional resources for child care to enable many of those caring for children to return to work.
  We recognise that women are under-represented among those with private sector occupational pensions; in particular, women who work part-time are less likely to be offered and to take up employer-based pensions than men or women who work full-time. Nevertheless, more than 2 million working-age women are members of private sector occupational pension schemes, so the measures in the Pensions Bill to improve the security and simplify the structure of existing occupational pension provision are relevant to women. The House will remember that the Conservatives declined to support that Bill on Second Reading.
  Stakeholder pensions, introduced by the Government, are beneficial to women in the modern labour market who move regularly between employers, who take a break from work—to raise a family, for example—or who have family who can pay into a pension for them. We are committed to improving pension information for everyone to ensure that they are aware of their pension position and the choices they face, which is especially important for women.
  As I said, the Government have done much to help women. Today, the hon. Member for Northavon set out his plans for a citizens pension, which he says will help
  1232
  many women; but it will not be targeted at the poorest women. Taking account of the offsetting losses in pension credit, tax and national insurance, the poorest pensioners will gain nothing from the hon. Gentleman's proposals. The biggest gainers will be those in the top income deciles.
  At a stroke, the Liberals plan to scrap the national insurance scheme, which is the bedrock of pensions as they operate today and was established in 1911 by another great Liberal—as he was at the time—Winston Churchill. People who have contributed, in many cases for an entire working life, towards their national insurance pension would find that it was swept away.
  I have great respect for pressure groups. I used to run one, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions. The hon. Member for Northavon used to work for one, too. The problem is that he thinks he still does. Instead of representing a national political party, serious about its potential to run the country, he still wheels out the latest wheeze he comes across—ill-thought-out, uncosted and half-baked. As we pointed out last week and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out earlier, those plans will be paid for by scrapping the DTI, the £2 billion that supports the post office network, the mechanisms for the minimum wage and protection for consumers and employees.
  In a move described by the hon. Member for Havant as a "triumphant success", the Conservatives, who scrapped the earnings link in 1980 at the earliest opportunity, now plan to reintroduce it. They are calling for an increase in the basic state pension in line with earnings, but we know that the vast majority of women would not gain from that increase. They would lose from the abolition of the state second pension and, indeed, of pension credit, with which the Conservatives plan to pay for the increase.
  An independent analysis by the Pensions Policy Institute concluded that under Conservative policies
  "the average woman will lose".
  The Leader of the Opposition agreed with that conclusion. Last year, he told us:
  "Those who are entitled to the pension credit and do claim…will not be better off.
  Most of those people will be women.
  We are not complacent; we want to do everything that we can to help women to build up a decent income in retirement. That is why we are committed to producing a report on women and pensions by the end of next year, and I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar for introducing those proposals and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for accepting them.
  Taken together, the measures that I have described to the House today are significant in meeting the challenges that many women in this country face in respect of pensions. They demonstrate that we have a coherent, sustainable long-term—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

  The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 250.

  Division No. 244]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Allan, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Amess, David

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baker, Norman

  Greenway, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Gummer, rh John

  Barker, Gregory

  Hammond, Philip

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hancock, Mike

  Barrett, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Abingdon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Health, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hermon, Lady

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Surrey)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Holmes, Paul

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Jack, rh Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burnett, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Burnside, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Inverness)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Cameron, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Lamb, Norman

  Fife)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Leigh, Edward

  Cash, William

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Barnet)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Chidgey, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, rh David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stamford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Maples, John

  Howden)

  Mates, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Coldfield)

  Doughty, Sue

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Norman, Archie

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Page, Richard

  Westminister)

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, rh Eric

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Dinefwr)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Francois, Mark

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Redwood, rh John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  1234

  Robathan, Andrew

  Teather, Sarah

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Thurso, John

  M-Kent)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Ruffley, David

  Walter, Robert

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Salmond, Alex

  Watkinson, Angela

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Weir, Michael

  Simmonds, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Spring, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  (Macclesfield)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Sir Robert Smith and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Richard Younger-Ross

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Corston, Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cranston, Ross

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Battle, John

  (Copeland)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Beard, Nigel

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  David, Wayne

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Denham, rh John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burnham, Andy

  Edwards, Huw

  Cairns, David

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Casale, Roger

  Farrelly, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Challen, Colin

  Flint, Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Chaytor, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Pentlands)

  & Rye)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Foulkes, rh George

  Chryston)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clelland, David

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gerrard, Neil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  1235

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Shettleston)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hanson, David

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Michael, rh Alun

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Miller, Andrew

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Rhymney)

  Mole, Chris

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morgan, Julie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hesford, Stephen

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Heyes, David

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Olner, Bill

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Owen, Albert

  Sefton E)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Perham, Linda

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Picking, Anne

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Pickthall, Colin

  Urmston)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hutton, rh John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Hatfield)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Anniesland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  NW)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Bow)

  Chester)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Sawford, Phil

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lammy, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Sheridan, Jim

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lepper, David

  Short, rh Clare

  Leslie, Christopher

  Skinner, Dennis

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Linton, Martin

  Finsbury)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Lunesdale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Soley, Clive

  MacDonald, Calum

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McDonnell, John

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  MacDougall, John

  Lochaber)

  McFall, rh John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  McKechin, Ann

  Straw, rh Jack

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Stringer, Graham

  McNulty, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  McWalter, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  1236

  Timms, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Winnick, David

  Kemptown)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Yarmouth)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waston, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Gillian Merron and

  Watts, David

  Paul Clark

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

  The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 175.

  Division No. 245]

  [7:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Atkins, Charlotte

  (Copeland)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Baird, Vera

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Battle, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  David, Wayne

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Berry, Roger

  Dawson, Hilton

  Best, Harold

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, rh John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Efford, Clive

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Browne, Desmond

  Etherington, Bill

  Burnham, Andy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  & Rye)

  Chaytor, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Chryston)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Coaker, Vernon

  Goggins, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Corston, Jean

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hanson, David

  1237

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Michael, rh Alun

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Miller, Andrew

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Rhymney)

  Mole, Chris

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morgan, Julie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hesford, Stephen

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Heyes, David

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Olner, Bill

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Owen, Albert

  Sefton E)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Perham, Linda

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Picking, Anne

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Pickthall, Colin

  Urmston)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hutton, rh John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Hatfield)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  NW)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Chester)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Bow)

  Sawford, Phil

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Sheridan, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Short, rh Clare

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lepper, David

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Finsbury)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Linton, Martin

  Lunesdale)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Soley, Clive

  McCafferty, Chris

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  MacDonald, Calum

  Lochaber)

  McDonnell, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  MacDougall, John

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  McFall, rh John

  Straw, rh Jack

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stringer, Graham

  McKechin, Ann

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Timms, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  McWilliam, John

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Trickett, Jon

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Truswell, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Shettleston)

  Kemptown)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  1238

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Ward, Claire

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Paul Clark and

  Wills, Michael

  Gillian Merron

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Allan, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Amess, David

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Baker, Norman

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Baldry, Tony

  Gidley, Sandra

  Barker, Gregory

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Goodman, Paul

  Barrett, John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Grayling, Chris

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Greenway, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, rh John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Hancock, Mike

  Surrey)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Heath, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hendry, Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hermon, Lady

  Burnett, John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burnside, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cameron, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Fife)

  Keetch, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Cash, William

  Inverness)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Barnet)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chidgey, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lamb, Norman

  Collins, Tim

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Curry, rh David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Stamford)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Howden)

  Loughton, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Dodds, Nigel

  Maclean, rh David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Doughty, Sue

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Mates, Michael

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Fabricant, Michael

  Coldfield)

  Flook, Adrian

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  1239

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stunell, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Page, Richard

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Paice, James

  Syms, Robert

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Teather, Sarah

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Randall, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Redwood, rh John

  Tredinnick, David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Rendel, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Walter, Robert

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Waterson, Nigel

  M-Kent)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Weir, Michael

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Whittingdale, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Ruffley, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilkinson, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Willetts, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  (Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wishart, Pete

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Streeter, Gary

  Sir Robert Smith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Pensions Green Paper as the first ever statement of government policy to explicitly consider the needs of women; further welcomes the commitment by the Government to report next year on the pensions position of women; supports steps to improve the incomes of women pensioners and enable more women than ever to build up pensions; welcomes in particular the introduction of Pension Credit, benefiting over two million women, and the state second pension, helping millions of the lowest paid women and women with caring responsibilities to build up a second pension; believes that both main Opposition parties' policies are unaffordable, unworkable and do nothing for the very poorest; notes that the Liberal Democrat policies will be financed by scrapping DTI programmes, which boost the wealth of the nation through investment in research and innovation; supports the conclusion of the Pensions Policy Institute that 'the average woman will lose' under proposed Conservative policy; notes that 99 per cent. of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; and, as there are 10,000 wards in use across the NHS, congratulates the Government on this achievement; applauds the extension of breast screening to women aged 65 to 70, resulting in an additional 200,000 women being invited since April 2001; commends the Government's historic commitment to tackling pensioner poverty, which is continuing to do most for the poorest women pensioners; and welcomes the £10 billion extra that the Government is spending on pensioners this year compared with the 1997 system.

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

  FAMILY LAW
  That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  That the draft Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 7th September, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  EDUCATION
  That the draft Student Fees (Approved Plans) (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 7th September, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

  DRIVING LICENCES
  That this House takes note of European Union document No. 15820/03, draft Directive on driving licences (Recasting); and endorses the Government's objective to combat driving licence fraud and improve road safety without imposing undue burdens on industry, private individuals or law enforcers.—[Mr. Watson.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Crossrail Depot
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: My constituents are gravely concerned at the prospect that Crossrail is to construct a large railway depot in the heart of Romford. It will particularly affect the

  1241
  Crowlands and Rush Green areas of Romford, running from St. Edward's school to the Waterloo estates and from Oldchurch hospital to the Dagenham border.
  My constituents are fearful that the effects could be devastating for the whole community and for the lives of local people, not to mention the effects on the local environment. The roads that will be particularly affected are Beechfield gardens, Crow lane and the surrounding roads, Ainsley avenue, Sheringham avenue, Jutsums lane, Bridport avenue, Southern way and Stockland road.
  I should like to make several key points. The Crossrail depot will cause massive disruption to the whole community. The consultation has taken place—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a speech. He should present the petition. There are words set out for the hon. Gentleman. If he reiterates those words, everyone will be happy, including the Speaker.
  Mr. Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The petition reads:
  The people of the Romford Parliamentary Constituency declare that they are wholly opposed to the construction of a Crossrail Depot within Romford.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all it can to ensure that the depot is not built as it will cause considerable inconvenience and disruption to the people of Romford.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  The petition is signed by no less than 2,199 people and has been collected by the Crossrail action group.
  To lie upon the Table.

  King's Own Scottish Borderers
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: The future of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots is a cause of real concern to people in the borders. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I have met the Secretary of State for Defence on two occasions to argue for the continuation of these regiments. The strength of feeling in our constituencies is illustrated by the enthusiasm with which people have signed the petition, which reads:
  The petition of the constituents of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, the constituents of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and other concerned individuals
  Declares that the doubts about the future of the King's Own Scottish Borderers regiment following the announcement on defence spending by the Secretary of State on Wednesday 21 July 2004 are causing growing concern in south-east Scotland. The Petitioners highlight the proud military traditions of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the regiment's successful contributions to historic and recent military conflicts and peace-keeping missions around the world and its strong ties with the communities of the Scottish Borders in particular.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's government to reconsider proposals which would reduce the number of Scottish battalions, to make provision for the retention of all of the Scottish regiments, and in particular to reject any plan to disband or amalgamate the King's Own Scottish Borderers.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Gurkhas
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]
  7.30 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of our treatment of Gurkhas, particularly so far as immigration law is concerned. The matter concerns many hon. Members: I have agreed to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) making a brief intervention at a later stage, and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) have campaigned for more equitable treatment for the Gurkhas for a long time.
  I shall put the debate in context. On 6 March 2003, I was fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment debate on this subject. During the course of that debate, I raised the treatment of Gurkhas in immigration law. I was particularly concerned that, although a Gurkha can serve 15 years with the British armed forces, which they normally do, and that that time is likely to include deployment on active service, those 15 years are not taken into account if they subsequently apply for leave to remain, leave to re-enter having returned to Nepal or naturalisation.
  I followed up my Adjournment debate with a letter to the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), on 10 April 2003. On 1 July 2003, the then Minister replied and, among other assurances, were these words:
  "Officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office are in the process of reviewing current policy on naturalisation and settlement of Ghurkhas. A further meeting is being arranged to explore the possibility of immigration or work permit concessions that may enable Ghurkhas to return to the UK after discharge."
  I felt hopeful when I received that letter, but I should have known better. Nothing happened.
  On 12 January 2004, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary asking what was happening. The then Minister replied on his behalf on 15 January and said that the review would report "shortly". Nothing further happened, so I rather boringly tabled exactly the same written question on 29 March, and the then Minister, doubtless with equal weariness, replied, yet again, that the review would report shortly.
  My patience is almost limitless. I did nothing at all until we returned from the summer recess, when I tabled the same question, without great hope that I would receive anything other than the same reply. On that occasion, a slight variation occurred: the Minister said that he would reply as soon as possible, and I look forward to his giving that answer tonight. That is the context in which I sought and obtained this Adjournment debate. I have patiently endured the long process of waiting for the Government to rectify the disgraceful treatment of people who have served us well.
  The Minister need not glare when I say that, because that treatment was not invented by him—indeed, it was not invented by any one Government. It has gone on for rather a long time, but that does not make it any less disgraceful.
  1244
  The Gurkha regiment has won 26 Victoria crosses, 13 of which were won by Gurkhas themselves. They have fought in nearly every conflict since world war two: in the Falklands, in the first Gulf war, in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, and most recently, in Iraq. Yet, as I said in my Adjournment debate of 6 March 2003, we show our gratitude with a P45 and a one-way ticket to Nepal. After 15 years' service, they cannot stay here.
  Let us suppose that such a Gurkha has a British child—that is, a child born in this country whom the law recognises as British. Even in those circumstances, the parent cannot remain in this country once his period of service is up. On proof that the parents have returned to Nepal and are settled there, one parent, but only one, can accompany the child to the UK; but when the child reaches the age of 12 that parent must go back. That means that a British citizen is either forcibly returned—by which I mean moral force, not deportation force—or is left alone in this country at the tender age of 12.
  That prompts the question: whatever sort of country are we? I would propose that any Gurkha who has completed 15 years' service in this country and who applies to either remain, re-enter or be naturalised should be treated on exactly the same basis as anybody else who had been in this country for 15 years would be treated. I do not ask for them to be treated with special favour, but merely to have equality with others who have been in this country for 15 years.
  In case there is any suggestion that this would flood the immigration system beyond its capacity to cope, only some 200 to 250 Gurkhas a year complete 15 years' service. These men are well trained, well disciplined and dutiful, and they would make ideal British citizens.
  Let us make the obvious comparison. If somebody comes into this country unlawfully—in the back of a lorry, for example—or enters lawfully then decides to overstay, history shows that after a due period of time that person will benefit from an amnesty. Even if they do not so benefit, if they apply to regularise their position they will ask for the time that they have spent in this country to be taken into account and, as I well know, it is. Yet despite the 15 years' service of Gurkhas, it is as if they do not exist. Not one of them is taken into account. Any member of the NATO armed services can enter this country after discharge and apply for leave to stay here. They could be Frenchmen or Turkish infantrymen: they could be anybody. They are allowed to stay, whereas Gurkhas who have served the British Army directly, and may well have shed blood in that cause, are not.
  In the previous debate, I raised other issues that I accept are not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I would nevertheless be very glad if he discussed them with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence. One of those issues is the absolute cruelty of refusing Gurkhas the right to have their families with them for more than three years out of the 15. It is true that those of the rank of colour sergeant or above can have a greater level of family accompaniment, but that is only 10 per cent. of them. Rank-and-file Gurkhas—the other 90 per cent.—can have their families with them for only three out of the 15 years.
  Even if one tots up all the long leave that they are allowed in Nepal, they will still spend 10 years out of their 15 without their families. Any British soldier who is posted—not on active service—abroad can take his

  1245
  family with him. Why do we assume that Gurkhas are not normal human beings who want their kids and wives with them? What is so different about them that we limit them ferociously to three years? I use the word ferocious because we often have surplus married accommodation but it is not put at the disposal of Gurkhas. The rule is most rigidly enforced.
  When I previously raised the issue in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley), who is a member of the Britain-Nepal group, made a timely intervention to point out that given the amount of time that has passed since the archaic agreements that resulted in such injustices, a fresh look is necessary. As I said, I was delighted when I was told that a fresh look was in process, but nothing has come of it.
  I raised the matter in the first place because I have in my constituency a Gurkha unit that is attached to the 36th Engineers, who were in the recent deployment to Iraq. I know how highly esteemed they are. Whenever we have a ceremonial parade in Maidstone, the Gurkha unit always attracts the warmest applause from my constituents. They are highly esteemed, yet poorly treated.
  I am assisted somewhat nowadays because a national newspaper has, at long last, taken up the cause. I understand that the Daily Express has received 36,000 positive responses to its campaign to ensure better treatment for Gurkhas. I greatly look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he will take my comments in the spirit that they are intended, which is not party political, but an appeal for the most basic common humanity that a Government should show. I am rather appalled not only at the 18-month delay that I endured but at the fact that we are still discussing the matter in the 21st century and somehow believing that there is still cause to argue about it. There should be no cause; we should right the injustice immediately.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams: I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for giving me an opportunity to say a few words, and I congratulate her on her assiduous work on behalf of Gurkhas and Gurkha families who have served this country so well over the years.
  I initially became interested in the Gurkha soldiers and regiments because a demonstration company that assists with training platoon commanders and senior non-commissioned officers is stationed at Derring Lines in my constituency. The finest NCOs in this country owe many of their skills to the assistance and work of that Gurkha company.
  Earlier this year, I visited Brunei with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles, which had just returned from Afghanistan, is currently stationed there. Other regiments are building on the work that they initiated in Afghanistan and the trust that they formed with the Afghan people. Britain and those other regiments have benefited from their work.
  1246
  The Gurkhas are highly esteemed for their qualities as soldiers, and their loyalty to the nation and the Crown is undisputed. However, they have problems with their terms and conditions of service. Accompanied married service, to which the right hon. Lady referred, is a genuine problem for them. In the three years that they are allowed to have their wives and families with them, especially when they are based at Brecon, they are well integrated into the community. The wives find jobs, the children go to school, and they play a huge part in the community's understanding of the diversity of culture in the rest of the world.
  I have also become aware that when Gurkha soldiers finish their service after 15 years, as they have to do unless they become NCOs or officers, they have little alternative but to return to their country of origin, where their pension may be of some use to them, although it is very small compared with the pension that a British soldier gets. Some of those Gurkhas wish to stay in this country a little longer to build up some financial security for the time that they will spend in Nepal. They find it difficult because they are not given the same opportunities as other people from their country who have not served in the British Army, and I am pleased that the right hon. Lady has brought this matter to the attention of the House.
  There has been concern in the Royal Gurkha Regiment that a number of its soldiers were leaving the service early to join commercial organisations providing security in Iraq and Afghanistan. They leave the British Army to do that so that they can build up the financial means to retire to Nepal. It is a great shame that they should have to leave the Army before they have to, in order to achieve that. If they were given the certainty that they could remain in Britain for a certain length of time, they would not need to take up such employment.
  I do not believe that many Gurkhas would wish to remain in this country for ever, because they have a great affinity for their home country and want to return there to play a part in the reconstruction and improvement of the area. They are simply looking for an opportunity to stay here for a short while to build up some financial security before they go back to Nepal.
  I support the work that the right hon. Lady is doing. It is important for the Gurkhas that they should have the confidence to serve this country, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
  7.47 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on being doubly fortunate in having secured two Adjournment debates on this important subject over the past 18 months, and I welcome this debate. May I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for his contribution? I should like to remind him that he is but one of a number of Members on both sides of the House who have spoken out in support of the general thrust of the right hon. Lady's argument. He is fortunate to have been granted this opportunity to contribute to another Member's debate, and he represents a significant number of Members who have contacted either my Department or the Ministry of

  1247
  Defence on this issue. The support in the House for this issue reflects the level of support that the Daily Express has generated among its readership.
  I am well aware of the high regard in which the Gurkhas are held in this country, and of the valued contribution that they make during their service with the British armed forces. As I was preparing for this debate, I read the right hon. Lady's previous Adjournment debate on the subject. She has repeated tonight some of the observations that she made about the distinguished history of the Gurkhas, and I am sure that the legend of honour of the Gurkhas could occupy the House for some time, if we were to debate their heroism and service to British society and its armed forces.
  I am also acutely aware of the concern sometimes expressed about the terms and conditions of the Gurkhas' service, and I shall deal with the specific points that the right hon. Lady raised if there is time for me to do so. She reminded the House that a review is being carried out, and I am sure that she would not expect me to pre-empt that work by making an announcement tonight. However, this debate gives me the opportunity to put the issue in context and to respond to her questions.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Browne: If the right hon. Lady wishes to raise the issue of the time that the review has been going on for, I will deal with that specifically, and appropriately, in response to the debate. I will do it now if she wants me to do so.
  Miss Widdecombe: When the Minister comes to respond on the time that has already elapsed, what I and, I am sure, other Members would be far more interested to hear, is how much time has yet to elapse before we get those results?
  Mr. Browne: To the extent that any Minister is ever able to do that—the right hon. Lady knows that it is limited—I will endeavour to give an answer to that question.
  At the outset—although I am now some way into my speech—I want to say that I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for saying that this should not be reduced to a party political issue. The issue is far too important for that. I did not want to be brought by contributions to this debate to have to remind the House of the history of this matter—of course, Governments of a different hue from the current Government had opportunities to deal with this issue. Circumstances change, and as the right hon. Lady reminds us, we are in the 21st century, and it is time to look forward and not back. Some of those who comment on these issues outside the House ought to be reminded—and I would be grateful if she would repeat some of her comments outside—that this is not a party political issue, and that the situation persisted long before this Government came to power. While it needs to be resolved—I accept that, in the 21st century—that is not because of the actions of this Government.
  1248
  The Government recognise the enormous contribution that the Gurkhas have made, serving across the world for the UK's armed forces. I want to take this opportunity simply to thank them for their bravery and their loyalty. Ministers are sympathetic to concerns about their current situation, which, as the right hon. Lady reminded us, has applied for the past 50 years. I reassure the House that Ministers, including me, have focused on a solution that works for the next 50 years, because the relationship between the Nepalese and British people has been of mutual benefit, and we ought to find solutions to these persistent problems.
  On the time that the review has taken, it has been conducted in line with the undertaking given by the former Defence Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), in the right hon. Lady's debate on 6 March 2003. Officials of the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office have been conducting a joint review on current policy on naturalisation and settlement of Gurkhas, and in particular, they are looking at how current immigration policy impacts on Gurkhas on discharge. That review is nearing completion—[Interruption.] I know that that is a different form of words from that which the right hon. Lady—
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Browne: No. I want to deal, as the right hon. Lady requested, with the issue of why it has taken so long.
  This is not by any stretch of the imagination as simple as identifying an apparent injustice and seeking to resolve it. As one would have expected, the review has identified complex legal issues, on which complex legal advice is being sought. We need to be sure that we understand what impact change might have in relation, for example, to ensuring that any future policy is not discriminatory, and that the Gurkhas obtain the best advantage from it.
  Because we share a common objective that the relationship of the Nepalese people with the Brigade of Gurkhas and the British Army continues, we need to consider the impact on recruitment and retention of Gurkhas, which is not straightforward by any stretch of the imagination, as I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates and understands. We need to consider changes to current pension arrangements to ensure that they do not disadvantage Gurkhas. We need to consider the impact on the Nepalese economy. We need to consider ensuring continued cohesion of Gurkha units serving in the British Army. We also need to consider how current immigration policy impacts on Gurkhas, the scope for change, and immigration or work permit concessions. Fundamentally, care needs to be taken to ensure that the practices underpinning the tripartite agreement, which dates back to 1947, are not undermined.
  The review has been wide-ranging. It has included discussions of settlement, work permits, naturalisation, and welfare issues, including those affecting

  1249
  dependants, and the issues are complex. I hope, however, that we will shortly be able to resolve those issues as the review draws to a conclusion.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister please interpret for me the difference in Ministerspeak between "shortly" and "nearing completion"?
  Mr. Browne: I did not intend to convey any different messages. I intended to give the right hon. Lady the impression that we were moving to the point of completion. Because we are dealing with issues of advice and consideration of advice, and because a number of people are involved—I cannot make the decision alone, but must engage in consultation—I cannot bind any individuals to a timetable that is unreasonable. I am sure that she and the House will understand that. I cannot bind other people's thought processes.
  In my introductory remarks—which have now taken up the bulk of my speech—I have tried to explain the complexity of the decisions involved. I do not know whether, when she was a Home Office Minister, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to go into that complexity, but if she did not I must say, with respect, that she is at a disadvantage. Having done so myself, I do not think it unreasonable to have taken much of last year to set up the review, take the necessary advice and reach the point that we have reached. We should bear in mind the history, and the fact that the solution will need to serve us for at least another 50 years.
  It seems to me distinctly unreasonable—in the context of the time scale of not just the service of the Gurkhas to the British Army but the persistence of the present agreement and arrangements—to keep saying that it is all taking far too long. It is not taking far too long, given what has to be done. I am sure that when announcements are made and their consequences are appreciated, Members throughout the House, along with those outside who are aware of the issues, will agree that it has not taken too long.
  Let me try to deal quickly with some of the specific issues that the right hon. Lady asked me about. She repeated some of the arguments that she advanced in
  1250
  her earlier Adjournment debate. In particular, she asked me to intercede with the Ministry of Defence with regard to the issue of accompanying families. Partly as a result of what she said in that earlier debate, that issue too is being reviewed by the MOD. I am not in a position to tie the MOD and its Ministers to any time scale, but I understand that Ministers expect to make announcements later this year. I am sure that if the issues can be resolved in that time, she will be content.
  The right hon. Lady asserted that NATO troops are allowed to settle in the United Kingdom. I am not sure exactly which NATO troops she was thinking of. It is not my understanding that troops who served with NATO are entitled by the immigration laws to acquire settlement status in the UK. It is, however, true that Commonwealth troops serving in the British Army can settle. That is my understanding of the law, but I shall have it checked, and if I have inadvertently given the House incorrect information I shall write to the right hon. Lady.
  The right hon. Lady drew attention to something of which I was not aware, and as a result I shall ensure that it is looked into. I refer to her assertion that children can be left here when their parents are required to return to Nepal. I agree that that is not an appropriate way in which to treat children, and I should have thought that it was inconsistent with our domestic legislation, which constrains us to act in the best interests of individual children. My simple approach is that most children are better off with their parents, if their parents are loving and caring. I am not aware of the arrangement to which she referred, but I will look into it and write to her.
  I see that I am running out of time. Let me finally reassure the House that the current review is being conducted in the best interests of the Gurkhas. In the meantime, outstanding applications have been held in limbo, as it were—held aside—to ensure that—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

People with Down's Syndrome (Education)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.]
9.30 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: Recently, the Down's Syndrome Association published a report entitled "Access to Education: a Report on the Barriers to Education for Children with Down's Syndrome". I want to draw it to the attention of the House and the Minister. We launched the report in Parliament on 26 May this year, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), kindly attended that launch. I am pleased to see in the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, who also has responsibility for young people. I look forward to her response to what I say.
During this year's Down's syndrome awareness week, the education support pack for special schools was launched. It was produced, with the support of the Department for Education and Skills, in the wake of the DSA's education support pack for mainstream schools, which in 2003 won the "Books for Learning and Teaching" award, given by the National Association for Special Education Needs and The Times Educational Supplement, at the NASEN annual conference.
Two babies are born with Down's syndrome every day in the United Kingdom; that is roughly one in every 1,000 births. Today, there are 60,000 people in the UK with the condition, which is caused by an extra chromosome in a baby's cells. People with the syndrome have varying degrees of learning difficulty. I know some Down's syndrome people who have quite exceptional skills, for example in drama and music. At the other end of the spectrum, there are Down's syndrome children who will never cope with mainstream education, and who need a special school.
The DSA is the main UK charity carrying out initiatives to improve the life of people with Down's syndrome. It was originally set up as a parent-led organisation in 1970 to provide advice to its members, but it now also campaigns on behalf of people with Down's syndrome. I am pleased to say that it has moved from its previous headquarters at 155, Mitcham road to Dr. Langdon Down's house, where he carried out all his research. That is now known as the Langdon Down centre, and is in Langdon park, near Teddington. I look forward to visiting that fine, listed building in the not-too-distant future.
Over the past 50 years there has been a dramatic improvement in the life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome, and today that is beyond the age of 60, which is good news. However, that has brought its own problems. The DSA is challenging health and care professionals to stop discriminating against the
372WH
40 per cent. of people with Down's syndrome who develop Alzheimer's disease later in life. That is a debate for another day; suffice it to say that dementia presents itself much earlier in people with Down's syndrome. The DSA has a network of regional development officers, who are available to provide bespoke training on Down's syndrome and related matters such as dementia to groups of health and care professionals and others.
In 1999, the DSA produced a report entitled "He'll Never Join the Army" on access to the NHS for people with Down's syndrome. That report, too, was highlighted in the House, and I tabled early-day motions and parliamentary questions and arranged Adjournment debates and even a meeting with a Health Minister on the subject. Those with Down's syndrome were experiencing considerable discrimination in the NHS at the time. I am pleased to say that the culture in the NHS is slowly changing, and that is helped by awareness training in medical schools on people with Down's syndrome. However, the "Health Alert" campaign continues. At the moment, its focus is on the ageing of Down's syndrome people and, of course, dementia.
I seem to have become one of the unofficial spokespersons in this place for people with Down's syndrome—a role that has given me a lot of satisfaction. I have worked closely with the DSA since 1997. When I was elected to Parliament in that year, I was persuaded to campaign on behalf of people with Down's syndrome by one of my local Labour party members, Flo McBrien, who lives in Farnworth in my constituency—her daughter, Shelley, now in her 20s, was being discriminated against by the NHS—and by others, including Joanne Harris of Shrewsbury, whose parents and friends were raising money to send Jo to the USA for a heart-lung transplant operation. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that Joanne Harris was the young woman who received the first cheque when the winner of the first "Big Brother" programme came out of the house. She got a lot of publicity a few years ago at that time.
Down's syndrome is the most common form of single learning disability in this country. There are approximately 16,000 school-aged children who have the syndrome in the UK. It is important that they receive the appropriate level of support and training to ensure that they are able to have the highest possible quality of life.
A welcome move away from institutional care to semi-independent living for many Down's syndrome adults has highlighted the need for better training and education. In March, the DSA undertook a survey of 5,500 of its parent members with children aged between two and 19. It asked about their experiences of the British education system, and 1,500 of those invited to respond returned their survey forms. The survey covered both mainstream and special schools and collected evidence from all 120 postcode areas in the UK, thereby giving the fullest representation. I will deal with each of the major concerns in turn.
It is essential that Down's syndrome children's needs are assessed as early as possible. The vast majority of children with the syndrome are receiving a statement of their special educational needs from the local education authority, although one in three parents found that to be a very tedious process. Many of the statements were

373WH
considered unacceptable at first drafting and needed amending. Seven per cent. of parents encountered difficulties in getting their preferred school named in the child's statement. One family reported that
"The named school refused to accept our child unless full-time adult support was included in the statement. We appealed to a tribunal to get this but the LEA gave in a week before the tribunal hearing."
Obviously, that led to a lot of stress for the parents.
Another parent responded:
"The statement is tailored to resources".
Yet another stated:
"The statement was in place at the start of school but most of the items detailed did not happen until a term and a half, after a lot of discussion"
with the professionals.
Parents' comments received by the DSA showed that the statementing process can be unnecessarily protracted, causing avoidable stress and creating additional problems with provision at school. Although improvements have been made in that process, more needs to be done to make it simpler and easier for parents to follow. The DSA believes that efforts should be made by all LEAs to get the statements right at the first draft.
An important part of education for children with special educational needs is the amount of contact time with adult support workers—for example, in the classroom. Sixty-one per cent. of parents who took part in the DSA survey said that their child received 21 to 35 hours of support a week, although only 43 per cent. had that specified in the statement. Although 69 per cent. rated the work of the adult support workers as either excellent or very good, many were concerned about the level of training that the support workers had undertaken. One parent commented:
"I feel that the job of learning support assistant is a specialised position and yet the person is paid the minimum wage and expected to be dedicated and trained … it is very difficult to get dedicated staff under these circumstances."
Another parent reported:
"The Headteacher does not allow us as parents to have the names or access to any of our son's support staff".
Yet another one said:
"The one to one helper is very good, but … if she is ill then he cannot attend nursery because there is no cover".
The DSA is concerned that statements do not always give a clear enough indication of a child's level of need for adult support. In the short term, the DSA recommends that specialist training and information should be offered to teachers and support staff throughout the UK. In the longer term, the DSA believes that a nationally recognised qualification, with a dedicated unit on the specific learning profile of children with Down's syndrome, would resolve many of the issues surrounding learning support assistants.
Speech and language therapy can play a vital role in the development of children with Down's syndrome, although unfortunately that form of therapy is not as widely available as some would like. The service tends to fall in the gap between health and education provision. Most parents participating in the survey reported that a
374WH
specified amount of speech and language therapy had not been included in their child's statement. Sixty-six per cent. of parents felt that the state provision of therapy did not meet their child's needs, and 35 per cent. felt that the quality of therapy delivered was poor.
The comments of many parents reflect the fact that they have to battle to get the therapy for their children, with long waits and poor service being the main problems. One parent commented:
"I am still fighting for my daughter to receive speech and language therapy as she is desperate for it. She has received one 30-minute session in three years."
Another parent told the DSA that the speech therapist had advised that, in her opinion, it is not, and would not be, prudent to teach speech production to their child as what came out of their daughter's mouth was a reflection of what she had in her brain—namely, not a lot.
The DSA feels that the provision of speech and language therapy falls far short of the needs of children with Down's syndrome. There should be a steep improvement in the quality of service, with an obligation for LEAs to buy in provision from the private sector, if necessary. One of the problems is a shortage of therapists, which the Government need to address fairly urgently.
On Down's syndrome children's pre-school provision, most children—about 80 per cent.—appear to be receiving adult support, although a third of parents reported difficulties in obtaining it. Only 58 per cent. of parents had applied for a statement of their child's pre-school special educational needs; 25 per cent. had not applied; and 13.5 per cent. had been told that a statement was not necessary at that level of education. Only 42 per cent. of initial statements for that age group specified the amount of support and therapy required by the child. Many parents were unsure of whether statements are appropriate or even applicable for children of that age. Parents of children in that age group need to be correctly informed by the LEA or other agencies of what exactly their Down's syndrome child is entitled to.
The confusion does not seem to be limited just to parents. One submission stated:
"We were unable to have an LEA nursery place as our child had no statement. The LEA said no statement was needed, the head said otherwise"—
total confusion. Another parent reported:
"We are currently awaiting a proposed statement from the LEA for pre-school support. This whole process has taken eighteen months, despite our insistence on starting the process early in order to avoid delays".
To ensure that adequate support is available from the beginning of a Down's syndrome child's life, LEAs should make a commitment to begin the statementing process as soon as the child enters pre-school provision. Also, parents should be encouraged to request a statement during or prior to pre-school provision, and should not have to wait until their child receives such provision. Would it not be a good idea if all the agencies came together and prepared a booklet to guide the parents of a Down's syndrome child from the minute that the child is born in all matters—health, education or otherwise—that affect their child?
I turn to post-16 education and transition planning for those with Down's syndrome. It is important to remember that education for people with Down's

375WH
syndrome—as with any other adult—should not be forced to end when they reach the age of 16. They are as entitled as any other student to continue their education, and it is important that support at the further education level is also in place. That is one of the most difficult areas across the education spectrum. Parents responding to that section of the DSA survey were carers of young people with Down's syndrome in the 15 to 19 age group. Some 17 per cent. of parents of that age group were not offered a transition planning meeting, and, of those who had had such a meeting with their LEA, only 69 per cent. were offered a meeting in the presence of the young person being talked about.
Provision of information prior to the meetings was poor; few options were presented by the LEA for consideration. Some 31.5 per cent. of parents were given no opportunity to comment on the draft plan for their young adult, and 28 per cent. of parents did not even receive a copy of the transition plan at any stage—prior, during or after the meeting. Some parents reported very welcome news of support and inclusion, but others mentioned problems: a lack of contact with the Connexions service in their area and a lack of support and understanding at further education establishments in general. One parent reported:
"Sixteen years of inclusive mainstream experience was disregarded by an archaic college system which segregates my son with others with learning difficulties, literally in the farthest corner of the building, away from mainstream typical students."
Another parent said:
"No review was conducted at sixteen when he left school. No information about college or training was provided over the last four years. There has been no contact with the Connexions service; they are useless."
I should add that the Connexions service is still bedding down; I see that in my own town of Bolton. Perhaps the service will get better; I hope so. The DSA believes that the range of alternative accreditation schemes in further education is not well used, and that that denies many students with Down's syndrome the wherewithal to measure their achievements. Further education establishments are less likely to be inclusive and integrated than any of the other educational establishments that I have mentioned: that needs attention. Employment and work-placement schemes for young people with Down's syndrome are also under-represented; that also needs attention.
Mainstream schools receive an extra £4,000 to £8,000 for most children with statements, in addition to the £2,800 received by primary schools or the £3,400 received by secondary schools to educate each pupil. Overall, 80 per cent. of parents are satisfied with their children's placement, and 68 per cent. reported that they had not faced a significant struggle to get their child into the facility of their choice. Fortunately, those figures are quite high.
Disturbingly, one in three parents felt that they had encountered prejudice or discrimination, including from other parents or carers. More than half of parents had encountered a lack of specialist knowledge and skills among teaching professionals. Some 11.6 per cent. of parents would prefer a special unit that is integrated into a mainstream school. I therefore welcome steps taken by Bolton LEA three years ago to co-locate Rumworth school as a special unit with the 11 to 16 Ladybridge secondary school. That has allowed children with
376WH
Down's syndrome to receive the support that they require from dedicated adult helpers and to integrate with mainstream pupils wherever and whenever they can.
Bolton is developing a similar provision for all children of primary school age with special needs, including those with Down's syndrome. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting Greenfold special school in Farnworth. On the day of my visit, a large number of the children were spending time in a local primary school; that was a regular occurrence. The plan is to attach special units to primary schools, for the better integration of all Bolton children with special needs and other children of the same age.
Parents across the UK who have experience of special units that are integrated into secondary schools have welcomed the results. One parent responding to the DSA survey commented:
"My daughter attends a special unit within a mainstream school. She is very happy and well adjusted and is equally happy when mixing with her friends in the unit and also in the mainstream part of the school."
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give careful consideration to that way of integrating children with special needs, including those with Down's syndrome, into mainstream schools, while ensuring that they do not miss out on the adult support that is so vital for their development. The Bolton LEA reminded me that resources for special educational needs have doubled during the past decade and that some 90 per cent. of funds now go directly to the schools.
In summary, children with special educational needs such as those with Down's syndrome benefit significantly from good mainstream educational placements. Their gains in speech, language and literacy put them several years ahead of those in special schools. I am proud of the progress that this Government have made in meeting the needs of all people with learning difficulties, including those with Down's syndrome, but there is much more to do. I hope that we can all work together across the political divides to do it.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the important report of the Down's Syndrome Association, and I look forward to her response. Perhaps she would be willing to meet officers of the Down's Syndrome Association and me in the near future to discuss the contents of that excellent report in far more detail than is possible this morning.
Finally, I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to early-day motion 1278 on the report and its contents, which I tabled on 25 May. I am pleased that so far 119 parliamentary colleagues have signed it, and I urge all others who can do so to sign it before the end of the Session. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's response once other Members have made their contributions.
9.52 am
Bob Spink: This morning, we see this Chamber at its very best: caring, compassionate and trying to help people in society to fulfil their potential. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who is a friend of mine. He is right to bring this important debate to the House and to praise the

377WH
Down's Syndrome Association for its excellent report. I do not recall exactly but would guess that mine was one of the first signatures to his early-day motion.
I shall make a short speech and discuss the need for common sense. There is no political edge to what I have to say. I thank the Government for continuing to increase resources for care for special needs pupils. Generally, the Government are moving in the right direction, but I shall make some suggestions about balance in the inclusivity that they are pushing.
I praise our special schools. I have been the chairman and a governor of a special school. Such schools are a great joy. I often find that it is much nicer to go to them than to ordinary schools, and the best schools in my constituency are the special schools, which have special, very caring staff. The schools are sustained by wonderful groups of volunteers who help in many ways, whether that be through fundraising, organising social events or just helping children by listening to them, reading and so on.
Perhaps my most important point this morning is a cry on behalf of the moderate learning difficulties schools, which seem to be squeezed between the severe learning difficulties schools, which must be provided and do a wonderful job, and inclusivity in the mainstream. The MLD schools felt that they were being squeezed out somewhat. Heaped on to that, they were starting to be used as a place for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Such children were not really suited to a special school environment but could not easily be placed anywhere else, so it became a soft option to stick them in the MLD school. In some cases, that began to change the nature of those schools. Staff time began to be spent on dealing with emotional and behavioural difficulties rather than with the slightly different difficulties of straightforward special needs children, and the change caused disruption and distress to special needs children who suddenly saw different faces in their school. We must be careful not to put too many inappropriate EBD children into moderate learning difficulties schools.
Essex has several—four, five or six—moderate learning difficulties schools. The one in my constituency is Cedar Hall. It is a wonderful school; it does a fantastic job. I want it to go from strength to strength. I want it to be there to provide choice for parents, because some parents want their children to go into the mainstream and others think that their children are better off in such a special environment—I think in particular of Down's syndrome children. Parents often know best. They deserve a choice in education; that is my policy, as the Minister knows. For there to be a choice, there must be options. We need to ensure that we keep moderate learning difficulties schools. They must be available, and we must not disrupt them by putting emotional and behavioural difficulties children into them.
There is nothing wrong with inclusion; it is a great thing. Cedar Hall does what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East was talking about: it has outreach into a mainstream school where it has some special classes. Its children go into the mainstream school sometimes for a Friday morning, and at other times for the whole day. Those who benefit most from that are probably the mainstream children, who learn to
378WH
understand the range of physical and mental abilities among people. Therefore, there is a payback for both sides, and I very much welcome that.
The arrangement works extremely well in Castle Point. Cedar Hall goes into King John school, and The Deanes school—a boarding school—does sporting activities in the special school. It sends its physical education master to that special school to give its football team some rigour and discipline. That is fantastic; I want there to be much more of that.
I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on the statementing process. It is too long, it is too expensive, it starts too late, and it is a little hidebound by too much political correctness and too little common sense. I want it to be more flexible. I want it to be used as an instrument to benefit the child rather than to protect the professionals. I do not want the defensive approach that has crept into it in the past decade to continue; I want that to be relaxed.
I turn to the issue of speech therapy. When I go back to Keighley where I was born, they say, "Bobby, here, couldn't speak until he was 10—hasn't stopped since." I did not speak at all until I was six, and I went to speech therapy until I was 10 or 12. I left not because I had learned how to speak—as hon. Members know, I am not very good at that—but because it became too embarrassing for me to sit at the desk as a big boy with all the other little boys and to be given a sweet. They say that when they mended me they wished that they had put a switch in.
Speech therapy is very important. It is much more important to send kids from school with the ability to speak and communicate than it is with the ability to read and write. If somebody cannot read and write, they will get by and have a reasonable quality of life; they might get cheated or short-changed occasionally in shops, although they probably will not. However, if someone cannot talk—if they cannot make themselves understood because they cannot enunciate correctly—people will not understand them, and that becomes very embarrassing for both sides and people will turn away and avoid them. That truly affects quality of life and ability to perform in society. It is most important to put money into speech therapy, because sufferers will not be able to move forward until they can speak properly and make themselves understood. I want more effort put into speech therapy.
Speech therapy was withdrawn from Cedar Hall school for about three or four months from January 2003. I kicked up a stink and raised questions in the House, and now speech therapy has returned and there is better provision in that school. Cedar Hall had to divert some of its own money to pay for that, and it was right to do so because speech therapy is a great priority, but it should not have had to do so. So, like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, I ask the Minister to consider the issue of speech therapy carefully.
I want briefly to advertise Business Opportunities for the Physically Handicapped, which is in Canvey Island. I am going there at noon on Friday to meet Joan Lithcoe, who set up the establishment in 1993–94. Her family includes a special needs child. She set up BOPH to provide opportunities in business for people with special needs. It works extremely well and pulls together our community. Everybody loves a place on Canvey;

379WH
everybody knows that 17 or 20 children, young adults and older adults go there. We know what a great joy it is for them to do something useful and get a small wage.
However, there are funding issues. It would cost much more to take those people out of BOPH and put them in county council-run day centres—it would cost society a fortune—yet the council cannot help by providing a few pounds a week of pump-priming funding to help support the young adults and adults in that establishment. We need some common sense and balance in supporting, funding and making sure that places such as BOPH can continue to provide more work and social opportunities for people with Down's syndrome and others with special needs.
I will hang my next comments on the term "education for life" because otherwise you may call me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that, in a way, youth clubs provide education. For someone with Down's syndrome at least they provide education in social graces, contact with other people and speech, game-playing-building confidence by giving someone a place to go rather than sitting at home in front of the box.
An arbitrary rule has been brought in that hoiks people out of youth clubs at 25 years old. Someone with special needs, such as a Down's syndrome person who has gone to a youth club all their life and for whom it is part of their life and family and who does not understand the wider picture, is told, "Sorry, you've reached 25. You can't go any more." No questions are asked about whether it is appropriate for the person to go to the club. It would not be appropriate for some people at 20 years old, but for others it might be appropriate and right at the age of 35. There is no common sense, just an arbitrary line drawn at 25. They are told, "You will lose a part of your life." We cannot do that to vulnerable people in our society. The rule is a politically correct response, but the matter requires simple common sense. I ask the Minister to consider that policy. I have raised the issue in the House before, and I will raise it again because I think that it is nonsense.
I thank hon. Members for listening to my points. I hope that they did not find them too idiosyncratic. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
10.4 am
Jim Dobbin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on introducing a debate on such an important topic. He has an excellent record at supporting issues such as this. As I understand it, the education of children with Down's syndrome is covered by education law and is not distinguished from the education of children with special educational needs. The Minister can correct me if that is not true. That is a sound basis, because it means that all children's special educational needs are individual and that each child should be treated in a way that ensures the best provision to develop their talents.
I have a special interest in education for children with disabilities as my two youngest grandchildren—they are brothers aged eight and four—both have a rare neuromuscular disorder and exceptionally complex educational needs. I know from personal experience that the laudable aims that I have described are not put
380WH
into practice universally. Sadly, some children still come up against discrimination not from other children but from local education authorities, which for whatever reason are not providing equality of opportunity to equal access.
Having witnessed at first hand my daughter's struggle to obtain suitable education support for my grandsons and the difficulties that she has encountered in her dealings with the local educational authority, I certainly have sympathy and a soft spot for all parents of children with special educational needs, who must provide care and support. They face the added difficulties of finding out what the law says on such issues, finding the time to attend numerous hospital appointments, clinics and meetings, and finding the courage and confidence to speak out and demand the same rights that other children receive in education.
My daughter is a qualified educational psychologist, so she understands the statementing of children, the process, the appeals procedures and tribunals. At such tribunals, she has represented others in similar circumstances to herself. Officialdom always tells us what we cannot do, and very seldom explains how to achieve something. Looking round the Chamber, I see a few nods, because we have all received negative letters as a result of the bureaucratic system.
In my family's circumstances, the request was for a chair lift to ease the mobility of my grandson at school. The decision that was taken, after going through the whole process, including tribunal and appeals, was to move him to a school several miles away on the other side of the city, which put another hour and a half to two hours on his day's travelling. The cost of that was six times the amount that it would have cost to install a chair lift. The travelling involved and the support that he needs getting to and from school was extremely costly. Anyhow, the decision was taken and my daughter's family had to move house.
Parents have to advise schools and doctors. No one knows more about children than their parents, who find themselves in a serious situation. They have to advise all professionals on best practice and often have to engage the local education authority in a battle to obtain a full and supportive education that will give their children the opportunity that all parents want for their children: the right to an environment to develop their skills and talents to the full. Too many parents have to attend tribunals in order to obtain the education that their child needs.
Discrimination exists not only in schools but in many playgroups, nurseries, after-school clubs and holiday play schemes, which are restrictive and discriminatory in their admissions. Sometimes, the only holiday schemes that take children with special needs are those catering only for children with complex and exceptional requirements. That is perhaps because they are anxious about their responsibilities and their ability to meet those exceptional needs, and they may not have the skills and resources to meet the level of support that some individuals require.
Another problem is that education authorities, in order to meet their legal requirements, sometimes designate certain schools to provide for children with specific needs. In my experience, however, that deprives children of access to schools in their locality. Even when

381WH
schools are willing to accept the children, the local authority can override that and make provision in another area where it has designated provision. Often, that designation is based purely on cost. For example, schools that need little adjustment and therefore less expenditure are often chosen, with little regard to the locality of the children, who then have to travel a considerable distance to school. That means that such pupils have a longer school day and a longer school journey than others. That was our experience. Such designations also mean that parents are excluded from the local community, as they have little contact with local parents. I believe that all parents and children should be given the same opportunity to choose a school in their locality.
Local education authorities need to be open about what they are doing with their special educational needs budgets. Schools should be open about how their budgets are spent. More accountability to parents is important; parents should be aware of why money is spent in certain areas. Formulae for the allocation of such budgets should be explained to avoid total confusion. At present, LEA support provision seems to be in the hands of officers who do not necessarily meet the relevant parents or children. The system for providing resources often leads to delays in provision and too much bureaucracy. Many professionals, such as teachers and educational psychologists, see the child and the parents and gather information to design an accurate programme, based on the child's strengths, weaknesses and areas of need, and that is sent for a decision by officers. Unfortunately, the officers are driven in some cases by policy based on formula and cost, and the resulting statement fits the policy and not the child. All children with special educational needs deserve a fast, efficient statement, to give them the best possible education. We often receive representations from constituents asking us to speed up that process.
Another form of exclusion exists in the way that services are provided for special educational needs. Medical, social and educational needs are provided for separately, but a seamless approach would surely be more beneficial to all. Why should it be necessary to take time out of school to attend speech therapy? Why can physiotherapy not be provided in school? Why are occupational therapists not working in schools to provide advice on seating, desk arrangements, lifting children and trying out equipment? A multi-agency approach would be of immense benefit to all in the classroom. Teachers and learning support assistants would learn from others; they would feel empowered by their new knowledge and feel less threatened. Children would spend more time in school, and all pupils would be aware of the benefits of such interventions. The practical help readily available on site would mean that more time would be spent on educational tasks.
I realise that I have spent time discussing special educational needs in a general way, but I feel that the same principles underlie education for all. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East about the desperate need for parents of children with Down's syndrome and other disabilities to have as much information as possible, which should be given to them in a clearly understood format. That does not seem to
382WH
happen at present. That information should be upgraded as the children grow and their differing needs become apparent, and should be made available to schools and other agencies. It should also be explained to all teaching and non-teaching staff and to the children's classmates, to foster empathy and understanding. It is our experience that children learn faster than adults; they always make children with Down's syndrome and other needs feel more comfortable in their environment. The information should be explained in a positive way, emphasising the talents and strengths involved as well as the difficulties.
People often talk about the advantages that inclusion will give pupils with special educational needs, but there is another side to the coin. There are huge benefits for the teachers, parents and pupils of all schools in which the policy is inclusive. Discrimination is based on fear, and daily contact will help to promote the understanding of each individual's strengths and weaknesses.
In my constituency I have the pleasure of knowing a young man with Down's syndrome, who is now in his 30s. He did not go to school with my children, but attended the same youth club, the same church—in which he served as an altar boy—and a gymnastics class in the locality. He learned to ski, and represented the United Kingdom at the Paralympics. He brought back a medal and was rightly proud of his achievement, which was recognised by the local authority. Like many other children in his situation, he received very little provision for further education, which should be extended so that access to education can be lifelong. At present, some areas of provision seem better than others. My friend has a great love of life. He is a karaoke enthusiast, and a very good salsa dancer. His mother, who has worked hard to help him develop his talents, has supported him in all his achievements.
Most parents of children with special needs would like to feel that they have given their children the best opportunity they could to achieve independence. Access to further education and job training is a vital component, but that is not always available. I was glad to hear the Minister for Disabled People stating that the Government want every disabled person to have the chance to play his or her full part in society, and I was glad to hear her commitment to providing support and opportunity for those who want to work. I hope that further education and training for jobs is encouraged, and that employers are made aware of their responsibilities in including those with special needs in their employment recruitment processes.
My friend who has Down's syndrome has made considerable achievements in his life. He deserves the support of society and a change of attitude that recognises his contribution to the local environment and that includes education and other services. He should be treated by service providers with the dignity that he deserves.
10.16 am
Dr. John Pugh: May I begin with a grovelling apology for having arrived a minute or two late for the debate? I will have to get a better watch.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on initiating the debate, and on all his hard work in Parliament on behalf of Down's syndrome

383WH
children. I congratulate all Members present on what they have taught me, as I do not claim to be an expert on the subject. Congratulations are also in order to the host of professionals, teachers and parents who, over decades, have significantly improved the education available to Down's syndrome children. Considerable progress has been made, and a lot of innovation and genuine skill has been shown in developing educational resources relevant to Down's syndrome children. I have seen some excellent IT resources recently that emulate what is available under mainstream provision.
Talking of innovation and skill, I should like to mention a project initiated in a special school in my constituency, Merefield school in Southport. A film was made that featured a number of Down's syndrome children. I will happily make that film available to any hon. Member present who wishes to see it. The film was premiered, and the children, who are not normally made a great deal of fuss of, arrived in limousines as the stars of the film, walked on a red carpet and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. It was not only emotionally good for them but a great learning experience. What impressed me when watching the film and looking at the reaction to it was how much it reinforced the bonds of emotional solidarity and support among those children. It was heartening to see, and not something that one would automatically see in a mainstream school.
Much is now agreed about Down's syndrome education. One crucial aspect agreed on is that learning and progress is a family matter. The relationship between parents and schools is even more critical than it is in a mainstream situation. The support given by parents of Down's syndrome children to their local special school, or to special school provision in general, is exemplary. A second idea that is clearly admitted is that a successful outcome of Down's syndrome education requires an early start, and a very early start if possible, because Down's syndrome children often have hearing problems that are not readily picked up.
Down's syndrome children need intensive early training in order to cope with reading, and need particular training to cope with linguistic structures and the kind of ordinary language expression that other children take for granted. That is crucial if they are to develop an expressive use of language—something that everyone needs if they are to convey and deal with their emotions and relate to the people around them. That is well understood, and I pay tribute again to the various organisations in and beyond the Department for Education and Skills, including voluntary bodies such as the Down's Syndrome Association, that have done an awful lot of work in getting that understood.
A body of research appears to show that the inclusion of Down's syndrome children not only works but is wanted by the great majority of their parents. The improvement of Down's syndrome children in mainstream schools with regard to language, behaviour, reading skills and general academic skills has been well monitored. Equally well monitored is the fact that the existence of Down's syndrome children in a mainstream school is normally good for that school. It is good for mainstream pupils, and Down's syndrome children are often popular in the mainstream school. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East argued that they are not always very well catered for, but they are a net benefit to most schools that manage to absorb them
384WH
successfully. Inclusion has got to be a good thing, because the long-term outlook for Down's syndrome children is that they must establish a degree of personal independence. They must develop as individuals in their own right rather than he solely in a dependency relationship throughout their life.
However, the one area where the research is a bit greyer concerns the emotional needs of the Down's syndrome child. The Portsmouth research that looked into inclusion versus special school provision established that many of the conversations that began in mainstream education were, unusually for children, possibly initiated by an adult, and that a lot of the peer-group conversation was not personal-related but work-related. Like all children, Down's syndrome children need and wish to talk about their personal life as well as what they are doing at one specific time. I accept—and I think that my party and people in general accept—that there is a genuine case for special schools for the more severe cases. A sensible pragmatic approach must be the right one, and one would hope to see that reflected in whatever statements are made.
There is a case for choice, but choice is inevitably accompanied by the fact that as more people opt for inclusion there will be less demand for special schools. Because the provision of special schools is very expensive and such resources are not easily found, all of us have from time to time been confronted in our constituencies by the spectre, or the occurrence, of the closure of a well loved resource. That means in addition a long journey for many children who previously might have been educated in a more local establishment. That is an agonising problem that cannot easily be solved. The Government have to face up to it on a fairly regular basis, as do local authorities.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East mapped out not that dilemma but the problem that inclusion might not be properly, thoroughly or effectively delivered. Inclusion half delivered falls between two stools. I do not disagree with his analysis. He highlighted a number of specific problems to which I hope the Government and the Minister will respond. One is a problem related to statement delay, and another is the shortage of appropriately trained staff, which must be known to everybody present. Other hon. Members have specifically mentioned speech therapists. I cannot remember a decade of the past three when people have not been complaining about a genuine shortage of speech therapists across the educational spectrum.
A new and appreciable problem is coming up on the rails. In some sense it follows from the success of educational provision in the early years. It is the problem of continuing that education and of how the education system for Down's syndrome children connects with Connexions. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it does not connect very well at the moment.
Finally, there is the fact that facilities are not yet up to scratch in mainstream school provision. There is a definite demand in the mainstream for training for dealing with Down's syndrome children. Mainstream schools would like to know better how to do their job. They are not relaxed or indifferent about how their job is done; they recognise that when they take in a Down's syndrome

385WH
children they are taking on a serious responsibility and they wish to be properly trained so that they can discharge it.
There is much to be done, and as ever there is a shortage of funding. There is also something of a learning curve, as always when educational progress is made. However, I want to finish on an optimistic note. It is an exciting prospect that mainstream school provision and society as a whole is coming to terms not only with the needs of Down's syndrome children but, as anyone who has anything to do with those children will recognise, with the contribution that they can make to the life of society and the school community.
10.25 am
Angela Watkinson: I add my congratulations to those paid to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this debate—it is a very important subject. His reputation as a champion for the Down's Syndrome Association and for children with Down's syndrome is well deserved.
As expected, this morning's debate has been a consensual one. Members of all parties wish the best possible educational opportunities for children with Down's syndrome. I worked in a special school for many years, and one of the first things that I learned was that it is impossible to generalise about children with special needs—they are all individuals. Children with Down's syndrome demonstrate that well, because they span the spectrum of ability.
Improvements in health care over recent years have increased the life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome. Given that many of them are born towards the end of their mother's child-bearing years, their long-term future after elderly parents predecease them is becoming an increasing problem. It follows that acquiring as much independence as possible prepares them best for adult life and that education is the key to that independence.
The first educational hurdle facing parents is obtaining that essential statement of educational needs as early as possible. There is evidence that some parents, particularly those who are less determined or articulate, experience difficulties in obtaining a statement. We have all had letters from constituents about that. It is as well to realise that people usually contact their Member of Parliament only as a last resort: when they have tried everything else—all the normal channels—and they have not succeeded. Therefore, when they come to us they are fairly desperate.
Local education authorities have to bear the cost of the statementing process, which is considerable. They often have insufficient staff to cope with the level of demand and the consequential delays often result in tribunals, which cause additional stress to the parents, and, more seriously, a delay in the pupil accessing proper education.
Most, if not all, statements will include a need for speech therapy. As we have heard this morning, good communication is an essential life skill and is particularly important to somebody with Down's syndrome. As all hon. Members present will be aware, there has been a chronic shortage of speech and
386WH
language therapists for decades. Even when primary care trusts are able to fund additional therapists, they find it almost impossible to recruit them. The Government face a real challenge to find out why that underprovision has proved so intractable.
I was told that 180 speech and language therapy students graduated last year. The mystery is where they went. What career paths did they choose? Apparently, they did not choose special education. I know from discussions with the very dedicated team of speech and language professionals in Havering that they suffer frustration at being unable to meet the level of local demand, and I know that that is not peculiar to Havering.
Interestingly, some children attending our Sure Start programme are presenting with speech and language problems. Although identifying problems at that stage is highly beneficial to those children, speech and language therapy resources are finite and that early intervention is leaching resources from other areas of provision, such as schools.
I noticed a question that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East put to the Minister on 13 July on the subject of availability and competencies of speech and language therapists. In her reply the Minister said:
"With the extra investment announced in the 2002 Budget, we expect the NHS to have net increases of at least 30,000 therapists and scientists, including speech and language therapists by 2008."—[Official Report, 13 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1117W.]
I know that is a global total. How many of that 30,000 does the Minister anticipate will be speech and language therapists, and what progress has been made since 2002 towards increasing the total available?
Access to pre-school and nursery provision is an important building block in the development of a child with Down's syndrome. Learning social and interpersonal skills and gaining self-confidence through play, music, painting and games at nursery school makes those children ready to benefit from the next stage of a more formal learning experience at school.
The next dilemma for any parent whose child has Down's syndrome is whether to opt for mainstream or special school placement. Some families find coping with disability harder than others, and supporting those families is something that special schools are particularly good at. Because they are smaller, it is possible for the staff to get to know the whole family—siblings and parents—and to understand their problems, lend a sympathetic ear and offer a word of support in a way that the demands of a busy mainstream school would make difficult.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 gave all pupils the right to be educated in a mainstream school if that is the choice of their parents. Sensibly, the learning and safety of others must not be jeopardised by the placement of a child with special needs in a mainstream setting, and so the success of the placements depends heavily on the provision of special learning assistants who are properly trained and available for enough hours to meet the child's needs. The special relationship between the SLA and the pupil is essential in understanding the child's difficulties, recognising triggers for difficult behaviour and establishing workable strategies to avert crises in the school day. That support can make the difference between success and failure for the pupil, but the cost is high and can cause severe pressure on school budgets.

387WH
The Down's Syndrome Association's survey of parents this year revealed among other things that both types of school have had widespread success in educating pupils with Down's syndrome. The report on the survey contains many supporting statements from parents, many of which we have heard this morning from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, but the satisfaction level is not universally high. Some experiences have not been happy and it follows that LEAs need a flexible arrangement whereby mainstream pupils who do not thrive are able to transfer to a special school, and vice versa. In that way, the two types of school can be mutually supportive and offer the best possible opportunities for pupils.
The process must, of course, continue post-16 in local sixth-form and further education colleges, and offer Down's syndrome students a range of opportunities to continue to establish basic skills, and to learn new workplace skills to maximise their employment chances. The London borough of Havering is particularly good at that. Our aim should be that every LEA supports students with Down's syndrome who wish to continue to improve and develop to their full potential.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) about an establishment on Canvey Island that offers business opportunities to physically handicapped people. We need more of such establishments for those people with Down's syndrome who cannot quite cope with the standard employment environment. Having said that, a young man with Down's syndrome who works at my local Tesco has an instinctive idea of customer care. Nothing is too much trouble for him when he is asked for help. He is an asset to the organisation, and others would do well to learn from that. People with Down's syndrome, who often have a charming and helpful side to their nature, would be a great asset to a shop floor or in other workplaces.
Bob Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great benefits to society at large of such business opportunities for physically handicapped people or those with special learning needs? The BOPH on Canvey Island provides printing, T-shirt printing and packing goods for other firms. It provides a very reasonable, high-quality service to the businesses and people for whom it works. It is a two-way process, and we congratulate those people on making use of such an establishment. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a very good example of how Down's syndrome people contribute to the rest of society. It is not always their needs but their contributions that are overlooked, and they have an enormous amount to offer.
The good work being done in some areas must be built on, so that all children with Down's syndrome, wherever they live, can access education without having to fight for it, beginning with that "open sesame"—the statement. That means finding a nursery place with properly trained staff and a school place where they will not be patronised, sidelined or even just tolerated, but welcomed and accepted for themselves and where they will receive learning opportunities suited to their specific needs. There must be a levelling up to the standards set in the good practice that we all know.
388WH
If the Minister would like to visit any of the three splendid special schools in Upminster—Corbets Tey and Dycourts, which are for children with moderate learning difficulties, and Ravensbourne, which is for children with severe learning difficulties—or any of the mainstream schools where pupils with Down's syndrome are doing very well, she would be very welcome.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Before I call the Minister, may I draw attention to the message on the Annunciator? There will be one minute's silence at 11 o'clock. If the debate proceeds to 11 o'clock, I ask hon. Members not to depart before the observation of the one minute's silence.
10.37 am
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate and on the work that he has done on behalf of children with Down's syndrome and the Down's Syndrome Association, and recognise his huge dedication. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the quality of the debate has been first class. It reflects well on Parliament when, in a serious debate on a less contentious issue, people try to consider solutions to complex problems that require a lot of innovative ideas, in order to improve the quality of life for any group of people, particularly those with Down's syndrome. I always enjoy debates in Westminster Hall, and this one has been high quality.
I pay tribute to the Down's Syndrome Association. We in the Department for Education and Skills worked with it to produce the support packs for mainstream and special schools, and all professionals who have used them have warmly welcomed them as a valuable resource. I am delighted that, with funding from our special educational needs small funding programme, we were able to contribute to the production of that pack. I am also pleased that we were able to join my hon. Friend when he launched the pack.
My hon. Friend asked whether we would be willing to meet him, and I am sure that Ministers in the Department would be. He will be interested to know that Lord Filkin is taking over day-to-day responsibility for these issues. I shall be speaking to Lord Filkin later today to remind him of my contribution in this debate and the commitment of his time that I have given.
The report that the Down's Syndrome Association put together, entitled "Access to Education", which I read last night, is a good piece of work. It is based on the experiences of 1,500 parents of children with Down's syndrome and how they have been affected throughout the school system. All too often we do not undertake such a wide survey, but good voluntary organisations and interest groups can do very important groundwork on which we can build.
The report mirrors the findings of the Audit Commission report that was published in 2002, which I am sure hon. Members have read and highlights many of the problems that need to be tackled. Statementing is a battle. It takes far too long and is a struggle for far too many parents unless, as hon. Members have said, they are articulate and persistent. We ought to support

389WH
parents when their children move into the education system, as they try to think through what is best for their child with special education needs. The last thing that they need is a battle with professionals in the local education authority. They need support at just that point, which is why we are trying to do more work around such issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) discussed the importance of supporting parents, and I could not agree with them more. That area of public policy is greatly underdeveloped. Interestingly enough, it is contentious; we are all too often accused of running a nannying state when we think about what support we can give to parents in all sorts of situations. However, I have absolutely no doubt, given the wide body of research that I have seen, that the state in all its forms, whether central Government, local government or the third arm—the non-statutory sector—must think more about appropriate support to parents in that most difficult task of bringing up children, particularly children with special educational needs such as those with Down's syndrome. The education process, particularly the transition periods that have been talked about a lot this morning, is very important and something with which parents need special support.
Another issue that has been highlighted is that of children who should be taught in mainstream settings sometimes being turned away. I was somewhat shocked by the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton that LEAs designate certain mainstream schools as appropriate for catering for children with special educational needs and others as not appropriate. That was a worrying statement. With his permission, I shall come back to him to discuss where we are on policy. Clearly, it is appropriate that particular units are attached to mainstream schools for children with, for example, hearing difficulties—partially or totally deaf children—but it cannot be the intent of Ministers that an LEA should designate some schools as not appropriate for catering for children with moderate learning difficulties. We must examine that, particularly the situation in his authority.
Members also said that many staff, particularly teaching assistants, feel ill-equipped to meet the wide range of pupils' needs in today's classrooms. Training is very much at the heart of what the Government are doing. The work force reform agenda around the whole of the team who work in a school is about providing better training, better support and routes to progression for individuals who may come into a school as a teaching assistant and who could move up the hierarchy to other jobs in the school. I take the matter seriously. If we are to be successful in our work force reform, we must focus on the training that we give to all school staff—not just the teachers but others who play a key role, particularly with children with special educational needs.
Much has been said about speech and language therapists. We all have experience in our constituencies of problems with getting enough speech and language therapists. I agree entirely with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela
390WH
Watkinson), about early intervention through speech and language therapy. If we can support children's communication skills at an early stage, it can make all the difference not just to their educational outcome but to their independence and social and emotional development. There is a problem. I have just been talking to my health authority—the primary care trust—which recently withdrew the funding for speech and language therapy in schools. I am battling with them to bring it back.
We are investing a lot more—both in training and through the NHS and education budgets—to ensure that we grow the body of speech and language therapy support. I do not have the precise split in the 30,000 figure that the hon. Lady quoted and which I gave in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East about how many are speech and language therapists and how many are other professionals. I will try to get that figure and will write to the hon. Lady about it.
Coincidentally rather than deliberately, I am meeting representatives of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists later this week to talk about how we can grow that cohort of people. We think that there are more than 1,000 extra speech and language therapists in our schools than there were when we came into government, but there is still a vacancy rate and the problem of training remains.
I have seen some innovative work on speech and language therapy provision. Interestingly enough, it has occurred particularly in Sure Start programmes in which, to tackle the shortage, professional speech and language therapists are used to cascade some competences and training to untrained people so that they can provide much of the routine support that children require. If we can build that cascading process in as a much stronger presence in many more of our institutions, authorities or health authorities, we can grow that competence more quickly than we have done in the past.
A number of Members raised the issue of special schools. We all know that what we are attempting to do is to ensure that inclusion, where appropriate, must be on offer to individual children, especially those with Down's syndrome. I agree with what many hon. Members have said about the benefit that children with Down's syndrome can gain from being integrated into a mainstream environment as long as they are properly supported in that environment. Equally, we wish to provide choice to parents and children and, therefore, to maintain our special schools focus.
Bob Spink: I am not going to ask the question that the Minister thinks that I am going to ask. Does she acknowledge the great benefit that children with special needs can provide for children in mainstream schools?
Margaret Hodge: I do indeed. I have seen that in my own children's education. Their primary school had a good link with a neighbouring school that had children with severe and multiple physical and cognitive learning difficulties. My children benefited hugely from the integration of the two schools, because of their increased understanding of the diversity of the population and their sensitivity in dealing with children who did not have all the benefits that they had. I completely and utterly concur with that point.

391WH
In fact, I was proud to take through the House much of the disability legislation when I had responsibility for those issues. I was particularly proud to get on to the statute book provisions about discrimination in education based on disability. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties now agree that those provisions should have been in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which the previous Government passed.
A number of Members have said that the one-size approach does not fit all. That is as true of Down's syndrome children as it is of everyone. We are attempting to reflect that, both in legislation and policies. We have a strong legislative background and the discrimination that has been described is unacceptable. However, getting legislation on to the statute book and then changing the practice in LEAs, health authorities and schools is a long-term process. The legislation has only recently reached the statute book and we need to do more.
Let me talk about the strands of our strategy, which the Department was proud to publish. Early intervention is one strand; everybody has talked about how important that is. The hon. Member for Southport built on some important research, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) also mentioned the matter. I want to say one thing: if we get the early intervention right, we may not have to go down the bureaucratic route of always going for a statement. Much energy is lost in the bureaucracy of the statementing processes. However we have tried to arrange things so that there is a partnership effort, there still tends to be an adversarial element, because local authorities are always worried about resources while individuals want the most for their children. The more that we can move away from formal statementing to agreement between professionals, the better it will be for children, and the earlier the intervention, the better still it will be. I am proud of our early support pilot programme. We are spending £4 million this year and £6 million next year. We want to learn from what works through that pilot programme and to try to evolve that as we develop our early years infrastructure.
As hon. Members probably know, we are also developing the national early intervention centre of excellence. A feasibility study is under way, and we want to work with voluntary organisations including the Down's Syndrome Association to get that right. We are encouraging the delegation of SEN resources to schools so the sort of conflict with the local education authority that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton met could be got rid of. We believe that schools are best at determining how they should use their SEN resources.
The second strand is considering how we can remove barriers to learning. We want to develop inclusive practice so there is no conflict between special schools and mainstream education—although the trend is to try to support as many children as possible in the mainstream system. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned that Rumworth school in his constituency is attached to a secondary school, and the hon. Member for Castle Point talked about Cedar Hall and its relationship to mainstream education. That sort of arrangement is the way forward. That is how we can develop inclusive practice; it meets the needs of individual children.
392WH
We are developing a new inclusion development programme. We are trying to bring together all the professionals across education, care, social care and the voluntary sector in order to develop much more effective approaches to children with special educational needs. We are looking first at autistic spectrum disorder syndrome. Having learned from that, we shall look at other particular special educational needs; I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be pressing me on the subject of Down's syndrome.
We are also looking at how we can develop practical tools and practical material, which we want to publish in 2005. We are looking at proposals for how we can improve the quality of education for children with more severe behavioural and emotional difficulties; we have a group of people working on that. We are looking at how we can improve regional planning of provision, so that we make best use of our special school infrastructure, and then we are looking at how we establish minimum standards for SEN advisory and support services. We are doing some work around that issue with Ofsted in particular.
The third strand of our work is to do with expectations and achievement—a five-year plan about the personalisation of learning and the importance of considering individual needs and determining the educational offer. That concerns my new role, bringing together education and all other children's services around the needs of the child. There is the development of children's trusts, too. All that will lead to improvements.
I shall never forget that one of the first things that I did as Minister for Children was visit an eight-year-old child in her home. She was being educated, but had hugely difficult physical disabilities and needed 24-hour care. She was receiving education in a mainstream school, but had undergone 18 assessments during the previous 18 months from different professionals who were trying to support her. It was completely mad and totally wore her out. Her mother had become the manager of all the different professionals who were supporting the child. Ensuring that those professionals—or the lead professional—work around the needs of the child will make things better for everyone. As we try to raise the quality of achievement and aspirations for children with special educational needs, we are consulting on how best to measure progress—a very difficult area—and on matters such as whether we continue the P scales, to determine whether there are better value-added measures that we can introduce.
A number of hon. Members have talked about transition. That is utterly central, and we have a group of people considering the matter. Some authorities deal with it better than others, but we all have experience from our constituencies of people with learning disabilities or other needs falling through the net as they move from the education system into adulthood. I hope that the youth Green Paper, which we aim to publish in the autumn, will tackle some of the issues relating to children with additional needs and special needs as they move into adulthood, and the services that we provide for them. I was a little puzzled by the issues raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point about people being pushed out of provision at the age of 25. That shows the need for sensitivity at local level.

393WH
The only area that I have not talked about is partnership. Underpinning everything that we have done is the desire to strengthen partnership between all the players involved, so that it all makes sense to children and places children and parents at the heart of what we do. We will know whether our strategy has been successful when we cease to rely so much on separate structures and processes for children with special educational needs, such as children with Down's syndrome; when all children with special educational needs have their needs met as soon as they become apparent and can feel valued members of the school community; when the barriers that divide mainstream and special schools have disappeared; when all schools work together in partnership and with other services in their locality to meet the needs of local children; and when there is much greater quality and consistency of provision for children with special educational needs, not just across the needs and schools, but right across the country.
Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools will evaluate our progress towards those aims, and we shall constantly reflect and reconsider as we learn from what has worked to establish whether we need to make any further changes to remove the barriers to learning that can prevent children with special educational needs, including children with Down's syndrome, from achieving their potential and contributing to society.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call Mr. David Kidney, I draw attention to the announcement on the Annunciator. We shall commence the next debate, but we shall suspend for one minute's silence soon after commencement.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of European Legislation
10.59 am
Mr. David Kidney: Perhaps I should begin by explaining the two incidents during the summer recess that provoked me to request a debate on the scrutiny of European legislation. The first occurred on what was obviously a slow news day, when Digby Jones, the director-general of the CBI, got a lot of publicity for saying that Parliament was asleep on the job of scrutinising European legislation. The second was a Conservative call for the European Scrutiny Committee to sit in public when it holds its deliberations. I should like to deal with both of those issues later in my contribution, but first I shall address the much bigger issue of why this debate is important—but perhaps it would be appropriate to do so after the minute's silence.
The House observed one minute's silence in memory of those killed in Beslan in Russia.
11.1 am
Mr. Kidney: I praise the Speaker's decision to observe a minute's silence, and the way in which you observed it in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It fills us all with great sadness and anger that so many civilians, particularly children, had their lives taken away in the Beslan siege in Russia. Our sympathies must be with the relatives of all who lost loved ones, and our solidarity must be with the Russian people in resisting terrorist activity.
To return to the scrutiny of European legislation, the big difficulty that we face in making our scrutiny in this place successful and effective can be seen in the climate surrounding all things European on the streets of our great country. Let us consider the recent European elections and the again disappointing turnout. Why are people in this country not engaging with the activities of the European Union as a whole? Is it down to disinterest, dislike, or ignorance? Those are problems that we need to explore and overcome.
A second issue is the commentary on the draft constitutional treaty, which is due to be considered not only by the House, but by the public at large in a referendum. Most public commentators treat the constitutional treaty with a degree of hostility and disregard that is most unhealthy for our future relations with the rest of the European Union. Parliament has an important role to play in making our scrutiny of the EU institutions—for which, after all, we are accountable to the UK public—effective. If debates such as this one and the scrutiny work that we do in Parliament add to people's understanding of the European Union and its institutions, so much the better.
It is worth reminding ourselves what European legislation is. Loosely, it fits into two categories—although it is worth pointing out that the draft treaty would make changes to the categories of and the names given to European legislation. At the moment the two loose categories are directives and regulations. Directives are largely frameworks, and national Parliaments are left with the role of legislating in order to transpose the effects of directives into domestic law. Regulations, on the other hand, apply directly in all member states. It follows that different approaches to scrutiny are needed for the two types of legislation.

395WH
In respect of both, we ought to ask ourselves how we can influence the final form that will be settled on in the European Union before the legislation comes to this country. In addition, in the case of directives, if domestic legislation is required to give effect to the legislation, we should scrutinise the domestic legislation. It is on that point that we are most open to an accusation that has long been made, that we over-elaborate and overfill our domestic legislation when carrying out our responsibility to implement European directives—so-called gold-plating.
If we are to influence the European Union stages, it is important that we understand how the legislation is formed in the first place. I hope that it is understood in this place—it is certainly not among the public—that the Council of Ministers, not the Commission that sits in Brussels, is the legislature. Largely, the Commission proposes actions and the Council of Ministers legislates—although these days, under the arrangements for co-decision with the European Parliament, something like eight in 10 cases involve both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. There is a complex procedure to conciliate any disagreements between them before the final form of the legislation is established.
When we talk about our scrutiny of what goes on in the Council of Ministers, in which our national representative is the appropriate Minister from our Parliament, it is crucial to bear in mind that the Council's proceedings are secret and that we do not know what our representative says and does during those proceedings. Those of us who support the improvement of the European Union and—by and large—the draft treaty for constitutional change, see that the draft treaty would make the proceedings of the Council of Ministers public and accessible to us, which would improve our scrutiny of what goes on there and our ability to hold Ministers in this place to account for the decisions that they make and the votes that they cast.
That is the state of legislation in the European Union; we should next consider our system of scrutiny for that legislation. We have two Houses of Parliament, which have two separate, although complementary, Committee systems for carrying out that scrutiny on our behalf. The two systems may be separate, but there are excellent relations between Committee members in both Houses.
In this House, the European Scrutiny Committee does an extraordinarily diligent job on our behalf in sifting through thousands of documents. I am not a member of that Committee, so I am an objective observer, and I honestly believe that it does a magnificent job. It sifts through documents at the earliest possible stage, sorts out those of particular significance to this country's or to Members' interests, and draws attention to the documents when necessary. An important part of its work has been to uphold the scrutiny reserve when, as they sometimes have in the past, Ministers have gone ahead and negotiated before scrutiny in this place has been completed.
The House of Commons' and the House of Lords' systems have a high reputation, including across the European Union, for the thoroughness of their scrutiny. If anything, the reputation of the House of Lords system
396WH
is slightly ahead, and that is an additional spur to those of us who want to give attention to improving the scrutiny system in the House of Commons.
The system in this country tends to be document-based. We receive the documents at an early stage and sift through them as I have explained. However, not every national Parliament adopts the same approach. Some prefer what is called a pre-scrutiny model or, in some areas, a mandating model. Our system focuses on the early stages of legislation, when the Commission proposal is first adopted, but the pre-scrutiny model tends to focus on the conclusion of the negotiations in the Council. Perhaps the best-known examples of system are the so-called Nordic models of Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Documents are available about how the Nordic region conducts its scrutiny of European affairs, and my first impression of reading about their systems was that Members of their Parliaments are willing to give up a considerable number of their Fridays to the scrutiny of their Ministers' activities in Council negotiations.
In those countries, there is a very strong tradition of parliamentary control over Governments, and they are willing to allow a Committee to act on behalf of their Parliament in establishing what line they think their Minister should take in European negotiations. Of course, they only have one Chamber, not two, so there is no danger of a conflict of mandates. In the best Nordic systems, the word "mandate" is a bit overstated: Ministers are not sent to Brussels to negotiate with a strict set of rules about what they must come back with. They are allowed some flexibility to negotiate and make compromises. If it were otherwise, it would be difficult for them to have an influence on debate in the Council of Ministers.
Perhaps an obvious question to ask when we talk about improvements to scrutiny is whether if there are two systems—a document-based one and a pre-scrutiny one—it is possible to combine the two. I have heard that some of the new member states, such as Lithuania, are considering developing a traffic light scrutiny system so that, on receipt of the documents, they are sifted through and placed in one of three categories. A red traffic light would mean that Parliament is required to produce a mandate to the Minister about the measure. An amber light would require the Minister to consult Parliament before going to negotiate. A green light would mean that the matter is of little interest to the Parliament and that the Minister should get on with the job.
Why do I have such a keen interest in the subject at present? I am pleased to be a member of the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, which is conducting an inquiry on the future scrutiny of European legislation by the House. I am hopeful that the inquiry and the resulting report will provide a catalyst for changes that improve the scrutiny of European legislation. As part of our inquiry, I know that the Leader of the House has produced a memorandum on his proposals for improvements to the system of scrutiny. It is available for all Members to read. There have been a number of responses to that memorandum: a particularly important one is from the European Scrutiny Committee; others have come from many other parts of both Houses and from outside

397WH
bodies, including the Corporation of London, the British Bankers Association and the Confederation of British Industry.
That is a useful way of bringing me back to why I took an interest in the subject of today's debate—the story during the summer recess that Digby Jones of the CBI was complaining to the media that Parliament is asleep on the job of scrutiny of European legislation. That accusation is insulting and false, and it should be firmly rejected, but it is fair to say that there is merit in calling on us to bring some of the scrutiny of European legislation in to the mainstream of the work that we do in Parliament, and by so doing into the public's consciousness. It is valuable for us to be stirred into action to prevent the gold-plating of domestic legislation implementing European laws.
The second incident of the summer that stirred me into action was the call of the Conservative party for the European Scrutiny Committee to meet in public when it is carrying out its consideration of European documents. It is fair to say that the European Scrutiny Committee is, as ever, in the lead. In December last year, the Committee wrote to the Leader of the House asking for an amendment to Standing Orders to permit the Committee to meet in public when it is deliberating. What the Conservatives are doing is drawing to our attention that the Leader of the House is yet to make a decision on that request.
The Leader of the House's memorandum has some important proposals in it, which require a good deal of consideration by the House of Commons. The first and most important one is a new forum building on the Standing Committees on the Convention and on the Intergovernmental Conference. The forum would provide for Members of both Houses to meet Government Ministers, and perhaps members of the European Commission and the European Parliament, to deal with questions and debates on matters of importance to the European Union and its relations with this country at a more general level. Some of the subjects that could be considered at such a forum are the White Papers that our Government produce, usually twice a year, about their position on negotiations in the Council and with European Ministers, and the Commission's annual legislative and work programme. Those are, I think, suitable subjects where there is much to be discussed and enough for individual Members' interests to be captured. Such an event would attract a lot of attention from parliamentarians, from the media and, I hope, from the public.
The question of who controls the agenda would be important if we were to set up such meetings. Should arranging a meeting and establishing an agenda be in the gift of the Government or of the House of Commons? I favour the latter. More generally, I would like to see a business management committee that controls the agenda of Parliament itself. Failing that, the European Scrutiny Committee asked that it be able at least to propose subjects for meetings of the new forum, and I support its request.
The other matter in the memorandum from the Leader of the House to which I would like to draw attention is the subsidiarity early warning mechanism. For those who complain that the draft treaty for the
398WH
European constitution is bad news, that is one of the best pieces of good news in the document. One of the protocols to the treaty—I found it on page 111 of the Government's provisional text of the constitutional treaty for the European Union, Cmnd. 6289—sets out the arrangements whereby each national Parliament has a period of six weeks from the date of transmission of a draft European legislative Act to send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion why the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If one third of the national Parliaments' votes on an issue raise a similar objection about an offence against subsidiarity, the Commission must take back the proposal and consider whether to scrap it, amend it or try to force it through. Sceptics will say, "All it need do is wait and send it back out," but the protocol allows the European Court to adjudicate whether the reasoned objection was right or wrong.
That new and important process would enhance our scrutiny, but we would have only a six-week period in which to make our reasoned objection. The Leader of the House makes some comments about how we can effectively use those six weeks to come up with our reasoned objection, and the European Scrutiny Committee has also commented on how that can be done. If we get the process right, we will see an improvement in scrutiny—as long as we ratify the treaty and the new constitution comes into effect, of course.
I do not want to eat into the Minister's time, but I have my own suggestions for improving scrutiny. First, with a pre-scrutiny model, we must give more attention to making Ministers appear before MPs before they attend Council meetings in Brussels. Secondly, and importantly, we must enhance our scrutiny of the measures that we take to implement European legislation in order to prevent gold-plating. Thirdly, as a minor procedural point but an important one for winning hearts and minds, the European Scrutiny Committee should meet in public when it deliberates documents. Fourthly, we should improve relations with Members of the European Parliament and build on the work of the European Scrutiny Committee. The UK's representatives in that Parliament have a great wealth of knowledge, and they can assist us in our work and vice versa. Fifthly, we should treat European legislation not as a part of foreign policy but as domestic policy.
If we were to get the culture right, European legislation would simply be a matter of domestic legislation: the rest would fall into place. MPs would be enthusiastic and discharge their responsibility for proper and effective scrutiny well, the media would report on European laws more consistently and more accurately, and the public would have far less to fear from laws from Brussels. I hope that my suggestions are helpful to the Minister. I will now shut up so that he can respond.
11.19 am
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this debate and raising important issues. People who follow the way in which scrutiny is carried out and the relationship between the legislative and the executive in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe will read

399WH
the points that he raised in this debate. In future years they will look back and see that his speech contained a lot of common sense and ask why we did we not see that before. I genuinely congratulate him on raising the issue. He spoke with knowledge, clarity and foresight.
For the record, my hon. Friend is, as he said, a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is holding an inquiry into this issue. His points will be well noted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and will form part of his deliberations and those of the Committee.
I shall explain the big picture of Government policy, then move on to some of the details. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Government are keen to enhance the way in which Parliament engages with European matters and hope that the Modernisation Committee will find consensus. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House have made statements to the House about the issue in recent months. We believe that greater scrutiny of European legislation by this House and the other place is the main way in which to engage the British public with the European Union institutions in a more productive and informed fashion. That requires us to get scrutiny right.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House submitted a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee in March—it is available on the website—and strongly argued the case for change. It would be wrong of me to respond in detail to some of the points that have been made, because they are for the deliberation of the Committee, but I shall try to cover some today.
The memorandum acknowledges, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, that there is much good in what we already do: the European Scrutiny Committee's efficient sifting of the large number of European documents coming before it and alerting the House to those of significance; the corresponding detailed scrutiny carried out by the European Union Committee in the House of Lords; and the work done by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the other departmental Select Committees on European matters. We should be proud of the scrutiny reserve, whereby the Government have undertaken in all but special cases not to agree to European proposals until the House has completed its scrutiny.
However, it must be admitted that the commendable work that is done does not attract widespread interest in the House and beyond. European scrutiny is, sadly, something of a minority interest, even in Parliament, despite the importance of the legislation that is scrutinised. In addition, the work that is done fails to attract the interest of the media or engage the public. As the Government's memorandum to the Modernisation Committee states,
"There is a worrying and widening gap between our citizens and the institutions of the European Union; and this is not good for our democracy."
We must take steps to engage the public in debate on European matters. European issues should be in the mainstream of our political life—as my hon. Friend said, they are not foreign policies and foreign affairs. The often-heard phrase "When I'm in Europe", ignores the fact that we in the United Kingdom are in Europe all the time.
400WH
We must take steps to ensure that Parliament's scrutiny work is done to better effect, and we must respond to the new challenges that arise from the new constitutional treaty. The treaty greatly strengthens the role of national Parliaments—that is one of its main purposes. The Government negotiated hard for that at the Convention and at the intergovernmental conference. The subsidiarity early warning mechanism—the yellow card—is also a substantial advance, and we are grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee and to the European Union Committee for their detailed consideration of how that mechanism can best be implemented. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will take into account the views of those Committees.
The memorandum also sets out in detail the Government's proposals for a joint European grand committee as a successor to the Standing Committees on the Convention and on the intergovernmental conference. I acknowledge that some Members, particularly those of the other House, were not immediately persuaded that a new Committee would add value to our existing structures. The Government believe that it would be of considerable benefit to have a forum in which both Houses could come together to debate European matters and to question Ministers. We also hope that ways will be found to allow European Commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for UK MEPs to attend. I suspect that if that were the case, it would attract widespread interest from the media.
We recognise that those last proposals would require some procedural innovation. If the proposals find favour with the Modernisation Committee, it will be for the House to decide whether to pursue them. In researching the matter, my hon. Friend might have read about the precedent of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, which adopted such procedures in 1933. Once again we learn that in this place there is nothing new.
The memorandum considers the time that is currently allocated to European matters on the Floor of the House and asks the Modernisation Committee to consider whether it continues to be appropriate. It also considers the potential for cross-cutting questions on European matters in Westminster Hall, and sets out several options for reform of the European scrutiny system, which range from abolishing the European Standing Committee system and replacing it with scrutiny by Select Committees, to more modest reform. In large part, the memorandum was intended to provoke debate, and it has succeeded in doing so. Again, let me say that I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. From the evidence that the Modernisation Committee has published to date, it seems that there may be more support for more modest reform, but we await the Committee's conclusions.
The Government's memorandum also invites the Modernisation Committee to consider whether more should be done to encourage Members to engage more fully in the European policy debate. We welcome the increasing joint working between Committees of this House and those of the European Parliament and other national Parliaments. The Modernisation Committee's inquiry naturally focuses on scrutiny of European matters in this House, but we should not forget the role

401WH
of the House of Lords. As has been said, its European Union Committee is highly respected—perhaps more so than the House of Commons' Committee—for its expertise and detailed scrutiny work. It is essential that any changes that we make in this House complement, rather than duplicate, its work.
Meeting and deliberating in public is a matter on which the Government have yet
to take a view. It would be a significant change to our procedures. As everyone knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sympathetic to the principle of greater accessibility and has sought the views of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee on such matters. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will be able to come to a conclusion on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also discussed control of the agenda, subsidiarity early warning and how we deal with that, and pre-scrutiny and enhanced scrutiny designed to prevent gold-plating. Those suggestions and the others that he made are very strong, and I welcome his contribution to the debate. In conclusion, I thank him for initiating this discussion. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in particular attach considerable importance to parliamentary scrutiny of European matters, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will make a very positive contribution to future debate.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Welfare Entitlement
2 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), and to other hon. Members for the late change in debate title, which may account for the rather low interest in it.
I was driven by three sets of considerations. The first is constituency matters, as is often the case. I have been struck by the large and growing numbers of people caught up in the complexities and practical difficulties of the benefits and entitlements system, and that is the case on a much greater scale than ever before. I do not mean issues of benefits policy, although they do arise; I brought up a case in the main Chamber when the Minister was present a few moments ago, and he dealt with it efficiently and graciously as a policy matter. The kinds of issues that I will describe now, however, are enormous problems and hardships caused simply by administrative difficulties. We, as MPs, essentially deal with the agency concerned rather than the Minister when problems are administrative, but there is clearly a pattern behind the problems.
Secondly, aside from the worm's-eye view of the benefit recipient and the practical problems there, there is what one might call a bird's-eye-view problem of the growing evidence of difficulties of delivery, particularly associated with information technology systems. Just as Parliament broke for the recess, there was a report from the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, and it would be useful to have some feedback about the Government's response to it. That is one of a succession of points that could be made on similar themes.
The third, related point can be approached not necessarily from the side of the Department or the client but from that of employees and is about growing difficulties and stresses within the benefit system. One example, which I will refer to again, involves a lady in my constituency who is close to retirement and who has described events in her local jobcentre to do with jobseeker's allowance. A new system has been introduced, and calls have to be routed through Makerfield in the north of England. The problem is not only that none of the clients can get through to Makerfield, but that none of the staff at the centre can get through either. Large numbers of people are being left without their allowance and are becoming increasingly agitated. My constituent describes fighting breaking out in the local centre because of the considerable administrative difficulties. Such problems are widespread, as I am sure the Minister is aware.
I will start by giving a few concrete examples, which are the primary reason why I wanted this debate. There is a human element to these issues, and I want to bring to the surface some individual cases. The first relates to different aspects of the benefits and entitlements system—not to one pocket of that but all over the place. With regard to jobseeker's allowance, a lady came to me only a few weeks ago. Very many people are in the position of being temporary workers who are able to work for a while and who then lose employment and are normally considered for jobseeker's allowance. The lady in question had never had a problem in previous years,

403WH
and she came along this time with a virtually identical set of circumstances but was refused and was given the extraordinary advice that whether she qualifies for jobseeker's allowance depends on who makes the decision. She has now tried to survive for several years on a growing loan.
Another example involves a very conscientious gentleman who had not been out of work before. He applied for jobseeker's allowance and meticulously followed the instructions given by the officials helping him. A slight error was made, entirely on the advice of the departmental officials in the centre that he attended, and he was overpaid by a large sum. He is unable to pay it back and is being pursued very aggressively on the assumption that he is acting fraudulently.
With regard to income support, there are other cases from the past few days. A very elderly lady—she is 88—has been trying to receive income support for the past year with the help of her daughter who lives overseas. She is unable to get replies to telephone calls and correspondence. Like the others, she has had to come to her Member of Parliament to resolve what is essentially an administrative problem.
Another gentleman who has been on income support for some time was cut off six months ago for reasons that were not explained or, perhaps, inexplicable. Despite my repeated intervention with the head of the agency concerned, nothing has been done and no explanation has been given. The gentleman survives on cash provided by his family.
Two cases are connected with different parts of the agency, but illustrate the kind of problem that I describe. They relate to pensions. One gentleman who qualified for his pension last December was not paid and repeatedly sought an explanation. In August, the Department acknowledged that the matter needed to be investigated, but it has still not been resolved. Letters have been going backwards and forwards to Alexis Cleveland, but, as far as I am aware, the issue is still as it was.
An even worse case involves a gentleman who qualified for his pension last December. Again, he was not paid. Eventually, through my intervention, it was acknowledged that there had been an administrative error and that he should be paid. However, that decision was made eight months after the start of the delay, and he was told that only three months' payments could be backdated.
There are hundreds of such cases; we all have them. My concern is that they are, perhaps, multiplying and that there is some systemic, underlying problem. That systemic problem comes under several headings: the information technology systems operated by the Department; the growing complexity of the system of application for benefits and their processing; and the system for dealing with errors, which is becoming a major issue. How does one deal scientifically and fairly with large numbers of errors? The fourth heading would involve consumer service: points of contact through call centres and by correspondence. How is that monitored, and how does one deal with what, patently, are failures?
First, I shall say a little about information technology deficiencies. I recognise that the Department for Work and Pensions has a massive information technology task. It does not deal with simple problems; they are
404WH
inherently big and difficult. It has been said—this may or may not be true—that the Department's IT system is the largest in the world. I understand that 35 different systems are in operation. As the Minister knows, they have been subject to frequent scrutiny in Parliament and frequent criticism. There have been the reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee on the Child Support Agency and its three operating systems, the errors with the state earnings-related pension scheme and the general problems of benefit data being scattered between lots of different computing systems.
There have been some more recent disasters, notably involving the national insurance recording system, two or three of which have occurred in the past few months and are causing real hardship and difficulty. The first disaster relates to the Child Support Agency entitlement system. The report produced just before the summer by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions concludes:
"Despite some signs that aspects of the service are improving, the performance of CSA's IT programme and new telephone system remains unacceptable."
Many of us have seen that in practice, and it is two years since the system was supposed to be operating fully and efficiently. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has done serious research on that issue. I believe that something of the order of 95,000 people have been missing their payments, many of whom are single parents and in considerable difficulty. Will the Minister say whether, as the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), hinted a few weeks ago, the system is now so bad that it will be scrapped? Is that the intention, or is the intention to try to make the system better? If so, what will be the time frame and the specific targets?
Unlike the Treasury, and the Paymaster General in particular, the Minister is not directly responsible for the second system that is working extremely badly: the child credit and the working families credit. I was given a good insight into how that system is operating when an official who works for the agencies wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about their experience as a recipient of child tax credit but from the standpoint of someone who had dealt originally with national assistance for the best part of 20 years. The official stated:
"I am driven to writing to you because my experience as a recipient of Child Tax Credits leads me to believe that a poorly designed scheme has produced a third rate service to the public, a demoralised work force, and is costing a large and probably unquantified sum on sorting out a high error rate."
The system was explicitly and rather brutally criticised in the recent report of the Public Accounts Committee. For example, paragraph 6 states:
"The Department and EDS"—
the computer operator—
"had not foreseen that the new tax credit systems would prove unstable and not fit for purpose."
That case is already well made and well recognised.
Another instance of IT systems failing dismally and causing enormous problems for our constituents occurred a few weeks ago. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the difficulties with Post Office card accounts. Many pensioners who took up the offer of a

405WH
Post Office card account found that they could not receive cash through the post office or that they received excessive amounts. The system had to be closed down. Again, I am sure that the Minister will give us a report on that incident, but it would be useful to know how he proposes to deal with the residual problems associated with it, making sure that that does not happen again. It also leaves a legacy: will the pensioners or benefit recipients who have already received their money be required to pay some back, and under what circumstances will that happen?
Mr. Steve Webb: My hon. Friend refers to specific incidents. Did he come across the problem that postmasters who wanted to use the emergency mechanism available to them when faced with a member of the public desperate for cash could not get through on the emergency helpline?
Dr. Cable: No, I had not encountered that problem, but it adds further grist to the mill. It is clear that the whole system is surrounded with enormous practical difficulties, many of them originating in the fact that the software and the system are not functioning properly.
The Department and the Minister will have to digest the Work and Pensions Committee's conclusions on how the Department's IT projects are working, but it might be useful if the Minister gave us some preliminary indication of how he judges the matter. One general conclusion in the unanimous report of that Select Committee is particularly worrying. It states:
"We heard evidence that DWP is growing into an 'intelligent customer'. However, despite the undoubted progress, a number of witnesses were not optimistic that major IT failures were a thing of the past."
There is a large number of recommendations in the report, and I do not propose to go through them all. However, it might be useful to have a preliminary indication from the Minister as to how he would deal with them.
The problems that I and others have encountered could fall under a second general heading of complexity. The complexity in the benefits and associated entitlements system is staggering. With his background, the Minister will understand the difficulties that such complexity poses. Two years ago, the National Audit Office reported on the problem. At that time, there were 23 different substantial benefits, 16 of which were connected to each other in 30 different ways. There are now 35 basic benefits, as opposed to 23, and of course the complexity has multiplied exponentially.
The complexity is not simply in the sheer number of benefits and their connection to each other but in the way that our constituents have to apply for them. As I understand it, the new pension credit application form has 12 pages and there are 16 pages of explanatory notes. Many elderly people are totally unable to handle that, so they have been offered a helpline; but under helpline procedure, a considerable amount of quite sophisticated information must be collected before any help can meaningfully be offered. For many other key benefits, applying is extremely complex. For example,
406WH
attendance allowance has a 19-page application form. It is not surprising that the Child Poverty Action Group's current chief executive says:
"The system is very complicated and it is far from easy to make a claim".
I became heavily involved in the issue of Post Office card accounts as a result of recent changes in the Post Office and because I spoke on Post Office matters until recently. The problem with the Post Office card account operationally—as opposed to in principle—was that there were eight separate steps before a benefit recipient or pensioner could get a card. As a result of intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister, action was taken to reduce the number of steps from eight to seven, but the process is still causing enormous problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon has done some work on that, and he established through the Library that a significant number of people, particularly pensioners, were getting trapped between the invitation stage and the next step in the application. Many have simply not been able to proceed with their card applications, and large numbers of applications are missing. It would be useful to hear how Post Office card accounts are proceeding. Are there are any blockages, and how do the Government propose to deal with them? What happens to people who have got to the invitation stage but do not proceed any further? Do they come under the default mechanism, whereby people are sent a cheque through the post, rather than being required to use a bank? There are many uncertainties about that process, and it would be useful to have help on them.
Some of the letters to which I referred earlier deal with what might be called error management. Any system will generate error; that is understandable, and in a big and complicated system, there will be many and various errors, but it is important that there is a good, speedy, courteous and efficient system for dealing with them. The problems are considerable, particularly in relation to the tax credit system, under which there have been large overpayments. There is a history of people being aggressively pursued for repayment of very large sums that were acquired through no fault of their own, and people find it exceedingly difficult to pay. It would be useful to hear how the Minister, who clearly is not directly responsible for the matter, views the interaction between benefits payment and tax credits where errors have occurred.
Some constituents have told me that their benefit payments are being cut because an overpayment error has been made in the tax credit system. There is a danger that they will be faced with a double demand for repayment through the Inland Revenue. Perhaps the Minister could explain how error management is being looked after. What is the degree of co-ordination between his Department and the Inland Revenue in ensuring that there will be no escalation of the problem of excessive demands being made of people who have been overpaid?
There is a particular problem with the Child Support Agency; as the Select Committee report produced just before summer points out, the error rate is between 10 and 14 per cent. The report's most optimistic prediction is that the error rate will be halved to 5 to 8 per cent. My understanding is that the National Audit Office figure for an acceptable error rate in an efficient Department is about 1 per cent. What is the time path for getting the system to approach some level of acceptability?

407WH
My final general point is about consumer service. There is little doubt that most employees of the Department do their best under difficult circumstances to be helpful and courteous. Many are outstanding individuals, and in many cases I give them credit for working under difficult conditions. However, there are clearly areas where customer service does not work. I shall highlight just one case, that of call centres. People make many calls and are unable to get replies or, in many cases, cannot even get through. Is there such a thing as a protocol governing what is expected of call centres and the way in which call centres relate to clients? It has been suggested to me that people who work in call centres on behalf of the Benefits Agency are specifically told not to make outgoing calls, which makes it difficult to deal with people who have left messages and made genuine inquiries.
One big change that will affect the Department for Work and Pensions in the coming months is the large cut in manpower, which we understand to be of the order of 40,000. It is perfectly possible to reduce manpower in that Department without a reduction in efficiency of service. I am not totally committed to the idea of jobs for life and of preserving jobs the way they are. None the less, it is difficult to see how the stress on the Department, including the management of the IT systems and the high error rates, can possibly be overcome in an environment where there is a large reduction in the numbers of staff.
It is said that staff cuts will not take place on the front line, but if they take place in back-office services, does that not imply a reduction in the support for IT systems and the efficiency of call centres? I have no idea how the reduction will be managed, but it would be helpful if the Government explained where the cuts will take place, in terms of occupation and geography, how they will be managed, who will be involved and the time frame in which the process of staff contraction will take place.
2.22 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is noted for the calm and analytical way in which he carries out his work in the House, and we have all benefited from the way in which he has brought to the House's attention just a sample of the large number of constituents who encounter problems with the welfare system, broadly defined. His analysis of IT issues, the system's complexities, the response to errors, and consumer service provides a structure that we might follow through the debate to ensure that the Minister provides us with a response on each area.
The Child Support Agency as an organisation has gone from bad to worse. It had a very unhappy birth, having been set targets that were unattainable from day one. From the beginning, therefore, it pursued the easy cases, the people who were already paying, in order to get them to pay more. It was much easier to meet targets not by doing what it was supposed to do, which was to chase the people who did not pay at all, but by chasing those who were paying in order to try to get more money out of them. The CSA alienated many people, and it has not recovered from that.
408WH
Several pieces of child support legislation have changed the way in which the CSA operates and how maintenance is calculated and collected. Yet, well over a decade after its introduction, it is as shambolic as it was in the beginning.
Many constituents, represented by Members from all parties, find their dealings with the Child Support Agency among the most maddening things that they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) remarked in a debate in this Chamber that the CSA is not exactly part of the healing process. It is anything but, and it often makes matters worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham raised the issue of administration of child support. All hon. Members who want to provide a quality service to their constituents are perfectly happy to contact the CSA on their behalf, but we would far rather be redundant in that role and see a mechanism whereby people received quality of service first time round, at least in the 99 per cent. of cases to which my hon. Friend referred, and see a similarly effective mechanism for resolving their problems in the remaining 1 per cent.
Only this lunchtime, as I checked my incoming e-mails, I received one about the CSA from a constituent I had been trying to help and who had been on to the CSA's hotline. I appreciate and pay tribute to the knowledgeable and thorough staff who respond on the MPs' hotline. I was in touch with them some months ago about the case, but because I had stopped pushing, the situation had been put on hold. My constituent said that it was six weeks since anything had happened. She was told six weeks ago that her case was urgent, but when she rang yesterday she was told that nothing had happened in those six weeks, that it was on someone's desk and that, if she was lucky, it might be dealt with next week. There is no sense that the agency has got a grip on what it is meant to be doing. It simply does not seem able to cope.
We talked about the new computer system. I bring to the Minister's attention the feedback that I get when I ring the MPs' hotline for the Child Support Agency. The first question is whether the case is a new or an old one. In other words, is it on the new, multi-million pound flash computer or on the off-the-shelf, rubbishy one from the 1970s? If I say that it is a new case, they groan. They say, "We are sorry but we can't tell you much because we don't have much information. The new system doesn't enable us to tell you what you want to know. If it were an old case, we'd have a notepad and could give you information for your constituents, but the new computer system is not as good."
I find that extraordinary, because when the Government said to the House that they wanted hundreds of millions of pounds for a flash, new computer system and that they wanted to reform the entire child support system, the reason they gave was that the system was running on a rubbishy old computer that had been borrowed from the Americans in the 1970s, which was not fit for purpose. They said that all would be better when we got the new computer. However, here we are, and I guarantee one thing: the Minister will not today give us a date or tell us when the new computer will be working properly. I do not know whether it will ever be working properly, but people want to know.

409WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred to the fact that the date at which we switch to a new computer system is not just an administrative point but one that makes a substantive difference. People on the new system would be allowed by law to retain some of their maintenance—£10 a week—but under the old system, they cannot get that money. How much longer should parents and children have to suffer financially because of the incompetence of EDS, the Child Support Agency and the Government when it comes to managing IT projects? It is children in poorer families, living on income support, who are affected by that. In the perhaps insufficient number of cases in which some maintenance can be got out of the former partner, is it not outrageous that, because of the Government's incompetence at managing computer projects, the children do not get the £10? For every extra week that the Government delay and that the system does not work, the children will not get £10. That seems to me totally unacceptable, and I think that the Minister owes the House an explanation about when it will come to an end. All we get is bland assurances: "We do not want to change to the new system until we're sure that it's working". Of course we do not, but when will that be? Does not the House deserve to know that? Perhaps the Minister can break with tradition and tell us.
My hon. Friend mentioned something else: the other side of the coin. We have the customer—the member of the public—who deals with the agencies, but we also have the poor souls who work for those agencies. They often have to deal with wholly inadequate IT systems and with irate members of the public. While I would not defend aggression towards, or abusive treatment of, public servants—that is totally unacceptable—I see the flipside, which is that people who work for the agencies have to put up with a lot of angry people.
It is no coincidence that, as the House may be aware, the Department for Work and Pensions consistently fails to meet its targets for staff sickness. The Department set targets to cut staff sickness, yet sickness has gone up. Within the Department, the Child Support Agency has one of the worst records for staff sickness, because at times it is a horrible place to work, because workers have to deal with rubbishy computers and members of the public who are given a rubbish service. I wonder when the Department will become a better employer so that members of staff want to turn up to work in the morning and do not have to deal with the wholly inadequate structure that the Government have put in place.
It would be nice to think that the Child Support Agency, which has been a source of dissension for a decade or more, was the only example of that problem, but the Government have contrived to invent new ones. As my hon. Friend said, the tax credits system is perhaps the classic example. I liken the experience of members of the public who receive tax credits to that of being on a rollercoaster. One month they are quids in, the next month they are down, then they get a claw-back, and then an overpayment, and they never know where they stand from one month to the next. They do not know whether the call or the knock on the door will come that says, "Sorry, but you were never entitled to that money that we gave you and we want it back." Ministers give
410WH
us assurances that that will be done terribly humanely and that discretion will be shown and some of it written off, but the Inland Revenue does not seem to know that.
I had a case recently where someone had had a substantial overpayment and it looked odd. He could not understand how he could be entitled to all that money—given the rhetoric of Ministers, though, he thought that maybe it was that generous, as he had certainly been told how generous it would be. He rang up the Revenue and said, "Are you sure this is right?" He was told, "Yes, that's right." He double-checked that the figure was right, and thought, "Fine. I don't understand how the thing works." The credit is, of course, fiendishly complicated. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the relevant Bill, and I do not quite understand how tax credits are worked out. Members of the public are given a figure, and if they ring and check it is correct, they have a right to assume that they can rely on that money.
The gentleman in question paid his father back money he had owed him for years, which he had been given for an emergency. He said, "I thought at long last I could clear my debts. We went on a holiday. It's been brilliant." But I think the whole House knows what is coming next. The Revenue said, "Terribly sorry. We set your income at zero, so we have given you far too much money." Now, the Treasury made that assumption in relation to something called the working tax credit, and I hope that the Minister will explain to me how someone can receive the "working" tax credit but not have any earnings. I find that rather confusing.
The Revenue is now after the money, which runs into thousands of pounds. The Revenue's letter says that it accepts that the mistake was its fault, but that my constituent should have realised he was getting the wrong amount. He did smell a rat, it did look wrong, so he rang up and checked, and the benefits people said, "No, it's fine." How much more does a member of the public have to do? How far do people have to understand these fiendishly complicated systems? This comes back to the important point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham: errors will be made in the best of systems, but how do we respond to them? His comment is quite right: we need proper protocols for responding to errors. The gap between the rhetoric that we hear in this House about the tax credit system and the reality for our constituents is a gulf.
What can we do about this rollercoaster? When errors are made by a Department and members of the public could not realistically be expected to understand what is going on, they should be written off. It is unacceptable to claw that money back, especially when it has already been spent. The tax credits fiasco has been CSA mark 2. A big Government IT project par excellence has messed up the lives of thousands of people.
It is interesting that with the exception of the new pensioners mentioned by my hon. Friend, all the other cases he referred to related to the means-tested benefits system in one way or another. It tends to be the case that the more complicated the system and the more involved it is, the easier it is for officials and the public to get things wrong, and the more difficult it is to put things right.
If we are to deliver financial support to people on the basis of their annual circumstances, which is what the tax credit system does, we are asking for trouble. We are

411WH
expecting a household—these are household means tests—to report every change in circumstances during the course of an entire year. I have sat down with constituents who have got depressed, stressed and angry trying to explain every change in their circumstances to the people on the helpline, which is not always appropriately named. It was literally a case of explaining, "Last week, my wife did overtime, and this week she wasn't well so she was on sick pay for half the week, and I did some extra hours, which took me over this threshold." The system must look good to the whiz kids in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on their microcomputers, screens and charts, but it does not fit the complicated lives of real people.
Government policy must surely be directed towards simpler systems with a minimum of bureaucracy, which do not need to be changed every time someone's life changes and do not require the state constantly to keep track of people's individual circumstances. The Government have gone in precisely the opposite direction.
On delivering the money, my hon. Friend mentioned payment through the post office and, again, the infamous IT problem. As I understand it, we are talking about the Monday before the August bank holiday, and, for historical reasons, people with order books expected a double payment. The computer—I am not sure that computers just do things; I think someone probably tells them to—dished out double payments to about 190,000 people, mainly pensioners but not exclusively so. The story I have been told—the Minister may have a better version—is that someone realised that this was happening and metaphorically pulled the plug. However, that someone was in America. He pulled the plug and then went home. So when British customers started trying to get money out of their Post Office card accounts in Britain, the system was not working, but the people in America were tucked up in their beds. That may be a myth, but I do not understand why systems have to be transatlantic. One hears about such systems being subcontracted to low-wage call centres in Asia, but I am bewildered that the banking aspects of the Post Office card account have to be run from America. That is certainly not designed to provide a better quality of service, because it adds another dimension of complexity.
The ultimate irony was that the people whom the Government bullied into giving up their pension books and going over to the Post Office card account could not get their money. However, people who had hung on to their pension books were able to hand them over and get their money, because they still worked perfectly well. Is that not a parable for our age? The Government drive people into systems that, in many cases, they do not want to be part of, but fail to deliver or to keep their promises.
The Government spin is that the system is an antifraud measure, but they cannot even do the basics right and deliver people's money. Even when the postmasters rang the emergency helpline, they could not get through. What kind of a farce is that? One wonders what the Government can run if they cannot run an emergency helpline.
Pensioners were not the only ones affected that day. I encountered a mother with her children. She had run out of cash. She goes to one of the post offices in my
412WH
constituency on a Monday to pick up her income support, then takes the cash to the supermarket down the road to do the week's food shopping for the children. I understand that she literally had pennies left in her purse when she turned up to be told, "Come back tomorrow." That is unacceptable. The Minister is smiling but I do not think that it is funny. It is totally unacceptable that people should have to put up with that quality of service—if that is even the right phrase.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Department's plans to shed tens of thousands of staff. The principal reason given is that the IT is so wonderful that people can be moved from the back office, and some will go to the front office to provide customer service, but the rest will no longer be needed. It beggars belief that the current system can be regarded as so good and efficient that there is surplus capacity and that the priority for that surplus is to get rid of staff. If all those people are sitting around doing nothing all day, which I find it hard to believe, why do we not get them to sort out the backlog at the Child Support Agency or answer the phones for the tax credits system? Why not use them to improve quality of service rather than sacking them? We have heard many examples of poor customer service, and I am sure that we will hear more from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). However, the Department will have fewer people processing claims and dealing with applications, so it is hard to understand how what we see on the ground fits with the rhetoric about how the IT will sort the problems out.
Where do we go from here? Clearly, the direction of the Government's policy and strategy has been wrong. We all accept that there will always be a case for a residual means test. There will always be people whose circumstances are extreme or unusual and do not fit, so there must be a safety net or a catch-all to ensure that nobody falls through. However, that should be for the few, not the many, and I do not apologise for using that phrase again. It should be a way of catching those who fall through or for whom there is no alternative approach. What we get instead is mass means-testing of our elderly or of the working-age population, which forces vast numbers of people through immensely bureaucratic systems. Money that could be spent on helping people is being spent on bureaucracy.
The typical pension credit claim costs about £4 a week—£200 a year. Tens of thousands of people do not even receive that much from the system. I accept that there are teething problems in getting people on to the correct retirement pension. My hon. Friend gave some examples, and I have also found some, of people hitting pension age and not always getting their correct pension from day one. The NIRS2 computer, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is another legendary fiasco of the Department. Getting people on to the correct pension is sometimes tricky, but once they are on it, it is—widowhood and similar factors apart—basically straightforward for the rest of their lives. However, the vast majority of pensioners are in a system whereby they are means-tested for the rest of their lives, and changes in their circumstances mean reassessment. Huge amounts of money are devoted to the bureaucracy of administration—not always high-quality administration—and not enough is devoted to getting money to people.

413WH
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this broad topic, because those of us who spend all our time in this subject area often get bogged down in the minutiae. Today, he has stepped back and said that there are common threads running across different Departments and Select Committees. He described a Government who simply cannot get the IT right and who generate problems for themselves by making the system more and more complex and dependent on means-testing. They are completely out of touch with what our constituents find week in, week out, which is that the quality of service that they have a right to expect is not being delivered for them.
2.41 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and on putting at the heart of it what he called the human element when he raised, quite rightly, a series of constituency cases. The human element applies to the person who finds the amount of form-filling required excessive, the person who cannot get through to where they need to on the telephone, the person who is not sure what official has the right to set their benefit at whatever level and, above all—the hon. Gentleman rightly stressed this—the person who believes that there must be a more systematic way to address the increasing number of errors that appear to be creeping into the system.
I hear similar stories from my local citizens advice bureau in High Wycombe and from my constituents in High Wycombe and Marlow. Indeed, all hon. Members will have heard the same stories. That is why the hon. Gentleman should be congratulated. I also congratulate him on his timing. When he secured the debate, he may not have thought that his timing was all that good, given that it clashes with two debates that his party is having in the main Chamber. However, I think that on reflection he will agree that the timing was extremely apposite, because this is the first opportunity that we have had since the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to debate the operation of the benefits system.
Before moving on, I would like to pay tribute, as I have not yet had the chance to do so, to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), simply by saying that whenever I had dealings with him, which were in fact few, I was always struck by his great courtesy and decency in debate.
The reshuffle has made it clear that the complaints that the hon. Member for Twickenham aired, and the difficulties to which he referred, have crept up, so to speak, to the ears of Downing street. It now appears to believe that there is a connection between the complexity of the system that he described and the strategic direction being taken by the Department, to which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred at the end of his remarks. A considerable debate is clearly going on between Downing street and the Department about where social policy will go now.
Will the problems and difficulties to which the hon. Member for Twickenham referred be satisfactorily addressed? We read over the weekend in The Sunday
414WH
Telegraph that Downing street now wants to scrap the disability premium and, in other papers then and since, that it wants in effect to scrap the entire pension settlement that Conservative and, I think, Liberal Democrat Members believe is the creation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We read that Downing street wants to do so by variously scrapping or reducing means-testing—I shall return to that in a moment—which is the foundation stone of present pensions policy, and possibly by introducing compulsion and hiking national insurance by 1.5 pence in the pound.
There is a direct connection between the chaos and confusion that now appear to be engulfing the Department's policy and today's debate. As the hon. Member for Twickenham effectively conceded, any country with a welfare system that in theory covers 60 million people will also have one that in practice does not work perfectly. The key to having a system in which benefits and tax credits are paid in full and on time, and in which people receive payments to which they are entitled and do not experience the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman referred to, is for the system to be as simple as possible. Instead, it is now as complex as possible.
We warned the Government when they originally introduced the tax credit system that there was a great problem at the heart of it: the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions—formerly the Department of Social Security—exist for different purposes. The hon. Member for Northavon referred to that. He referred to the difficulty that has come about from trying to turn the Inland Revenue, which is used to examining what people do annually, into a Department, which, like the Department for Work and Pensions, is used to trying to find out what people have been doing each week. Traditionally it has not been the Inland Revenue's purpose to try to establish where one was last week, where one might have lived, what one's income was and whom one might have been with. Great problems have come about as a result of meshing those two systems together.
It is worth running through the record. In the space of four years between 1999 and 2003—we are not even talking about between 1997 and 2003—the Chancellor abolished family credit; introduced the working families tax credit; introduced the disabled person's tax credit; introduced a child care credit; introduced an employment credit; introduced the children's tax credit; introduced the baby tax credit; abolished the working families tax credit; abolished the disabled person's tax credit; abolished the children's tax credit; abolished the baby tax credit; introduced a child tax credit; abolished the employment credit; and introduced a working tax credit. I could not remember all that without notes, and I doubt whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Northavon could either. I am certain that scarcely one, if any, of my 74,000-odd constituents could.
In a system that complex, two main structural problems will arise that will affect the administration and delivery of benefits—besides the attack on independence, privacy and dignity that most pensioners, and such interest groups as Age Concern and the National Pensioners Convention, believe means-testing represents.

415WH
The hon. Member for Northavon alluded to the first such problem, which is the scandalously low take-up rates that arise from systems that are that complex. The take-up for the minimum income guarantee was 66 per cent. before it was taken up into the pension credit. That means that the non-take-up rate was 34 per cent. In other words, one third of the most vulnerable pensioners did not receive a penny from the MIG.
According to the latest figures, take-up for the pension credit is 3.1 million pensioners out of 5.1 million. In other words, almost 2 million pensioners are not receiving the pension credit to which they are entitled. The non-take-up rate of pension credit is almost 40 per cent. and, therefore, almost two out of five of the most vulnerable pensioners are not receiving a penny from the pension credit. It is worth pointing out that that is not because the Government want low take-up but because of the massive complexity of the systems involved, the difficulties of getting through on the helpline, the form-filling, and the fact that the pensioners concerned may come to believe that they will not get enough back from the pension credit to make it worth their while dealing with the administration.
Even if the Government hit their own target for 3 million households to receive pension credit by April 2006, that still means, according to the Government's own projections, that 1.4 million of our most vulnerable pensioners will not be receiving it. Even under the Government's own plans, for which Ministers budget, it is assumed that one in five pensioners will not benefit from the pension credit, and they are almost always the very poorest pensioners in our society. That is why The Guardian reported this morning that the Government's social exclusion unit has found that the pensioners and those who claim benefit who are hardest to help—such as, I suspect, some of my ethnic minority constituents in High Wycombe—are not being helped by such systems.
Such take-up problems were shown in their most extreme form earlier this year by the debacle to which the hon. Members for Northavon and for Twickenham referred and which accompanied the launch of the child tax credit. At one point, approximately 800,000 families who had made a claim were not receiving the money to which they were entitled and some children were missing out on free school meals and milk tokens.
That story neatly illustrates the other main structural problem—the first being the expansion of means-testing—that affects the administration and delivery of welfare entitlement. The serious problems with the computer system used by the Department to deliver that entitlement have been referred to several times already this afternoon. I want to visit the crash on 24 August of the computer system that administers direct payments and which affected so many of our constituents so badly, to which the hon. Members for Northavon and for Twickenham referred. On 24 August, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wrote to the then Secretary of State posing a series of questions. He has not yet received a reply, and I suspect that he will not receive one from that Secretary of State. Will the Minister tell me whether the American story related by the hon. Member for Northavon was correct? How many pensioners were affected? When did the computer system stop authorising payments? At what time was normal service resumed? Was the breakdown triggered by the bank holiday the following week, as was claimed?
416WH
Can the Minister assure pensioners that the new system will be able to handle holidays in future? Did the system crash after some pensioners received four weeks' money instead of two and, if so, how many pensioners fell into that category and what was the total value of overpaid benefits? Can he give categorical assurance that those problems will not be repeated? If he cannot do so, can he say whether the Department has any plans to introduce a back-up system and, again, if he cannot, will he suspend the plan to withdraw pension books by March next year? I note in passing that the contract to run the Inland Revenue's IT services during the next 10 years has been taken away from EDS, of whom we have heard so much, and given to Cap Gemini.
Then there is the Child Support Agency. At present, 74 per cent. of cases are still on the old system waiting to be transferred to the new system. There is no date on which those cases will be transferred, which means that, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, single parents have missed out on £45 million a year in benefits. Meanwhile, one in three customer calls are apparently abandoned because of the failings of the new system and £2 billion of uncollected child maintenance has been written off by the Department. The hon. Gentleman said that staff sickness rates are among the highest—when I last looked they were the highest—of any section in the Department.
As the Minister knows, there is now consensus that the Government's computer strategy is not working in many respects. The report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, on which I serve, to which both hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have referred and on which the Government have, of course, a majority, said in its recent report that Whitehall was hiding "an appalling waste" of public money behind a "cloak of commercial confidentiality".
That is one consensus, but there is also consensus that the Chancellor of the Exchequer-driven mania for means-testing is also not working and that we need a simpler pensions and social security system. That is agreed by organisations ranging from the National Pensioners Convention to the Association of British Insurers.
Either the Minister is as baffled as the rest of us by the reports in the media, which clearly emanate from Downing street, that the Government's pensions policy should be reversed and the welfare system thus simplified, or he is in Downing street's confidence and knows how the apparent struggle between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is going to be resolved, in which case it would be useful if he were to reply to the points that have been raised in this debate and to tell us what the Department's plans are to make the system simpler. He should also make it clear whether the major step of making the system simpler by retreating from means-testing in pensions and adopting a policy that is nearer to that of my party—linking the basic state pension with earnings—is on the desk of any Minister or about to go to any Minister.
2.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and on raising important issues about the

417WH
complexity of what he describes as the benefit system and the difficulties of delivery, as well as about some of the stresses in the system. While he raised in a thoughtful way some of the issues his constituents have brought to him, I would not like him or other hon. Members to lose sight of how people's lives have changed in recent years as a result of some of the changes that we have made. That was highlighted in yesterday's "Opportunities for All" report. It showed that more than 1.9 million more people were in work than in 1997, that around 2.1 million fewer children and 1.8 million fewer pensioners were living in the absolute poverty they experienced just seven years ago, and that half as many people experienced fuel poverty.
There have been real and considerable improvements in the circumstances of the people we have been discussing—the very poorest who depend on the benefit system—and we are well on the way to meeting our targets. They are ambitious targets, which have never before been established by any Government. They are to halve and then eliminate child poverty.
I want to deal with some of the issues addressed by the hon. Member for Twickenham and raised in the contributions of the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The first of them is complexity. The hon. Member for Twickenham is right to draw attention to the fact that the benefit system is complex. It seeks to meet the needs of people in very varying circumstances who often have very different needs. It is a system that has developed over the years. It not only draws on our post-war welfare settlement; that itself draws on many of the provisions of the period 1909-11. Therefore, by definition we have a system that is complex.
Wherever possible and bearing in mind the need to ensure that simplification does not compromise fairness, the Government are determined to ensure that the system is as simple as possible and that it delivers to our customers in a way that is as easily understandable to them as possible. Therefore, in areas such as council tax benefit and disability living allowance, we have made significant moves to simplify the forms. In the local housing alliance this morning, I launched a new phase in our reforms of housing benefit, which replace a very complex system of housing support with a simple standard local housing allowance for each locality that varies only according to the size of household. We are piloting it in a number of pathfinder areas.
In the Pension Service we have devised a new mechanism by which people can claim pension credit. They can do so from the comfort of their own home over the telephone—one of our staff will fill out the form for them —or through a home visit from the local service.
We have heard much about the failures of IT and telephony in the Child Support Agency system, but hon. Members are aware that we are seeking to replace a complex system of assessing maintenance liability, under which up to 100 different pieces of information were needed to make the assessment, with a much simpler, straightforward system. The new system will help parents with care and non-resident parents to understand how much should be transferred from one parent to the other.
418WH
We have invested heavily in delivery; over the past two spending reviews, some £2.8 billion has been invested in modern IT infrastructure, Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service to enable us to operate more efficiently while delivering a high level of service for our customers. For example, as I have said, pensioners can now easily apply for pension credit by telephone or through a visit at home by the local service, instead of being required, as in the past, to visit a drab benefit office. In most cases, once they have made that telephone call and their claim has been verified, pensioners over 65 need not be troubled further for up to five years.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Wycombe, who referred to the take-up of pension credit, that we are proud of what we have achieved in getting 3 million people in receipt of it already. I can confirm that there are no plans at all to allow one in five pensioners not to benefit from the credit in the longer term. We now have a more stringent target, which is to ensure that 3.2 million people receive pension credit, but we will not rest until all pensioners entitled to that help get it.
A recent Age Concern report showed that for most applicants—70 per cent.—the application process was considered easy, and simpler than that for the minimum income guarantee. Some 85 per cent. said that they would recommend to others applying for pension credit. I do not think that that reflects the picture painted by hon. Members of the complexity of claiming pension credit. I must tell the hon. Member for Wycombe that the credit is a targeted benefit because we needed to make sure that we got help to those who needed it most, after many years in which pensions were badly eroded under the previous Government, and in which there had been a substantial increase in pensioner poverty.
We are also improving the processing of benefits, so that more of our operations are automated and more staff can be released to focus on front-line work. Jobcentre Plus will increase the number of customer-facing staff by 15 per cent. We have also been able to reduce the number of offices we use by combining the old Benefits Agency with Employment Service networks to make new customer-focused agencies—Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service. By centralising processing work in Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service and making bespoke larger centres, we can achieve further economies of scale.
The reality of all of that is that we need fewer staff to continue to deliver a high level of service to customers, thanks to improved services and more efficient ways of working. The hon. Member for Northavon asks why we do not simply move those staff to the CSA or to work on tax credits to improve the quality of customer service, but I can tell him that customer service is improving. Although we are able to reduce the overall number of staff as a result of the investment that we have made, particularly in DWP, we have given a commitment, and our emphasis is on front-line staff and quality of service.
All hon. Members have referred to difficulties with the CSA as illustrations of what they wish the House to believe are failures of IT systems. As I have said previously, I am as frustrated as other hon. Members that we are not yet able to deliver that new and simpler system of assessment. Hon. Members are aware that we

419WH
have had considerable problems with the IT and telephony in the CSA. We have worked closely with EDS, our IT suppliers, to try to overcome those problems. Over recent periods, as the Select Committee knows, we have withheld 15 to 20 per cent. of payments to EDS, to take account of the failures of delivery on IT and telephony.
Things are improving. Some 25,000 parents with care now receive the child maintenance premium. The hon. Members for Northavon and for Wycombe said that they would like to see all parents who are entitled to that premium receiving it, and I concur with that. The reality is, however, that that premium is a feature of the new system and not of the old, and until we can transfer the old cases to the new system, we cannot pay that premium across the board. I am afraid that I cannot make a commitment to a date when that transfer will be made. I repeat that we will not and cannot make the transfer of old cases to the new system until we are convinced that the IT is working effectively. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
The hon. Member for Northavon also referred to the tax credits system; he described it as a fiasco. At that point in his address he was becoming increasingly theatrical—he talked about it messing up the lives of thousands of people. Neither I nor most of my constituents would recognise that as reality.
The tax credit system, which represented a transfer of some 6 million people to a new and more generous form of family support, was perhaps the biggest change in family support since Beveridge. Inevitably, in the early stages of making a transfer of that size there were stresses on the system. However, the system is now working much more effectively than it was in the early stages, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that many of the problems have been overcome. The tax credit system is an essential part of our programme, which aims to halve child poverty by 2010 and to eliminate it by 2020.
I shall now address the points made by hon. Members about the Post Office card account system and direct payment. The hon. Members for Twickenham and for Northavon made the allegation that we are bullying people into giving up their order books and moving to direct payment, whether to the Post Office card account or a form of bank account. I reassure the House that no bullying is going on. We are ensuring that people understand their options and can make a real choice about the way in which they wish to receive their benefits or pensions. The aim is to overcome the financial exclusion that blights so many people's lives and to offer a more secure and flexible method by which people can receive their payments. Moreover, more than 90 per cent. of pensioners already have a bank account, and we should be wary of being patronising towards pensioners by assuming that, for some reason, they cannot operate a bank account.
Mr. Webb: The Minister used the word "patronising"—the right word for him to use. If, faced with an informed choice about those two options—direct payment into a Post Office card account or a bank account—a pensioner says, "No, I know my
420WH
circumstances and my preferences, and I prefer the present method of payment", is it not patronising to tell them that that is the one choice they cannot have?
Mr. Pond: No, that is not patronising. It is a reality that we have decided to phase out the order books. They were introduced at the same time as ration books and would have been abolished in 1998, if the previous Government had remained in office and their plans had come to fruition. As the hon. Gentleman knows, 100 pensioners have their pension books stolen every week, and there was an understanding that it is a very expensive method of transferring funds to pensioners. The funds should go into the pension, not the method of delivery. Most pensioners already operate bank accounts; I do not think it at all patronising to assume that the rest, in time, will wish to do so. Some will be unable to operate those accounts, and that is why we have announced a system of cheque-based payments for those who really are unable and unwilling to operate any form of bank account.
The hon. Member for Twickenham suggested that we were making it difficult for people to take out Post Office card accounts. More than 3.8 million people have requested POCAs and more than 3 million have opened such accounts—that does not suggest that people are finding that overly difficult. Independent research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions suggests that there are high levels of satisfaction among customers who have transferred to direct payment. Some 91 per cent. of customers stated that they were satisfied with the process of making the arrangements to receive their benefit by direct payment; 93 per cent. were satisfied with the process of having payments made into their accounts. We recognise that some people, including many pensioners, find the final stage of opening a Post Office card account difficult—the stage of returning their account details to the Department for Work and Pensions. We understand that people find it difficult to see any distinction between the Post Office and a Government Department. We are talking to the Post Office and to postmasters to establish whether there is a way of making that simpler.
A number of Members mentioned the events in August—I should say to the hon. Member for Wycombe that 23 August was the date. Having spoken to the chief executive and other senior Post Office managers to get a clear understanding of exactly what happened, I should like to clarify what appears to have happened on that occasion. The hon. Member for Northavon was right in saying that somebody from JP Morgan, the Post Office's subcontractor, apparently turned the system off, having found that multiple payments had been made to certain people. That person did so without the authority of the Post Office, and certainly with no authority from the Department for Work and Pensions. The Post Office card account is a Post Office, not a DWP, product. It was not a system or IT failure, but a management failure—a failure as a result of human error.
We have sought the Post Office's assurances that that will never happen again. There must be safeguards to ensure that, and to ensure that, if it does happen again, the fall-back mechanisms will not fail and people will be able to find out exactly where their payments are. It is unacceptable that pensioners should have been left—

421WH
even for three hours and 53 minutes, as was the case on 23 August—without any means of accessing their money. I have made that point clearly to the Post Office and I know that it accepts that. I have also asked it to pass the message on to JP Morgan.
The hon. Member for Northavon raised the question of whether pensioners and others will be pursued for any overpayments that occurred as a result of that error by JP Morgan. I have made it clear to the Post Office, and asked it to make it clear to its suppliers, that we do not expect any pensioner or any other of our customers to be pursued for the repayment of an overpayment that was no fault of their own. In response to the hon. Member for Wycombe, we are in receipt of the list of questions sent in a letter by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). We delayed responding to the detailed points until after we had received clear responses from the Post Office about exactly what happened, but we will shortly issue a response to the specific points along the lines that I have just outlined.
The hon. Member for Twickenham raised a serious point about some of his constituents who had been pursued for overpaid benefits in a way that he considered unacceptable. As background, fraud and error overall cost the Department and the taxpayer some £2 billion a year, or £80 for every family in the country. We are making considerable progress in reducing the amount of fraud and error. The reduction of 29 per cent. for income support and jobseeker's allowance, which are the main working-age benefits, is well on the way to meeting our public service agreement target of an overall reduction of 33 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have a responsibility to recover overpayments, even if they are the result of official error. If payment is made over and above the amount that has been authorised—for example, someone may be paid twice for the same period—the Department may invite repayment. In exceptional circumstances, a person's failure to respond to the invitation to repay could lead the Department to consider recovery through civil action, but we are very sensitive on such issues. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details of the particular cases to which he referred, I will happily pursue them on his behalf and determine whether they have been dealt with properly.
Finally, I wish to address some of the points about pensions, which are of vital concern to all our constituents. In a short time, we will have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House on a Liberal motion. The Pension Service has been operational for two years, and it is clear from customer and partner feedback that it is making a
422WH
difference. Some 81 per cent. of respondents to customer surveys said that they were satisfied with the service that they received. The quality of the staff and information, and the professionalism of the service were commonly identified as the best things about the service. More than nine out of 10 respondents agreed that staff in the Pension Service were polite, treated customers with respect, were easy to talk to and were patient. A network of pension centres provides a primarily telephone-based service for more than 11 million pensioners. It is supported by locally based services that are delivered in partnership with other organisations, offering face to face contact with customers who need it through home visits and at outreach locations.
The new approach to the delivery of benefits and services to our customers means that we have to be smarter about our business processes. As I said, we have increased investment in our IT systems and in our processes overall, and our target for paying pension credit has been increased to at least 3.2 million pensioner households by 2008. That demonstrates our continuing focus on tackling poverty and our confidence in meeting challenging targets.
The substantial investment has meant a transformation of the DWP into an organisation that is focused around the needs of customers. Investment and reform are transforming the welfare state into an efficient system that is tightly focused on actively supporting and empowering people so that they can achieve their potential and get the help to which they are entitled. Modern IT and improved processes mean that we can now get more resources to the front line so that we can continue to deliver a high-quality service with increasing efficiency.
I understand that for our staff this is an unsettling time. That investment, those extra efficiencies and the way in which with fewer staff we are able to provide a higher quality of provision to our customers means that many people who work in the organisation will not be needed in the long term. Although any job losses are regrettable, by improving efficiency we will release resources to make further progress on child and pensioner poverty and get even closer to full employment.
I pay tribute to our staff. The achievements that I outlined at the beginning, from our report, "Opportunities for All", are a tribute to them and something that I much appreciate. I know that other hon. Members of the House will want to join me in paying that tribute.
2.20 pm
Sitting suspended until half-past Three o'clock.

Oversight of IMF and World Bank Policies
3.30 pm
Ann McKechin: This year marks an important anniversary for our multilateral organisations, as it is 60 years since the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created at the Bretton Woods conference. They were set up with the noble and worthwhile aims of providing global financial stability and growth to avoid the economic disasters that had scarred the first half of the 20th century and had, at least in part, led to world war two. Our world has, of course, changed a great deal during those 60 years and the role and influence of those bodies has altered significantly from the original ideals. Gradually, both organisations have adopted objectives based on an unswerving belief in the benefits of capital market liberalisation, which has certainly benefited the financial markets but has, in many cases, failed to secure the original aims of world stability and growth.
Today, IMF and World Bank activities directly affect the lives and livelihoods of billions of people throughout the developing world. Over the years there have been many criticisms of their policies, and of their policies' consequences, from a wide variety of sources. Despite the talk in western nations of the need for democracy and good governance, however, in many ways those institutions still appear remote and unaccountable to any form of democratic mandate.
At the end of the month, Ministers will attend the annual general meeting of the World Bank and the IMF, but despite the huge power of both those institutions, there has been no opportunity for a debate in the main Chamber of this House or in the other place on how this country's representatives propose to conduct negotiations, or on their voting patterns during the last year. That is the norm, for there has been remarkably little debate or scrutiny of the Government's record in either institution, despite the fact that we hold a permanent directorship on the boards of both and are viewed as a key world player.
Sadly, the United Kingdom is not unique in its lack of parliamentary scrutiny and I argue that that is one of the fundamental reasons why multilateral institutions have failed to address the true needs of the people whom they were ultimately designed to serve. Although they are public institutions, there is no direct accountability to the public. That is understandable, given their global nature; however, that lack could be balanced by ensuring that the operations of the organisations are open and transparent. In reality, they fail to be transparent, with a culture of secrecy ingrained in the institutional framework, and key economic and loan decisions still being taken in closed-door discussions. Some—the IMF and World Bank among them, no doubt—will argue that that provides flexibility, but it also precludes timely debate and criticism in national Parliaments and allows special interests full sway. Probably just as importantly, it creates suspicions that, even when groundless, can feed the forces that can undermine the political sustainability of such policies.
424WH
Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, argues in his book, "Globalization and its Discontents":
"The most fundamental change that is required to make globalization work in the way that it should is a change in governance. This entails, at the IMF and World Bank, a change in voting rights … to ensure that it is not just the voices of … finance ministries and treasuries that are heard."
At present, voting rights are determined largely on the basis of economic weight, giving the industrialised nations of the world, who are also the leading nations in the financial community, an effective veto on IMF and World Bank decisions. However, as Stiglitz argues effectively in his book, the premise that the creditor nations should hold the real power is fundamentally false, as the IMF almost always gets paid. It is not the same as a commercial bank. The money ultimately comes from the workers and other taxpayers in the developing nations.
That imbalance has led to IMF and World Bank policies being concentrated on the priorities of the financial community, rather than on those of the poor. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Zambia as part of an exchange scheme for women parliamentarians organised through the offices of the British Council. For more than 20 years, the Zambian Government have been dependent on support from the IMF and the World Bank. Unlike many of its neighbours, Zambia has enjoyed relative stability and lack of conflict for a long period, and it has a proud record of caring for substantial numbers of refugees from war-afflicted zones in countries on its borders. Despite this record, however, Zambia has become increasingly poorer during that period. It now has the lowest life expectancy of any country in the world: a mere 33.4 years in 2001. In 1990 it was ranked 130 on the UN human development index, but it had fallen to 163 in 2001.
Over the years, the multilateral organisations have imposed a whole raft of conditions on the way in which Zambia's economy should operate, but for much of that time those conditionalities did not lead to better policies, faster growth or better outcomes for the Zambian people. Zambia liberalised many of its domestic industries before neighbouring countries in the region, but owing to the failure to consider the proper sequencing of these measures, the record post-privatisation has been very mixed. Many companies have collapsed, jobs have been lost and welfare programmes originally carried out through a state organisation have not been continued by private companies.
In the past 10 years, Zambia has sold 257 out of 280 state firms. Unlike the economies of east Asia, which opened their markets slowly to the outside world and in a sequenced way, Zambia was totally unable to compete with international competition, and privatisation has not led to employment growth. Formal manufacturing employment almost halved, falling from 75,400 in 1991 to 43,320, in 1998. In addition, the Government have been required to lower tariffs on a wide range of products to levels far lower than the limits set under World Trade Organisation agreements. The IMF and World Bank have taken an exceptionally long time to admit that historical evidence shows that to develop, exporting countries need protection for a

425WH
period of time from the world's markets, and most if not all of today's industrialised and newly industrialised nations—including our own in the west—have used a wide variety of what would now be considered trade-distorting policy interventions to protect their economies before they liberalised.
Sadly that lesson was not learned soon enough to save Zambia's textile industry—one of the indicators of its transition from a developing country into a more industrialised state. The lowering of tariffs on textile products, and particularly the removal of all tariffs on used clothes, led to large increases in imports of cheap, second-hand clothing from industrialised nations. There were more than 140 textile firms in 1991 but their number had fallen to just 8 by 2002, and employment in textiles fell from 34,000 to only 4,000 in that period. Sadly, textiles is not the only industry in which such consequences have been felt.
The liberalisation of trade also had an adverse impact on Government revenues. During the 1990s, total income from tariffs, which formed a significant part of Zambia's revenue, fell by more than 50 per cent., and with declining gross domestic product overall, Government revenue fell by more than 30 per cent. in real terms between 1990 and 1998. At the same time, however, the IMF and World Bank were calling for fiscal stringency, so spending on important economic infrastructure was heavily cut. During my visit, I met communities who had to wait upwards of 30 years for the most basic health care and school provision—in fact health care and school provision now is similar to that provided prior to independence in 1964. In one area, the local community had built its own school with materials supplied by a US charity, but only had resources to appoint an unqualified teacher. Their literally incredible efforts to give their children a very rudimentary education were truly humbling, yet at the same time there are approximately 5,000 qualified teachers in the country whom the Government cannot afford to employ.
Despite that record, in the very week of my visit, the World Bank representative in Zambia stated, astonishingly, that Zambians should stop complaining about the multilateral institutions of the IMF and World Bank. Apparently, he was under the strange impression that his own organisation was an invincible force for good. As the Zambian authorities grapple with the challenge of reaching the completion point in the heavily indebted poor countries process, they may feel that they are not in a strong position to argue against such arrogance. Despite the recognised efforts of the Government this year to achieve a balanced budget, Zambia will reach the completion date, probably by January next year, with an unsustainable level of debt and will be far from ever reaching the millennium development goals. Any progress that has been made in the past couple of years is agonisingly small, while Zambian people continue to suffer from crushing poverty. Such complacency on the part of the IMF and the World Bank works against good governance and democratic decision making and involvement.
I appreciate that our Government, together with the IMF and World Bank, have placed much store in recent years on the poverty reduction strategy papers process,
426WH
which is linked to the debt relief programme, as being much more participatory and constituting a genuine dialogue between north and south. However, the incorporation of civil society viewpoints in the final PRSP in HIPC countries does not extend to the macroeconomic policies that are underpinned by the poverty reduction growth facility, because that is subject to complete control by the IMF. A poverty reduction growth facility letter of agreement is required before a country can reach the decision point on the PRSP. The involvement of parliamentarians, as opposed to Ministers, in the PRSP process is at best minimal, and in many HIPC nations is almost non-existent.
There is no doubt that there are other contributory factors to Zambia's economic decline, such as corruption and lack of good governance. Nevertheless, the IMF and World Bank have had 20 years of significant influence in the country and its economy but have failed to deliver. If, like a Government's, their policies were truly subject to democratic scrutiny, changes in direction and scope would have happened far quicker.
Last week, in my role as co-chair of the all-party heavily indebted poor countries group, I hosted a meeting to launch a global petition calling for both institutions to recognise the right of national Parliaments to have the right and obligation to be fully involved in the development and scrutiny of their proposals and to hold the final power of ratification. The organisers of the petition, which is supported by the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, hope to gain support in at least 60 Parliaments and Assemblies from both the north and south of the globe.
Even though we have been back in session for only just over a week, more than 125 parliamentarians from both Houses have already signed the petition, and the response from other Parliaments has been encouraging. The petition has struck a strong chord with elected representatives, who often feel powerless to influence decisions that have such an impact on their electorate. The aims of the petition are relatively modest but can go a long way to establish better governance both in our multilateral institutions and in individual nation states.
I appreciate that no single member of the institutions can effect widespread change. However, I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will agree that in the spirit of open government engendered by our Freedom of Information Act 2000, it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to disclose their detailed voting patterns as an executive director, together with policy positions and statements made to the board. That would be a good start and act as a catalyst to reform of the way in which the House examines Government policy on those matters.
The Treasury Committee, in its report in April 2001 on the IMF, stated that the actions of the IMF's
"executive board as a whole remain opaque. Most notably neither the votes, nor the minutes, of the executive board are published. We believe that … withholding this information limits our ability to hold the Government to account for their actions at the Fund."
Does the Minister accept that such information should be made available as a matter of course?
I know that our Government have in the past supported greater involvement by African nations on the boards of directors, and that is welcome. However,

427WH
although the UK, France and Germany have one seat each, the entire African continent has only two. That makes it very hard for parliamentarians in poor countries to contact, let alone influence, their executive director. I hope that my hon. Friend will support moves to give developing nations more say in the IMF and the World Bank, which in turn would make it easier for their parliamentarians to hold their representatives on the board to account.
Given that 70 per cent. of the world's poorest people are women, my hon. Friend will agree that the fact that the boards of both institutions are overwhelmingly male—in 2002, the IMF board was entirely male—is totally unacceptable in this day and age. Have our Government requested a better gender balance on those boards, or do they have any proposals?
If policies are to succeed and gain support from those who will bear the consequences, it is important that the IMF and the World Bank engage genuinely with national Parliaments. The same is true for any policy that we as politicians try to present to our electorate. I hope that our Government will accept that if the PRSP process is to be a genuine step towards better governance, macro-economic changes and loan decisions must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, just as we would expect if the House were to enter into significant economic agreements with any multilateral institution.
I know that in order to focus policy direction on poverty reduction, the Chancellor has been at the forefront of policy changes in the IMF, but I urge my hon. Friend and his colleagues to ensure that parliamentary democracy and scrutiny are an integral part of future decision making. We all want the IMF and the World Bank to succeed in tackling poverty around the globe, and that would be a significant way of achieving that objective.
3.46 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate, on the clear and well argued way in which she pressed her arguments for reforming the international financial institutions, and on the way in which she brought into play her particular concerns about Zambia. In paying tribute to my hon. Friend, I acknowledge the work that she puts into the all-party groups in which she is an office holder. That all-party view has been a feature of debate about such issues in this House, backed by the commitment of community groups, faith groups and campaign groups beyond Westminster. In the past few years, that campaign has made an important contribution to our pressure on international institutions for the reforms that she and I want to secure. I am aware of the parliamentarians' petition that my hon. Friend launched last week. If 125 Members of both Houses of the UK Parliament have signed it, we already have more than double the worldwide target of 60 parliamentarians per petition that the exercise set.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues, and it is important that we do so in the context of our overall approach to development. The leadership and influence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has displayed since
428WH
1997, to which my hon. Friend paid tribute, reflects the UK Government's firm commitment to support developing countries, strengthen their economies, reduce poverty and improve the provision of basic public services for their citizens. It is a moral imperative to improve people's lives in developing countries, but it is a practical imperative to support more general global growth—a point to which my hon. Friend alluded. She paid tribute to the Chancellor and our support of key measures such as the HIPC initiative, which will bring all countries to a sustainable level of debt. However, much more is needed to ensure that no country that is genuinely committed to reform is denied the opportunities to meet the millennium development goals.
Development will be a defining feature of the G7 and G8 presidencies that the UK is due to take on next year. One priority will be to progress the UK proposal for an international finance facility and to support the WTO's Doha development agenda to increase opportunities for freer and fairer trade. However, for developing countries to be able to make most use of debt relief, aid and more open trade, they must have the economic conditions necessary for growth. Without an economic system to ensure that growth benefits more than just a few in society, the millennium development goals, which will be at the heart of our vision and effort over the next decade, will be missed, even if there is greater international support. The international financial institutions have a crucial role to play in supporting Governments who have embarked on economic reform programmes, poverty reduction and tackling corruption.
To assist the reform efforts, the IMF and the World Bank provide a range of advice and support, but it is fair to say, as my hon. Friend did, that in the past too great a degree of direction has been applied to programmes that those institutions are prepared to support, so that it becomes a case more of directing than of supporting. That is why, as my hon. Friend recognised, the UK fully supported the introduction of the poverty reduction strategy papers process in 1999. That was a major step forward, providing the basis on which donor support to low-income countries can be built around the country's own development priorities. These issues are complex and will take time and effort to get right. We still have not made the progress that we want. The UK Government therefore welcome the recent reviews of the PRSP process by the IMF's independent evaluation office and the World Bank's operations evaluation department. Those reviews made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening country ownership and improving the capacity of developing countries to reduce poverty. I say to my hon. Friend that we will continue to work to ensure that those recommendations are implemented.
It is correct to say, as my hon. Friend argues and as the parliamentarians' petition asserts, that parliamentarians must play their part in the development of poverty reduction strategies in order to underline and reinforce the ownership of development priorities in the countries involved. It is also fair to say that in many cases parliamentary involvement in that process has been weak. That is due sometimes to a lack of capacity, and sometimes to constitutional arrangements within the countries in question. However, over the last two years,

429WH
the Department for International Development has been working in-country with some of them to support greater involvement of their parliamentarians. The World Bank is now doing the same in the design and implementation of its lending programmes. Ultimately, however, it is for developing countries to decide how engagement with parliamentarians should happen. Donors and international institutions cannot and should not impose that.
The Government recognise the concerns that nongovernmental organisations and others, including my hon. Friend, express about the effect that conditions attached to loans and aid programmes can have on the sense of local ownership of reform. My hon. Friend cited the example of Zambia, based on the fact-finding visit that she conducted over the summer. To complement the PRSP process, the IMF has already undertaken a considerable streamlining of its conditionality and is due to review its guidelines again this year. The World Bank has also embarked on a streamlining process. The UK is strongly behind that work to ensure that the international financial institution guidelines support country ownership and are implemented in practice. To develop further the UK's approach to conditionality, the Government—the Treasury, DFID and the Foreign Office working jointly—have prepared a consultation document for discussion with key donor and developing country partners and with NGOs. A first draft of that has been circulated to NGOs, and today sees the first consultation discussion with some of those interests. If my hon. Friend is interested, I will ensure that she gets a copy of the draft. It will be formally published in full a little later. The document sets out where and how the UK believes conditionality should be used by multilateral agencies and by itself as a bilateral donor.
The document argues that conditionality can support but cannot buy reform, that countries should have the space to develop policy options and debate them, that donors need to improve the harmonisation and predictability of aid. However, it also states that conditionality is important for justifying aid spending to parliamentarians and to the public in donor countries—I think that my hon. Friend will probably accept that point. After the period of consultation, the Government aim to publish a final document on their policy towards conditionality next year. We want to encourage the engagement of parliamentarians and elicit the views of NGOs and other groups that have shown an interest in the issues.
We agree with campaigners who make the case—as does my hon. Friend—for developing countries' input to be not just in their own country and into their own programmes, but at every level of the institutions. That is why the UK has supported the agenda of strengthening the voice of developing and transition countries in the IMF and in the World Bank. The Government are committed to measures to reinforce the
430WH
voice of developing countries in the international financial institutions. We are already a major donor to the analytical trust fund to increase the capacity of the sub-Saharan African executive directors' offices at the fund and at the Bank. We also support exploring options to increase their voice in the boards of the institutions. The South African Finance Minister, Trevor Manuel, leads that work and we hope to see more detailed proposals and analysis in spring. Those issues are scheduled for discussion in the development committee and in the annual meetings of the fund and the Bank at the beginning of next month. If there were to be real progress in the development committee, there would be a real expectation on the international monetary and financial committee to deliver something in the spring.
On the question of scrutiny in this House, which my hon. Friend made a point of raising, I remind her that after the annual meetings last year, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development appeared before the International Development Committee to update its members and the House on progress. I am sure that if they were invited again, they would be delighted to accept and would welcome the opportunity to pick up these issues with hon. Members then.
On accountability and openness, we recognise that all countries must be accountable to their own citizens in their dealings with the IMF and World Bank. That is why the Treasury has for the past five years produced an annual report on our relations with the IMF, setting out our key agendas and our general positions. We can go further. We will continue to work to make clear the stance that we have taken in the IMF board and how we have voted throughout the year. The next report will make that more explicit, as my hon. Friend urged. As for our relations with the World Bank, this year the Department for International Development has committed to produce an annual statement to Parliament on the positions that it has taken on the World Bank board. In recognising the case for greater transparency, we must also recognise that there are members who fear the effect of greater transparency, especially on the opinions of investors in their own countries. However, we believe that the benefits of transparency outweigh the potential disadvantages.
My hon. Friend began by noting the changing role, priorities, and ways and practices of the two institutions during the past 60 years. That process will continue. This debate has raised some important points about the direction that it should take and I look forward to more debate in this place, especially as we refine the UK's agenda for the important presidencies of the G7 and G8 in the next year. They are an opportunity for this country to play an even greater role in influencing reform in future.
3.59 pm
Sitting suspended until Four o'clock.

Conduct of Elections
4 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman rose—
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.15 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to have managed to obtain a debate on the conduct of elections and the role of opinion polling and opinion pollsters. At one point, I thought I was doomed to lack success in this pursuit—that a Jonah was accompanying my efforts. The last time I put in for a debate on the subject, I secured a one-and-a-half-hour slot, but had to withdraw because it was set for the same day as the Liaison Committee was to interview the Prime Minister for two and a half hours. Today I got a half-hour debate and I only managed to get here through almost divine intervention, after coming from the debate on the Floor of the House.
This is an important matter and I want to get to the heart of it straight away. Although I trained as a social scientist and not as an expert in opinion polling, I know a few people in the opinion-polling world. It came to my notice that a range of people within the industry were becoming worried about the state of its self-regulation and what that meant for the proper conduct of opinion polling. Opinion polling is absolutely central to our electoral processes, because if polling is not reliable, objective and conducted to a high standard, it could be manipulative of how people vote and how they are influenced to vote. That polls can be seen to be trustworthy and that people can have confidence in them are at the heart of our democratic society.
For a long time, there was a code of conduct and self-regulation that worked—4.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.27 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Sheerman: As I was saying, this is a strange sort of debate. During the Division, the Minister reminded me that I took a long time to find out which Department was responsible for the subject. After getting questions answered by the Department of Trade and Industry, I eventually tracked down the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I am glad that he is here to respond to the debate.
We had a system in which the traditional code of conduct was regulated by the polling industry itself. To be honest, the issue at the heart of the debate is, in part, the proliferation of polling organisations and the move away from what we all regard as traditional polling, which we associate with names such as Gallup and MORI. Such polling was carried out by people with clipboards who knocked on people's doors or confronted them in the shopping precinct, and they tended use face-to-face interviews. Telephone polling then became part of the process and, more recently,
432WH
there has been internet polling, whereby a rather different way of finding out people's opinions on subjects has been introduced.
As soon as I started talking about the nature of regulation in the polling industry, some people thought that I was having a go at one sector—that I was targeting internet polling and nothing else. That is not the case, and I want to put on record that I have had a great deal of help, not only from what I call the traditional polling sector, but from those in the new sector. YouGov and others have written to me and have been very helpful. I have noticed that most of the major players want a code of conduct and a degree of self-regulation that works. All those to whom I have talked deplore the fact that regulation has become less effective and want something done about it. I hope that, outside this House, this debate will be construed as being constructive. A politician is, for a change, saying honestly, "I don't know all the answers."
As a working politician, I believe that this is an important area for us to tackle. I have long believed that it is much better for an industry to regulate itself than to be centrally regulated by the Government. If an industry can regulate itself effectively, that is preferable to setting up yet another quango that is probably not all that useful and that spends a great deal of taxpayers' money to do a job that self-regulation, at its best, does more effectively.
There has undoubtedly been a deterioration in self-regulation. I am fortunate in having been sent a prepublication copy of an article by Bob Worcester. I must declare an interest: I have known Bob for a long time and we are both governors of the London School of Economics. He has been helpful in informing my discussions and we have written an article on this subject for The House Magazine. Bob Worcester points out that the five main polling groups had a system of self-regulation through the Association of Professional Opinion Polling Organisations. However, both Harris and Gallup left the industry in the United Kingdom and ICM's withdrawal from membership effectively scuppered the association's efforts to represent the professional bodies in the field. The only other body able to self-regulate the industry was the Market Research Society, which found it difficult to cope because it had individual membership rather than corporate membership. Many of its members thought that its method of regulation was cumbersome and involved a serious amount of time and money. Some people described its processes as tedious and clumsy, particularly the way in which the MRS professional standards committee carried out its reviews. I have talked to people with a range of opinions in the industry and it seems that there is discontent with the present self-regulation even among some of the main players, as well as the many new players coming on to the block.
I have been sent a number of advertisements from polling organisations saying that they are cheap and quick, and implying that they will obtain the results wanted. My concern is that some of the polling organisations that have come into the market in recent years are related to, if they are not subsidiaries of, public relations companies. They may be a respectable part of those companies, but it concerns me and other people, both in the sector and in Parliament, that if there is a close relationship, those companies might be giving

433WH
advice to major corporations on their public relations side and, at the same time, saying, "We happen to have a polling organisation." I am sure that there is no problem in the most respected groups, but there could be a tendency in the more disreputable areas of the sector for some firms to suggest that they have a convenient polling organisation that will ask the questions that the customer might like, and shred the answers that it does not like.
I have talked to pollsters who have said that they have always stuck to the rules and that opinion polls should be conducted according to good practice. There should be absolute clarity about how many people have been polled. Whether it be a traditional or an internet poll, there should be answers to questions such as: what is the sample group? Is it adequate in number? Is it professionally compiled? Is it weighted in the right way? One question asked of internet groups is, "If only 50 to 60 per cent. of people are on the internet, how does one compensate for the people who are not?" Some polling organisations have a sort of black box that they do not explain very well, and their practices are not very transparent. We need clarity and transparency of methodology. We need to know, in terms of social science, how scientific a poll is, how well it is conducted, whether the technology is useful and whether the right sort of technology has been used.
In all sorts of polling the questioning, sampling and methodology of interview used can be flawed. Traditionally, there have been ways of establishing good principles and good practice. In this debate, I ask for nothing new. I ask that we return to the principles that used to be enshrined in the industry, so that they can be observed and we can all be sure of the work of the pollsters. We must get the technique right, including the size of sample, the weighting and the use made of polling data. Let us make sure that the methods are right and that they cannot be manipulated.
In addition, we must find out what the clients do with the polling material obtained. It is all very well having a 50-question poll that provides a pretty accurate picture of people's thinking about health, obesity, countryside sports such as hunting with dogs, or any of the regular subjects that are polled, but what do those who have paid for that poll do with it? Is it legitimate for them to take only the five answers that they like? Is it legitimate for a newspaper that has asked for polling to bury the answers that it does not like and publish only the answers that it does? How much manipulation of public opinion is carried out by those who pay for the polling?
In the conversations that I have had with senior players from across the sector, including both new and established polling organisations, they say that they want a code of conduct covering not only the way in which polls are conducted but the way in which they are used. Some of the major players have told me how they have turned down certain clients because they will not abide by their rules. What a healthy situation it would be if polling organisations with a set of principles showed the door to people who would employ them and manipulate their work in a way that is unacceptable—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The title of the debate is "Conduct of Elections", but so far the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech has been about opinion polls. He will bring himself into order if he draws a specific connection between opinion polls and the conduct of elections.
Mr. Sheerman: I totally accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the electoral process in two minutes, but I applied for this debate on the conduct of elections with particular reference to opinion polls, and Mr. Speaker was aware that I would talk about opinion polling.
Referring to the recent mayoral election, the Evening Standard front-page headline of Wednesday 9 June stated, "Mayor race is neck and neck. Livingstone faces fight to the finish, new Standard poll reveals." The following front-page article said that the survey gave Ken Livingstone 51 per cent. and Steve Norris 49 per cent. However, if one then reads the article inside the paper on the detail of the poll, it becomes clear that the person who created that headline had a rich imagination. Some hon. Members—Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative—believe that the conduct of that election was influenced by the media, whether for good or ill. Perhaps the media brought more people out to vote in one way rather than another. However, most fair-minded people who had read that headline would say that it did not reflect the detail of the poll as analysed in the inner pages, and the coverage certainly would not have conformed to a code of conduct on the use of polls.
You were quite right to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that issue is at the heart of our electoral process. Elections should not be manipulated by people who own newspapers or television and radio stations or, indeed, by the BBC. I often appear on the BBC's "Today" programme, and just before I go on I often hear an announcement such as, "Research conducted by the programme has shown that one in five head teachers are unhappy about the level of funding that they receive." That may not be polling, but there ought to be a standard for that type of research as well, because it influences how people react and therefore how they vote. I know that, very often, the researcher sitting at the back has phoned 20 people to find out whether they can find someone who is willing to go on air.
Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing the Government could do is say that they will only use polling firms that set out their standards and keep to them? That would be a way of saying to the major firms, "We expect you to set out what your standards are and to meet them." Does he also agree that, whatever the code of conduct for polling organisations, they are not responsible for the headlines that result, but they can be responsible for saying to a client, such as a newspaper, that the client should include the sample size and the date when the poll was done, and should meet the other standards that are in the reputable companies' code of conduct?
Mr. Sheerman: I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman and I are old friends and I believe that we are in complete agreement on that matter.

435WH
There are several ways of driving up standards. I am fascinated by the article by Bob Worcester, who said that he
"had to sack two clients who expected me to breach professional integrity. Robert Maxwell wanted to decide whether commissioned polls for the Mirror would be published or buried, and Sir James Goldsmith, who not liking the result when we wrote the questions for his Referendum Party, wanted to write his own."
Those are the sort of standards that we are discussing. We all know that the perfect world is not arrived at by having a regulatory body, whether it is operated by the Government or the industry. Good standards must be built into a profession and should be reflected in a professional code of conduct—the one brings the other to life. If professional people are running an industry, the decision taken by Bob Worcester is the kind of decision that I would expect them to make. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest a system whereby Departments ensure that the industry provides a sort of kitemark before organisations are used. I would like to see a kitemark for all polls, so that if an organisation has that kitemark, it indicates that it accepts the code of conduct of the industry. I repeat that I would prefer that code to be voluntary and run effectively by the industry. There is no such code at the moment, but I believe that it can be resuscitated, and I hope that it will be.
Let us get to the heart of how important polling is to the electoral process. We might think that the polling organisations are little back-street operations, but theirs is a billion-pound industry in the UK, and in a democratic society opinion polling is central to the electoral process. Its reliability, objectivity, transparency, methodology and trustworthiness are at the heart of any electoral process.
However, the debate is not only about the electoral process; it is about the knock-on effects of polls. When I was a student of politics at the LSE, I was taught that pollsters wanted to get the results of elections right because if they had high integrity and delivered good results—if they accurately predicted the results of elections—it was good for their commercial business, which was where they got most of their money. I came across a term that I have never heard before, and I am sure that it has not been used much in Parliament: Bob Worcester has asked for an investigation into the practices of "sugging" and "fugging", which are, respectively, selling or fund-raising under the guise of opinion polling. Those practices are sometimes employed by political parties, so again we find polling at the heart of the electoral process. If one pretends that one is conducting an opinion poll but is in fact using it for another purpose—for example, for raising money—the activity should come under the remit of a regulatory body.
I shall not prolong the proceedings, but will close with two final points. First, I have already asked the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other two major parties to discuss this matter, which is at the heart of our democracy. It is right that the parties agree on and push for good standards. Secondly, this subject would be prime material for an investigation by the appropriate Select Committee, but I do not believe there is one. However, it would be appropriate for the Electoral
436WH
Commission to consider the matter. I know that many people in the industry would be happy to give evidence in the hope that the Electoral Commission would show the way to a form of regulation that everyone trusted. The issue is vital to our electoral system and democracy and it will not go away. There is enormous interest in the subject, and I believe that the campaign is still only in its infancy.
4.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on securing this debate. Its title, "Conduct of Elections", is very broad. He focused on opinion polling, and I shall speak about that, but I should also like to take this opportunity to discuss other issues in the wider firmament of electoral policy with which I have recently been involved.
My hon. Friend is right to say that polling, the veracity of the polling industry and the validity of its results have the potential to affect the conduct of elections. We know—he held up an illustrative newspaper headline—that the interpretation of polling data is often seen to have an impact on the outcome of elections. In a moment I shall touch on some of the few scant regulations that exist on this topic—for example, those on exit polls. Those regulations were introduced because it is self-evident that a feedback loop in a survey can influence the electoral process.
There is no direct statutory regulation of political opinion polling. As such, there is no definitive ministerial responsibility for it, although I take a close interest in its effect, such as it is, on electoral policy. There are many different facets to the issue, one being data protection. Many in the market research industry in general are concerned about ensuring that feedback and survey returns are kept confidential. After all, they are expressions of opinion that the individuals concerned might not want to share with the wider world, so it is important that the industry complies with the principles of data protection legislation. I am glad to see that, broadly, there have been few complaints that such legislation has been infringed.
Furthermore, professionally conducted market research and opinion polling should be carried out, by and large, in accordance with the Market Research Society's code of conduct and guidelines, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Those guidelines state:
"Researchers must not, whether knowingly or negligently, act in any way which could bring discredit on the marketing research profession or lead to a loss of public confidence in it."
That statement is very general, but in essence the society believes that the methodology and tactics that firms use should be of a high standard, in order to uphold public confidence. Neither Government nor statute law intervene in that sphere: such standards are, properly, for professional regulation. My hon. Friend is right to say that if a profession can regulate itself successfully and get itself in order, that is the best way forward.
None the less, the Market Research Society acknowledges that, in the case of political opinion polls, which apparently account for less than 5 per cent. of the UK market research industry, the present self-regulation arrangements may well be in need of

437WH
improvement. Apparently the MRS had a meeting with the leading traditional and internet based UK polling companies in August to address urgently the fundamental self-regulation issues surrounding opinion and advocacy polling. The pollsters have undertaken to return with proposals for improvement by the end of the month. Apparently, the MRS will also make proposals for the self-regulation of market research organisations and individuals who have chosen to be its members.
I understand the points that my hon. Friend made, but I have to tell him that my Department has not received a significant volume of representations calling for Government intervention into polling arrangements, nor, I think, is that the line of action for which he was calling.
Mr. Sheerman: I am not surprised to hear that. I found it difficult to find the responsible Minister, and I am a Member of Parliament of long standing. Anybody outside who knew which Minister to complain to and which ministerial team had responsibility for the matter would be very intelligent indeed.
Mr. Leslie: The public are always extremely intelligent. Henceforth, I will keep an open mind and wait for representations to come. If anyone writes to me about the matter, I will be more than happy to read their correspondence.
I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend had tabled an early-day motion on the issue in May. He called then, as he has today, for better scrutiny of polling methodology. He provides much of that scrutiny himself and he has played a significant role in kick-starting the issue. It is incumbent on responsible parties—broadcasters, newspapers, and so on—to make sure that their purported survey findings are an accurate and true reflection of public opinion.
I have noticed some dubious surveys, which my hon. Friend mentioned, particularly those that are in fact a simple tally of telephone votes for option A or B. Regardless of whether one person has made 100 phone calls, or of where the sample of calls originates, the results of such surveys are reported as a true reflection
438WH
of public opinion. That sort of approach is a million miles from the many reputable and well established techniques used by proper polling organisations. Such simple approaches do not count as worthy journalism. Clearly, a degree of scrutiny is required, as that would help to secure an improvement in services.
Mr. Sheerman: One of the great problems, particularly with the electoral system, is what I call the ripple effect. The most obscure, untrustworthy poll in the most minor publication or on the internet can ripple out to the main news on television or radio—on the "Today" programme, for example—and suddenly it has an authenticity that is beyond what anyone would have believed possible. That is dangerous. It is like gossip: a whisper becomes a shout, which becomes a megaphone-amplified voice. The ripple effect is, in my view, especially dangerous because of the number of unreliable polls that we get in some areas.
Mr. Leslie: I understand my hon. Friend's point and, as I said, there are some simple tally telephone in-type surveys that are a million miles from those conducted by the well established reputable firms in the self-regulated opinion polling industry.
I gather that, when my hon. Friend asked his question in Prime Minister's Question Time, our right hon. Friend said that he would talk to the chairman of the Labour party about the issue. He has done so. I gather that my hon. Friend is making overtures to some of the other political parties and that meetings have been arranged to discuss the matter in the party political arena. We will see what comes from those meetings.
Some issues relating to exit polls merit further scrutiny. In the most recent June elections, one newspaper reported a sample from returns in the European elections before the closure of that poll. That newspaper could well have put itself in breach of the legal requirements. Those are important issues. There are also wider issues about the conduct of elections, including how we broaden participation and make it easier and more convenient for people to vote. We have debated all-postal voting and so forth elsewhere. The Electoral Commission is an important organisation—
It being three minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HEALTH

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the debt of(a) the Royal United hospital, Bath and (b) Kennet and North Wiltshire primary care trust is. [188513]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  At the end of the financial year 2003–04, the total owed by Royal United hospitals, Bath as a result of previous years overspends was £24.7 million.

  The comparable figure for Kennet and North Wiltshire Primary Care Trust was £3.9 million.

  Doctors (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of out-of-hours provision by doctors in North Yorkshire since 1 April. [188514]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the legal responsibility of primary care trusts to ensure that patients have access to high quality out-of-hours services which are delivered to nationally set quality requirements. The four PCTs North Yorkshire will be entering into an agreement with North Yorkshire Emergency Doctors, an established provider of general practitioner home visiting services for out-of-hours services, later this year.

  Obesity
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the Government's efforts to tackle obesity. [188515]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Representations have been received as part of the Choosing Health, Choosing a Better Diet and Choosing Activity consultations. These responses and the Health Select Committee report on obesity will inform the development of the White Paper on improving health, due to be published later this year.

  Primary Care (Out-of-hours Services)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of arrangements put in place by primary care trusts for out-of-hours services. [188517]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary Care Trusts are responsible for commissioning out-of-hours services which are delivered to nationally set quality requirements. Strategic Health Authorities are responsible for performance managing Primary Care Trusts in the delivery of these services.

  Diagnostic Equipment
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce waiting and delivery times for diagnostic equipment. [188519]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service is committed to reducing the length of time that people wait before their treatment starts. By 2008 patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks from general practitioner referral to the start of treatment and this includes access to diagnostics.

  Alcohol Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of his Department's alcohol strategy. [188520]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy was published on 15 March 2004, meeting the Government's commitment to publish and implement the strategy from 2004. The Sensible-drinking message will be revised by spring next year and an audit of demand for provision of alcohol treatment will be completed by 31 January 2005

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the guidance he issues to Primary Care Trusts on the funding of children's hospices. [188521]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Standards for the provision of services for children with life limiting or life threatening illnesses who need palliative care will be issued shortly under the National Service Framework for children and maternity services. Decisions on funding are the responsibility of Primary Care Trusts in line with their assessment of local priorities.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the demand on accident and emergency services. [188522]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A&E attendance numbers are collected and published quarterly. The latest figures were made available on 27 August. There were a total of 4,502,578 new and follow up attendances at major A&Es, minor injury units and walk-in centres between April and June 2004.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes introduced by the new general medical services contract on accident and emergency admissions in the out-of-hours period. [186512]

  Mr. Hutton
  No information has been put forward to date to the Department suggesting the established pattern of when patients arrive at accident and emergency during each day has generally altered following the changes to the general medical services contract. We are, however, monitoring any possible impact of the changes to the contract on A&E closely and will continue to do so.

  NHS Administrative Staff
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of staff in the national health service is engaged in administration; and what the percentage was 10 years ago. [188523]

  Mr. Hutton
  Current non-medical workforce figures are not directly comparable with pre-1995 figures. As at September 2003, 19 per cent. of the total NHS workforce were managers and clerical and administrative staff compared with 17 per cent. in 1995. Many administrative and clerical staff work directly to health professionals freeing them up to do their job, such as health care support workers and medical secretaries.

  Health and Social Care Act
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has issued to the NHS about public consultations under sections 7 and 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 in respect of election periods. [188524]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Sections 7 and 11 guidance does not refer specifically to public consultations during election periods. The guidance supporting section 7 makes it clear that the NHS organisation consulting overview and scrutiny committees should agree with them how long the consultation period should last.

  Pharmacists
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of pharmacists in preventive health programmes. [188525]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pharmacists already contribute to health improvement, including through stopping smoking services, emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) and needle exchange schemes. We will significantly expand this role through the proposed new contractual framework for community pharmacy, underpinned by a pharmaceutical public health strategy due in 2005.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on making magnifying equipment more easily available to people who are registered visually impaired with age related macular degeneration; and if he will make a statement. [189038]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have received representation from hon. and right hon. Members and the Royal National Institute of the Blind regarding the provision of closed circuit television (CCTV) readers to help visually impaired people with certain tasks.

  The provision of CCTVs and other non-optical aids is a decision that lies with social services departments as they are considered to be aids to daily living. Being registered as visually impaired is not a pre-requisite to receiving services. Social services departments are responsible for assessing an individual's needs and for arranging services to meet those needs; this could include the provision of CCTV. However, hand-held,
  1496W
  stand and spectacle-mounted magnifiers are easier to use, more widely available, more accessible and more cost effective.

  Encouragement is being given to hospital and social service departments to work more closely together, and perhaps operate a joint budget to allow more flexibility in funding equipment, and provide a wider range of services and equipment than has hitherto been available. The overall level of funding for aids to vision will, however, rest with primary care trusts and local councils.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual running costs for community health councils were in each year from 1997 onwards. [187759]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Community health council running costs (£million)

  1997–98

  22.561

  1998–99

  22.561

  1999–2000

  23

  2000–01

  23

  2001–02

  23

  2002–03

  23

  2003–04

  15

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the prevalence of eating disorders among(a) women and (b) men in England; [187867]

  (2) how many (a) children, (b) adolescents and (c) adults suffered from eating disorders in each year since 1997, broken down by gender. [187873]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about the prevalence of eating disorders in adults is not collected centrally.

  "The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain", a survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics in 1999, found that the prevalence of eating disorders among all children aged five to 15 was 0.1 per cent., and the rate for girls aged five to 15 was 0.2 per cent.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum travelling distance is for patients with eating disorders to specialist health care services. [187872]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not collected centrally about the travelling distances that may be involved when patients are referred for treatment for specialist treatment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is for specialist treatment for eating disorders in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [187874]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not centrally available.
  1497W
  People with eating disorders can access mental health services in and through primary care. Details of services available locally can be obtained from strategic health authorities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting time for (i) outpatient and (ii) inpatient treatment for eating disorders has been in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [187875]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not available in the requested format.

  Foundation Trusts Regulator
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure was on the rebranding of the Independent Regulator for Foundation Trusts as Monitor. [187856]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand from the chairman of Monitor that the total costs of the design work for the development and implementation of the Monitor brand was £24,465, excluding VAT.

  The total costs includes £8,200 on re-branding and enhancing the website and £3,000 on the application of the new design to letterhead business cards and presentation material. Monitor timed the introduction of its new name to coincide with its relocation to new offices thereby minimising the additional expenditure required.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were in the London Borough of Havering in(a) 1997 and (b) 2004; and what the figures are for all other London boroughs. [187730]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of general practitioners broken down by boroughs is not collected centrally. However, the tables show the number of GPs broken down by strategic health authority and primary care trust.

  General medical practitioners (excluding retainers, registrars and locums) for London by strategic health authority (SHA)

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  March 2004

  London SHA

  4,324

  4,676

  North West London

  Q04

  1,164

  1157

  North Central London

  Q05

  744

  795

  North East London

  Q06

  849

  926

  South East London

  Q07

  833

  974

  South West London

  Q08

  734

  824

  Note:

  All practitioners (excluding retainers, registrars and locums) include general medical service (QMS) unrestricted principals, personal medical service (PMS) contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and flexible career scheme GPs and GP returners. Data as at 1 October 1997 and 31 March 2004.

  Source:

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics.

  1498W

  General medical practitioners (excluding retainers, registrars and locums) for London by strategic health authority (SHA) and primary care trust (PCT)

  Number (headcount)

  London, as at 31 March 2004

  General medical practitioners(excluding retainers, registrars and locums)1

  London

  4,676

  Q05

  North Central London

  795

  5A9

  Barnet PCT

  234

  5K7

  Camden PCT

  139

  5C1

  Enfield PCT

  151

  5C9

  Haringey PCT

  143

  5K8

  Islington PCT

  128

  Q06

  North East London

  926

  5C2

  Barking and Dagenham PCT

  80

  5C3

  City and Hackney PCT

  156

  5A4

  Havering PCT

  124

  5C5

  Newham PCT

  171

  5NA

  Redbridge PCT

  121

  5C4

  Tower Hamlets PCT

  135

  5NC

  Waltham Forest PCT

  139

  Q04

  North West London

  1,157

  5K5

  Brent PCT

  194

  5HX

  Ealing PCT

  193

  5H1

  Hammersmith and Fulham PCT

  96

  5K6

  Harrow PCT

  140

  5AT

  Hillingdon PCT

  140

  5HY

  Hounslow PCT

  129

  5LA

  Kensington and Chelsea PCT

  113

  5LC

  Westminster PCT

  152

  Q07

  South East London

  974

  5AX

  Bexley Ct

  120

  5A7

  Bromley PCT

  193

  5A8

  Greenwich PCT

  131

  5LD

  Lambeth PCT

  203

  5LF

  Lewisham PCT

  164

  5LE

  Southwark PCT

  163

  Q08

  South West London

  824

  5K9

  Croydon PCT

  197

  5A5

  Kingston PCT

  103

  5M6

  Richmond and Twickenham PCT

  114

  5M7

  Sutton and Merton PCT

  211

  5LG

  Wandsworth PCT

  199

  1All practitioners (excluding retainers, registrars and locums) include general medical service (QMS) unrestricted principals, personal medical service (PMS) contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and flexible career scheme GPs and GP returners.

  Source:

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics.

  Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he proposes to make a draft order on the Regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture: Proposals for statutory regulation for consultation; and when he proposes to lay the draft order before Parliament; [187484]

  (2) how many responses he has received to the Regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture: Proposals for statutory regulation; and how many were (a) in favour of and (b) against his Department's proposals for collaborative regulation; [187485]
  1499W
  (3) if he will publish the results of the consultation on the Regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture: Proposals for statutory regulation. [187486]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 2 March, I published proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners. The consultation period closed on 7 June. An analysis of the responses to the consultation will be published in the autumn. I plan to publish draft legislation for further consultation in 2005.

  In all, about 700 responses have been received, of which 255 expressed a view about the proposals for collaborative regulation. Of these responses, 93 agreed with the proposals in the consultative document and 162 disagreed. In addition I received over 200 letters as part of a write-in campaign specifically expressing concern about the proposals for collaborative regulation.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to set a target for reducing MRSA infections. [188516]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes. We published details of this target on 21 July 2004.

  King's College Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been introduced to improve the(a) hygiene of wards, (b) speed of response of staff when called by patients, (c) provision of cold water, (d) availability of ice cubes, (e) regularity with which bedding is changed, (f) cleanliness of toilets, (g) availability of plain food for patients and (h) prevention of acquisition and spread of MRSA in King's College Hospital, London, since 29 June. [187816]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Myasthenia Gravis
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hospital waiting times for patients diagnosed with myasthenia gravis. [188629]

  Mr. Hutton
  Waiting times data are collected by consultant specialty and not for specific conditions. Specialty level data would include various conditions as well as myasthenia gravis disorders. Therefore it is not possible to determine the waits for myasthenia gravis.

  NHS Dentistry
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in the London borough of Wandsworth provide NHS treatment; what the number was in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [187607]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of practices providing general dental service in Wandsworth Primary Care Trust (PCT) area between 1999 and 2004 is shown in the following table.
  1500W

  Number of general dental practices in Wandsworth PCT area at 30 September 1999 to 2003 and 30 June 2004

  Number

  1999

  70

  2000

  69

  2001

  68

  2002

  67

  2003

  61

  2004

  59

  Notes:

  1. The number of practices in the PCT area have been estimated from practice postcodes information.

  2. Some patients in the Wandsworth PCT area will attend dentists in other areas.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he received regarding the availability of NHS dentistry in the London Borough of Havering for(a) 1997 and (b) 2004; and what the figures are for all other London boroughs. [187727]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Local trusts, in partnership with their health community, have responsibility for local services and the support systems which they have put in place and a corresponding responsibility to improve upon these. It is, therefore, appropriate that they investigate complains and respond accordingly.

  However, Ministers received a total of 19 letters on dental access from e London area in the period from 1 January 2004 to the present.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists were operating in the London Borough of Havering in(a) 1997 and (b) 2004; and what the figures are for all other London boroughs. [187731]

  Mr. Hutton
  The numbers of general and personal dental service dentists in Havering Primary Care Trust (PCT) area and for all other London PCTs at June 1997 and June 2004 are shown in the table.

  National health service. Number of dentists in London PCTs at June 1997 and June 2004

  PCT

  1997

  2004

  Havering

  87

  111

  Barking and Dagenham

  50

  57

  Barnet

  181

  208

  Bexley Care Trust

  94

  95

  Brent

  157

  169

  Bromley

  147

  177

  Camden

  147

  165

  City and Hackney

  99

  94

  Croydon

  170

  189

  Ealing

  200

  191

  Enfield

  117

  154

  Greenwich

  95

  114

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  121

  150

  Haringey

  124

  144

  Harrow

  106

  128

  Hillingdon

  105

  127

  Hounslow

  139

  149

  Islington

  92

  119

  1501W

  National health service: Number of dentists in London PCTs at June 1997 and June 2004

  PCT

  1997

  2004

  Kensington and Chelsea

  83

  82

  Kingston

  68

  81

  Lambeth

  130

  141

  Lewisham

  116

  127

  Newham

  82

  97

  Redbridge

  105

  144

  Richmond and Twickenham

  98

  112

  Southwark

  110

  99

  Sutton and Merton

  174

  190

  Tower Hamlets

  72

  93

  Waltham Forest

  80

  99

  Wandsworth

  150

  159

  Westminster

  204

  193

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Dentists are counted in each PCT in which they practice.

  NHS Information Technology
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 29 July 2004, ref.185963, on NHS IT, if he will publish a summary of the recommendations of the Gateway review. [187890]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have no current plans to do so. The considerations of confidentiality attaching to Gateway reviews apply equally to any recommendations they may contain.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reviews his Department has undertaken into the financial viability of(a) contractors and (b) subcontractors of companies working on the NHS National Programme for Information Technology; [187360]

  (2) if the Department will ask Accenture to report on the (a) financial standing and (b) accounting treatment of revenues and profits at iSoft. [187361]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is a standard precautionary business practice to commission financial and market assessments of prospective business partners. In addition to the financial evaluation of companies as pare of the Official Journal of the European Union competitive process, all organisations tendering to become prime contractors of the national programme for information technology, and relevant subcontractors, were subjected to financial and market assessments before contractual arrangement were entered into. This was undertaken by specialist advisers; themselves and selected by competitive process.

  The Department has no current plans separately to ask Accenture for a report specifically on the financial standing of its subcontractor iSoft, or on the accounting treatment of revenues and profit by the company. These are matters between iSoft and its auditors.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department has inquired as to why iSoft has suspended one of its executive directors. [187359]
  1502W
  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware from press reports that iSoft has recently suspended one of its executive directors and anticipate that a further announcement will be made by the company following the completion of its internal investigations. We do not regard it as the business of the Department to inquire into the circumstances of the suspension. This is a matter for the company to resolve with the director concerned.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are proposed to the NHS pension scheme; and how many existing contributing members to the scheme there are in each(a) region and (b) county. [188719]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Confederation is leading a review of the National Health Service Pension Scheme, in partnership with the NHS Pensions Agency, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of Health and the NHS Trade Unions. The review has made good progress but formal proposals have not yet been finalised. The aim is to have proposals ready for consultation by the end of autumn.

  The NHS Pension Scheme currently has over 1.1 million contributing members. Unfortunately, it is not possible, due to the way in which the NHS Pensions Agency holds its data, to identify the geographical profile of the membership.

  NHS Register of Interests
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to initiate a register of interests for NHS medical practitioners to declare(a) shares in, (b) gifts from and (c) other interests in pharmaceutical companies. [187519]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service staff are already required to declare interests, gifts and sponsorship which might be seen to compromise their position on local registers. The Department last reviewed this in 2002 and considers the current arrangements to be adequate.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to monitor the amount of drugs prescribed to NHS patients which have been donated by pharmaceutical companies as promotional material. [187520]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The supply of samples by pharmaceutical companies is regulated under the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994. These stipulate that a free sample must be of the smallest pack of a medicine available for sale, that it may only be provided to a prescriber in response to a written request and that it should be clearly labelled as a promotional sample not for resale. We expect primary care trusts to act on any local evidence that promotional material is being misused.
  1503W

  Non-clinical NHS Jobs
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many new non-clinical jobs have been created within the NHS since 1997; [186870]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role of NHS staff in non-clinical posts in improving the health of NHS patients. [186871]

  Mr. Hutton
  Non-clinical staff perform vital functions within the national health service and make an important contribution to the delivery of healthcare and will continue to do so as the clinical NHS workforce increases. Many of them work directly to support clinicians, leaving them free to work with patients. Others working in NHS infrastructure support perform essential and unavoidable tasks, such as cleaning, paying staff, ordering supplies and recruitment.

  Between 1997 and 2003, the number of clinical staff and staff working in direct support to clinical staff has increased by 195,059 and the number of staff working in infrastructure support has increased by 29,185.

  Nurse Consultants
  Dame Marion Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has met the NHS Plan target of 1,000 nurse consultants employed in the NHS. [186962]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 September 2004]: Latest figures indicate that, as at December 2003, 870 nurse consultant posts had been approved in the national health service. Responsibility for monitoring progress against this target has now passed to strategic health authorities.

  Oldchurch Hospital
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he received regarding Oldchurch Hospital in the London Borough of Havering for(a) 1997 and (b) 2004; and what the figures are for all other London hospitals. [187728]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Local trusts, in partnership with their health community, have responsibility for local services and the support systems, which they have put in place, and a corresponding responsibility to improve upon these. It is therefore appropriate that they investigate complaints and respond accordingly.

  Osteoporosis Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has received of osteoporosis services in other EU countries. [186143]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No such studies have been received. However, we understand that "Osteoporosis in the European—Members States Policy Progress Report and Action Plan" is due to be posted on the European Commission website for access to all member states.

  Passive Smoking
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's public health priorities in relation to passive smoking. [188518]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have completed a major national public consultation on the best ways to improve people's health, including what can be done to tackle secondhand smoke.

  We are considering the many responses we have received. These will inform the White Paper on improving health that will be published later this year.

  Patient Environment and Assessment Teams
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the months in which Patient Environment and Assessment Team inspections have taken place in each year since inspections began. [187408]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since its inception in 2000, there have been five rounds of patient environment action team assessments, with additional visits to some hospitals in the summer of 2001. Details of when those visits took place are shown in the table.

  Patient environment action team assessments

  From

  To

  2000

  August

  October

  2001

  January

  March

  2001

  August

  September

  2002

  January

  May

  2002

  November

  May 2003

  2003

  December

  May 2004

  Postgraduate Medical Students
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available to postgraduate medical trainees for expenses on(a) text books, (b) medical equipment and (c) examination fees; and if he will make a statement. [187764]

  Mr. Hutton
  Postgraduate medical trainees are usually salaried employees of the national health service. As such, they do not receive specific help with their textbooks, equipment and examination fees. They do have access to postgraduate centres and libraries. They also have access to funded study leave, which enables postgraduate trainees to access specific courses and programmes. which enhance the training they receive through the NHS. Much of the equipment they will use is of course available through their employers. Trainees should have access either to standard texts and/or to the internet within the workplace.

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital Trust
  Mr Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for accident and emergency department services in St Helens and Knowsley Hospital Trust was for each year from 1997 to 2004. [184619]
  1505W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected; information is collected for the percentage of patients spending four hours or less in accident and

  Total time spent in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. National Health Service organisations in England, 2003–04, January to March (quarter 4)

  Major A&E (type 1 only)

  All A&E f Mill Will Wic (Type 1,2,3)

  Year

  Quarter

  Strategic health authority

  Organisation identifier

  Name

  Total attendances

  Percentage of partients who spent less than four hours in A&E

  Total attendances

  Percentage of patients who spent less than four hours in A&E

  2003–04

  4

  England

  3,059,698

  90.6

  4,009,142

  92.7

  2003–04

  4

  Q15

  RBN

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  21,140

  88.0

  25,680

  90

  Source:

  Department of Health dataset QMAE

  Status: Published 16 July 2004

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action can be taken in the domestic courts against NHS Trusts that fail to comply with the Working Time Directive. [187407]

  Mr. Hutton
  Individuals may take a case to an employment tribunal where the employer has failed to let them exercise their entitlement to daily and weekly rest, including compensatory rest.

  Complaints can also be raised with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in relation to individuals having to work in excess of the maximum working week. As a result of investigating the trust, the Health and Safety Executive is likely to serve improvement notices where claims are upheld. Further action beyond this, including possible criminal proceeding; in the lower or magistrate's court, depends on actions taken by the employer in response to the notice served.

  In addition, individuals may take a case to a county court in instances where there has been a breach of contract, for example, where they have been made to work over the averaged hours limit or where an employer has failed in his/her duty of care.

TREASURY

  Council of Ministers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a written ministerial statement outlining the key points on the agenda for each of the Council of Ministers' meetings at which his Department is represented in advance of each meeting; [188210]

  (2) if he will provide a written ministerial statement outlining for each meeting of the Council of Ministers at which his Department is represented as soon as is practicable following that meeting (a) the key items of discussion, (b) the positions of the Government on those items, (c) the key positions taken by other member states that Ministers consider should be noted by hon. Members and (d) any preliminary discussion on the timing and the agenda of the following meeting. [188211]
  1506W
  emergency departments from arrival to discharge, admission or transfer. The latest information available is shown in the table.

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Foreign Secretary dated 13 September 2004,Official Report, column 1451W.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value of applications made to the Crown Estate's Research Committee for research proposals has been for the financial year 2004–05; how many applications have been made for funding; what the total value of research funding allocated is for the financial year 2004–05; and how many applications for research funding in 2004–05 have been successful. [185971]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 July 2004]Since September 2003, The Crown Estate Fish Farming Research Committee has become part of the independent Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF). The Crown Estate has committed £100,000 per annum to SARF for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Additional marine based research funding is also available from The Crown Estate. This includes other aquaculture funding, the offshore research fund, the marine stewardship fund, and the renewables and communities fund. The Crown Estate expects to spend around £650,000 on these projects for the year 2004–05.

  For the financial year 2004–05, 32 applications (17 of which were not costed) have been received for the marine stewardship fund. Three have been successful and a further seven are still under consideration. Two applications have been made for aquaculture projects, of which one has been successful and the other is under consideration. Three applications have been made for marine aggregate research projects, of which one has been successful and the other two are under consideration. Finally, two applications have been made to the renewables and community fund and are still under consideration.

  Day Memberships
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he will announce the results of the consultation on his plans to amend the gift aid rules on day memberships; [187948]
  1507W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2004, Official Report, columns 1350–351W, on gift aid, for what reasons an announcement on the results of the consultation on his plans to amend the gift aid rules on day memberships was not made at around the time of the 2004 Spending Review. [188253]

  John Healey
  The consultation period ended on 11 June. We are evaluating the responses to that consultation and will announce the results in due course.

  Departmental Recycling
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest available 12 month figures are for the proportion of the Department's redundant documentation, waste paper and card that is recycled; and if he will make a statement on the Department's recycling policy. [188687]

  Mr. Timms
  It is the policy of the Treasury to recycle all waste paper and card. The figures for the period 1 September 2003 to 31 August 2004 were 160,820 kg of paper, and 10,420 kg of cardboard.

  Table 1: Finished Consultant Episodes (FCE's)1,2 with death as method of discharge and eating disorders3 mentioned as a diagnosis, by sex and broad age group, 1997–98 to 2002–03, NHS Hospitals in, England4

  Group

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Male

  Under 15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–44

  *

  *

  *

  0

  *

  *

  45–64

  *

  *

  *

  0

  *

  *

  65+

  10

  10

  11

  15

  9

  14

  Male Total

  14

  13

  18

  15

  12

  16

  Female

  Under 15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–44

  20

  *

  *

  7

  15

  21

  45–64

  9

  *

  *

  12

  7

  12

  65+

  37

  22

  28

  30

  34

  32

  Female Total

  66

  34

  43

  49

  56

  65

  * Small number (Figures between 1 and 5, with secondary suppression to avoid disclosure by differencing) have been suppressed to protect patient confidentiality.

  1An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within a year.

  2 These figures represent a count of all FCEs where the diagnosis was mentioned in any of the 14 (7 prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in a Hospital Episodes Statistics record.

  3 International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code F50

  4Figures are grossed for coverage, except for 2002/03 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health

  Table 2: Number of deaths where an eating disorder1 was mentioned on the death certificate, by sex and broad age group, England and Wales, 1997–20022

  Age group

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Male

  Under 15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–44

  2

  2

  5

  4

  1

  0

  45–64

  1

  2

  4

  1

  1

  1

  65 plus

  5

  6

  6

  2

  7

  1

  Male total

  8

  10

  15

  7

  9

  2

  Female

  Under 15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1508W

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths then, were of patients suffering from eating disorders, broken down by(a) age and (b) gender, in each year since 1997. [187870]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 14 September 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many deaths there were of patients suffering from eating disorders, broken down by (a) age and (b) gender, in each year since 1997. (187870)
  Information is not available in the exact form requested. However, figures are available on:

  (1) hospital admissions for patients diagnosed with eating disorders (not necessarily as the primary diagnosis) and where the discharge method was death;

  (2) deaths where an eating disorder was mentioned on the death certificate.

  This information is given in the attached tables for the years 1997 to 2002.
  1509W

  Table 2: Number of deaths where an eating disorder1 was mentioned on the death certificate, by sex and broad age group, England and Wales, 1997–20022

  Age group

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  15–44

  23

  10

  19

  13

  17

  26

  45–64

  11

  4

  5

  15

  8

  9

  65 plus

  11

  17

  17

  24

  18

  17

  Female total

  45

  31

  41

  52

  43

  52

  1 Cause of death was defined using ICD-9 codes 307.1 and 307.5 for 1997–2000, and ICD-10 code F50 for 2001–2002. Figures coded to different revisions of the 1CD are not completely comparable.

  2 Figures are based on deaths occurring in 1997–2002.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Endowment Mortgage Mis-selling
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who are eligible to claim compensation for the mis-selling of endowment mortgages; and what proportion of those who have claimed have been successful. [188662]

  Mr. Timms
  Given the passage of time since the majority of endowment policies were sold and the lack of contemporaneous records of the advice given at the time, it is difficult to be certain of the number of consumers who may have been mis-sold their policy. The Government supports moves by the FSA to take forward a programme of research to form a better understanding of the numbers of endowment policies facing shortfalls. The FSA had received a total of 452,201 complaints on this subject by 31 March 2004. Information provided by the FSA indicates that the proportion of consumer complaints upheld by firms is now approximately 60 per cent. in favour of consumers, and from those complaints reaching the Financial Ombudsman Service, the figure for cases decided in favour of the consumer is 42 per cent.

  Environmentally Sustainable Economic Activity
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the growth rate has been in environmentally sustainable economic activity in each year since 1997; [188164]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the performance of environmental investments funds as an indicator of the strength of environmentally sustainable economic activity and (b) the success of Government policies for promoting environmentally sustainable economic activity. [188165]

  John Healey
  The Government are committed to developing and implementing policies that will simultaneously deliver social, economic and environmental progress. We do rot separately measure the growth rate in 'environmentally sustainable economic activity' but in 1999 we established a set of 15 headline indicators and a wider set of core indicators to provide a baseline against which progress on sustainable development could be measured. Economic, social and environmental indicators are included and are reported on in the "Achieving A Better Quality of Life" annual reports. The indicators are being reviewed as part of the review of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.
  1510W
  The Government welcome innovation in investment products to meet the needs of their clients' preferences, of which environmental investment funds are one option.

  EU Budget
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his projection is of the percentage of gross domestic product the UK will pay to the European Union budget under the post-2006 financial settlement. [188798]

  Mr. Timms
  The new Financial Perspective for the period from January 2007 will not be agreed by member states before next year. The Government's latest forecast of UK net contributions to the EC Budget, which covers the period to 2007–08, was included in a footnote to Table A1 of the Statistical Annex to the 2004 Spending Review (Cm 6237) published on 12 July 2004. This forecast is used for public expenditure planning purposes and assumes an appropriately uprated roll forward of the status quo. It is without prejudice to the Government's assessment of the likely outcome of the negotiations on the new financial perspective.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards an IMF programme for Iraq. [188347]

  John Healey
  The Iraqi authorities are currently engaged in regular and ongoing discussions with the IMF on a possible programme for Iraq.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to assist economic reform in Iraq. [188348]

  John Healey
  The UK aims to support economic reform in Iraq in the short term by working towards rapid agreement on an IMF programme, and by securing agreement in the Paris Club to write off the vast majority of Iraq's foreign debt by the end of the year. The UK will continue to support the efforts of the Iraqi authorities to develop a sustainable, stable and appropriate fiscal and monetary framework for Iraq, and to develop and implement policies to achieve and sustain rapid growth, high employment and poverty reduction.

  Leasehold Property Sales
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to permit Muslims to buy
  1511W
  leasehold property on the same or similar basis to freehold within the provisions in the Budget to prevent double stamp duty and allow purchases without payment of interest as a consequence. [188013]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government want to see consumers benefit from a wide choice and innovation in the financial services market. The Finance Act 2003 introduced two reliefs (s72 and s73) for purchases funded by "alternative property financing", which enables individuals to finance a property without paying interest. The combined effect of these reliefs is to place the amount of stamp duty land tax due when purchasing property using these arrangements on a level footing with the amount due on the purchase of property when using 'conventional' mortgage products. This will remove a significant barrier to the development of alternative property financing, thus benefiting a range of consumers with increased choice in the mortgage market.

  The legislation does not discriminate between freehold and leasehold properties, so both can be purchased using alternative property financing without a greater quantity of stamp duty being incurred than under a conventional mortgage.

  Department/Agency

  (a) Set retirement age

  (a) Maximum retirement age

  (b) Maximum age employment applications considered

  HM Treasury

  Age 60

  Age 60

  Age 59

  Valuation Office

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Age 64

  Royal Mint

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Permanent application up to age 59, Casual applications up to age 64

  Debt Management Office

  Age 60

  Age 70

  Age 60 unless there is a business justification for an older person

  National Savings and Investments

  Age 60

  None

  None—Age like other diversity data is not considered as part of NSI's selection criteria which is purely role related.

  Office National Statistics

  Age 65

  Age 65

  Age 65 Age 64 right tip until 65th Birthday

  Government Actuaries Dept.

  Age 60

  None

  None GAD currently does not operate a maximum age limit requirement.

  Inland Revenue

  Age 60

  Age 65

  None up to Age 65

  Office of Government Commerce

  1Age 60

  1None

  1None up to retirement age

  HM Customs and Excise

  2—

  2—

  Age 65

  1 OGC buying solutions retirement age is currently 65 for Ban 1 (Administrative Officer equivalent) staff and 60 for all other staff. However as with OGC normal staff, consideration would be given to staff working beyond this, subject to business needs.

  2 In HM Customs and Excise the set (maximum) retirement age is:

  60 for staff at Bands 7 (HEO equivalent) and above, of which there were 7,877 in post (on 1 July 2004);

  62 for staff at Bands 5 and 6 (EO equivalent), of which there were 8,143 in post and in post; and

  65 for staff at Band 4 (AO equivalent) and below, of which there were 7,182 in post.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue implication of restructuring stamp duty on residential property sales to charge marginal rates of(a) 0 per cent. on property sales of £120,000 or less, 3 per cent. on sales between £120,000 and £249,999, 4 per cent. on sales between £250,000 and £499,999 and 8 per cent. on sales of £500,000 and above, (b) 0 per cent. on property sales up to £100,000, 3 per cent. on sales between £100,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales between £250,000 and £499,999 and 8 per
  1512W

  National Debt
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) the value and (b) the interest paid on the national debt has been in each year since 1990. [188953]

  Mr. Timms
  The measure used in this Government's sustainable' investment rule and in international comparisons of debt is Public Sector Net Debt as a percentage of GDP.

  Figures for public sector net debt and central Government debt interest payments in current prices are available on the Office for National Statistics website: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/tsdtables1.asp?vlnk=fsf. Table 1.1A: Public Sector Finances (series RUTN and RUTO) shows figures for public sector net debt in £ billion and as a percentage of GDP. Table 1.1C: Central Government (series NMFX) shows debt interest payments in £ billions. No data is available for debt interest payments by local authorities or public corporations.

  Staff Recruitment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) set retirement age applying to all or most personnel and (b) maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered is in (i) his Department and (ii) its agencies. [186372]

  Mr. Timms
  The in formation requested is available in the following table:

  cent. on sales of £500,000 and above, (c) 0 per cent. on property sales up to £100,000, 2 per cent. on sales between £100,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales between £250,000 and £499,999 and 8 per cent. on sales of £500,000 or above, (d) 0 per cent. on property sales up to £110,000, 3 per cent. on sales between £110,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales between £250,000 and £499,999 and 8 per cent. on sales of £500,000 and (c) 0 per cent. sales up to £110,000, 2 per cent. on sales between £110,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales between £249,999 and £499,999, 8 per cent. on sales of £500,000 or above. [188011]
  1513W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: The estimated revenue cost, in 2005–06, of restructuring stamp duty on residential property sales according to the five schemes described in the question is given in the following tables:

  Tax regime 1 Marginal rates

  Price of residential property

  £0-£119,999 (percentage)

  0

  £120,000-£249,999 (percentage)

  3

  £250,000-£499,999 (percentage)

  4

  £500,000 and above (percentage)

  8

  Revenue cost (£ million)

  690

  Tax regime 2 Marginal rates

  Tax regime 3 Marginal rates

  Price of residential property

  £0-£99,999 (percentage)

  0

  0

  £100,000-£249,999 (percentage)

  3

  2%

  £250,000-£499,999 (percentage)

  5

  5

  £500,000 and above (percentage)

  8

  8

  Revenue cost (£ million)

  -60

  690

  Tax regime 4 Marginal rates

  Tax regime 5 Marginal rates

  Price of residential property

  £0-£109,999 (percentage)

  0

  0

  £110,000-£249,993 (percentage)

  3

  2

  £250,000-£499,999 (percentage)

  5

  5

  £500,000 and above (percentage)

  8

  8

  Revenue cost (£ million)

  190

  860

  This does not include any allowance for behavioural changes.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which neighbourhoods in Newcastle exemptions and remissions of stamp duty apply what the value of the exemptions and remissions so far granted has been; and whether the boundaries of the neighbourhoods will be revised in the light of the new index of multiple deprivation. [188711]

  Mr. Timms
  The list of wards in Newcastle which qualify for deprived areas relief are Walker, Monkchester, Elswick, West City, Byker, Scotswood, Benwell, Woolsington, Moorside, Fawdon, Blakelaw, Kenton, Wingroye, Fenham, Newburn, Walkergate and Denton.

  The value of relief given in the listed Newcastle wards between inception of the relief at the end of November 2001, and the end of March 2004, is estimated at around £4 million.

  There will be no changes to the qualifying areas before December 2006.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) 2003–04 and (b) the current financial year to date have been overpaid tax credits; what proportion of the cases of overpayment
  1514W
  were due to error by the Inland Revenue; and in what proportion of the cases the Inland Revenue has attempted to recover overpayments. [188243]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total number of(a) 2003–04 and (b) current financial year awards that are overpaid will be available only when all the awards for the years in question are finalised.

  Unoccupied Young People
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Tamworth constituency aged between 16 and 24 years were both economically inactive and not in further or higher education(a) in 1997 and (b) in the latest year available. [188096]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 14 September 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about economic inactivity in the Tamworth Parliamentary Constituency. I am replying in his absence. (188096)
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for the twelve months periods ending February 2003 show that there were over 12 thousand residents aged 16–24 in private households in the Tamworth Parliamentary Constituency. Of these, around 10 thousand were not in full-time education and of that figure, fewer than 2 thousand were economically inactive.
  The corresponding figures for the 12 months ending February 1997 showed that out of a total of just under 11 thousand 16–24 year olds, nearly 9 thousand were not in full-time education and, of these, less than 2 thousand were economically inactive.
  These estimates are based on small sample sizes and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling variability. They should therefore be treated with caution.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Bridgwater constituency aged between 16 and 24 years are both economically inactive and not in further or higher education. [186501]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, dated 14 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economic inactivity. (186501)
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for the twelve months ending May 2003 show that there were 9,000 residents in private households aged 16 to 24 in the Bridgwater Parliamentary Constituency. Of these, 6,000 were not in full-time education and, among those, fewer than 1,000 were economically inactive.
  These estimates are based on small sample sizes and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling variability. They should therefore be treated with caution.

  Worker: Pensioner Ratio
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the ratio of workers to pensioners in the(a) United Kingdom, (b) each region of England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales. [188129]
  1515W
  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 14 September 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the ratio of workers to pensioners in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) each region of England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales. I am replying in his absence. (188129)
  The attached table gives the estimated ratios of people in employment to the population estimates above pension age by gender and region for the three months ending August 2003.
  These ratios have been calculated by dividing the estimated employed population aged 16 and over, obtained from the ONS Labour Force Survey (LFS), by the estimated populations of men aged 65 and over and of women aged 60 and over.

  Ratio of people in employment to estimates of population above pension age1 by gender and Government office regions; summer (June to August) 2003 not seasonally adjusted

  Total

  Male

  Female

  England

  2.6

  3.8

  1.9

  North East

  2.2

  3.2

  1.6

  North West (inc Merseyside)

  2.4

  3.6

  1.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.5

  3.7

  1.8

  East Midlands

  2.5

  3.7

  1.9

  West Midlands

  2.5

  3.6

  1.8

  Eastern

  2.5

  3.7

  1.9

  London

  3.3

  5.1

  2.3

  South-East

  2.6

  3.8

  1.9

  South West

  2.2

  3.2

  1.7

  Wales

  2.2

  3.2

  1.7

  Scotland

  2.5

  3.8

  1.8

  Northern Ireland

  2.7

  4.3

  1.8

  United Kingdom

  2.5

  3.7

  1.8

  1Pension age is defined as women aged 60 plus and men aged 65 plus. Ratio was calculated as people in employment divided by number of people above pension age.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  ONS—Population Estimates

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS/HIV
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure that AIDS/HIV prevention is given a high priority during the UK presidency of the(a) G8 and (b) EU. [187465]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government's strategy on AIDS "Taking Action: The UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world", published in July, signals that HIV and AIDS, with a special focus on Africa, will be a centrepiece for our Presidencies of both the G8 and of the EU in 2005. DFID is currently developing ideas about how best to use our G8 and EU Presidencies to promote accelerated international action on HIV and AIDS.
  1516W
  DFID is working closely with the other countries that hold the EU Presidency during this period (including Ireland, who hosted an important meeting on new HIV prevention technologies during their Presidency) and the European Commission to ensure that the European contribution to preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS is as effective as possible.

  Chechnya
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) financial and (b) humanitarian assistance Russia has received from the UK in relation to the recent terrorist atrocities in Beslan. [188296]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Following a crisis, DFID assesses whether needs can be met within a country before deciding to respond. To date there has been no specific funding request to DFID relating to the terrible events in Beslan, largely because needs seem to have been adequately met by resources within the country. Indeed, agencies such as the World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Children Fund and the Red Cross who responded to needs in Beslan, halve recently received support from DFID for their programme in the region.

  DFID has a long-standing programme of humanitarian assistance in the North Caucasus. Last year DFID channelled approximately £3.5 million largely through United Nations agencies and the International Confederation of the Red Cross to meet immediate humanitarian and protection needs.

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the International Labour Organisation about breaches of its standards by the Government of Burma. [188339]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK plays an active part in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and fully supports its efforts to end the use of forced labour in Burma. DFID's embassy in Rangoon maintains regular contact with the ILO liaison office there. The EU has repeatedly condemned Burma's lack of progress on forced labour, most recently on 5 June, at the International Labour Conference in Geneva. The EU issued a statement at the ILO's Governing Body in March. The ILO will consider what progress Burma has made at its Governing Body meeting in November.

  CDC/Actis Capital
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether CDC investments qualify as bilateral aid. [189061]

  Hilary Benn
  I confirm that CDC investments still qualify as bilateral aid and full details of these investments are set out in Table 7 of Statistics on International Development, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Buildings (Lost and Stolen Property)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if ho will list the items that his Department has reported to the police as lost or stolen from his Department's buildings or property in the United Kingdom and overseas since 1997. [188319]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The number of items reported lost or stolen to the police in the UK and overseas is as set out. Information for 1997 is not readily available and could not be obtained without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Item

  Quantity

  1998

  Laptop

  1

  1998

  Computers

  10

  1998

  Laptop

  1

  2000

  Vehicle

  1

  2001

  Telephones

  3

  2001

  Colour printer

  1

  2001

  Laser printers

  2

  2001

  Scanners

  2

  2001

  Fax machine

  1

  2001

  Laptop

  1

  2001

  Vehicle

  1

  2002

  Video camera

  1

  2002

  Vehicle

  1

  2002

  Vehicle

  1

  2002

  Laptop

  1

  2002

  Laptops

  2

  2002

  Vehicle

  1

  2002

  Laptop

  1

  2002

  Laptop

  1

  2002

  Digital camera

  1

  2002

  Laptop and projector

  1

  2002

  Building materials

  —

  2002

  Laptop and projector

  1

  2003

  Laptop

  1

  2003

  Laptops

  3

  2003

  Laptop

  1

  2003

  Laptop

  1

  2004

  Laptop

  1

  2004

  Laptop

  1

  2004

  Digital camera

  1

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department spent on replacing light bulbs in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on energy efficiency in his Department's buildings in the UK and overseas. [188330]

  Year

  Focus groups

  Cost (£)

  Opinion polls

  Cost (£)

  Total (£)

  1997–98

  OLR Baseline Study

  43,000

  —

  —

  43,000

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  ONS Poll

  28,200

  44,704

  —

  —

  MORI Poll

  14,700

  —

  —

  Developments Survey

  1,804

  2000–01

  —

  —

  ONS Poll

  33,000

  47,629

  —

  —

  MORI Poll

  14,629

  1518W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID spent £4,311 in its London offices on replacement light bulbs during 2003–04. No information is available for our East Kilbride offices, as it is currently being refurbished and the lighting system is therefore being replaced. Information on expenditure on light bulbs in our overseas offices is not centrally available and could not be obtained without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  DFID is committed to implementing the standards set out in the Government's Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. The recent refurbishments of our UK offices have given us the opportunity to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings, for instance with installation of Building Management Systems which allow us to monitor and manage energy usage to a much greater extent than in the past.

  The design for the refurbishment of our East Kilbride office has received an "excellent" rating under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM); for instance, DFID has installed energy efficient heating systems, and also lighting systems which are movement sensitive and take account of natural lighting levels. Through our green awareness programme DFID is encouraging overseas offices to consider the implementation of similar energy efficiency measures wherever appropriate.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money his Department has spent on(a) opinion polling and (b) focus groups in each year since 1997. [188332]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In 1998, DFID commissioned Opinion Leader Research (OLR) to undertake baseline focus group research among the UK public. In 2003, DFID commissioned OLR to undertake further focus group research to explore ways of increasing understanding and support for international development in the UK. DFID also commissions two annual opinion polls on public attitudes to development. One poll, undertaken by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), monitors the opinion of the UK adult population, and the second, undertaken by Market and Opinion Research International (MORI), monitors the opinion of schoolchildren. In 1999, we also undertook a readership survey of "Developments" magazine, in order to test its impact and reach. The results of the focus group research and the opinion polls are used to inform, and monitor the impact of, our work on development awareness and education.

  The annual cost of focus group research and opinion polls is detailed in the following table:
  1519W

  Year

  Focus groups

  Cost (£)

  Opinion polls

  Cost (£)

  Total (£)

  2001–02

  —

  —

  ONS Poll

  34,300

  45,815

  —

  —

  MORI Poll

  11,515

  2002–03

  —

  —

  ONS Poll

  31,880

  43,395

  —

  —

  MORI Poll

  11,515

  2003–04

  OLR Research

  50,309

  ONS Poll

  32,990

  95,519

  —

  —

  MORI Poll

  12,220

  2003–05

  OLR Research

  —

  ONS Poll

  36,120

  To be confirmed

  —

  —

  MORI Poll

  To be agreed

  To be confirmed

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the equivalent monetary cost of theft from his Department was in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) United Kingdom locations and (b) overseas offices. [188333]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The cost to DFID, in pounds, of items reported stolen is as set out. Information for 1997 is not readily available and could not be obtained without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  £

  United Kingdom

  Overseas

  1998

  3,111

  16,357

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  111

  24,319

  2001

  203

  6,472

  2002

  10,595

  29,797

  2003

  10

  2,674

  2004

  0

  2,192

  Departmental Mobile Phones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many mobile phones owned by his Department have been reported lost or stolen since 1997. [188331]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Within the Department for International Development, 28 mobile phones have been reported lost or stolen since 1997.

  Departmental Satellite and Cable Subscriptions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of satellite and cable subscriptions in his Department's buildings in the UK and overseas in each year since 1997; and if he will list the premium channels to which his Department subscribes. [188328]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID subscribes to the Parliamentary TV System to allow access to the Parliamentary Annunciator System, the Division Bell and Commons and Lords TV channels in the UK. Other services and channels are included in the package: these are selected by the Information Committee of the Houses of Parliament. The annual costs of the subscription since 1997 are given in the table.
  1520W

  £

  Amount

  1997

  1—

  1998

  19,770

  1999

  19,770

  2000

  220,500

  2001

  220,500

  2002

  20,500

  2003

  23,059

  1No figures are available.

  2Estimated figure.

  DFID has no other cable and satellite subscriptions in the UK and there is no central provision of cable and satellite services to overseas offices. Information about any local purchases overseas could not be obtained without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Infant Mortality Rate
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of global infant mortality he estimates results from unsafe water and sanitation; and how this is taken into account in the design of the programmes funded by his Department in pursuit of the Millennium Development Goal to reduce the under-five mortality rate. [188053]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  UN data on infant mortality are not routinely disaggregated by cause of death. It is estimated, however, that diarrhoea causes more than 1.5 million child deaths each year, constituting about 15 per cent. of under-live deaths. Childhood diarrhoea is closely associated with insufficient water, inadequate sanitation, contaminated water and poor hygiene practices.

  The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are strongly inter-dependent and DFID programme interventions include strict controls over appraisal and design to reflect this. DFID's Water Action Plan, published in March 2004, sets out DFID's priorities for the integrated provision of safe water, sanitation and hygiene promotion at national, regional and international levels. Significant progress to reduce childhood deaths from diarrhoea requires increased coverage of both preventative interventions and curative, such as the provision of effective health care (including oral re-hydration therapy and drug treatments).

  Iraq
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if ho will make a statement on responsibility for the management of the Development Fund for Iraq. [188343]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the United Nations Security Council resolution 1546 (8 June 2004) resources in the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) are managed and disbursed solely at the discretion of the Interim Iraqi Government. The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) continues its work as an audit oversight body for the DFI. The IA MB oversees audits conducted by international accounting firms of (i) oil export sales, (ii) the accounting for the proceeds from oil export sales, (iii) the DFI financial statements, and (iv) the disbursement procedures for DFI resources.

  In March 2004 the IAMB approved the Coalition Provisional Authority's appointment of KPMG to conduct audits in two stages: first for DFI activities up to the end of December 2003, which reported on 15 July; and second for the six months to 28 June 2004, on which KPMG expects to report in early October 2004. As with the first stage audit reports, the IAMB will make the reports of the second stage available on its website (http://www.iamb.info).

  Oil export sales and DFI operations after 28 June 2004 will be examined by external auditors to be appointed by the Government of Iraq. The IAMB will work with the Government of Iraq to ensure the early appointment of appropriately qualified external auditors.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the current levels of(a) water and (b) electricity provision in Iraq are; and what the targets for improvement in the next 12 months are. [188351]

  Hilary Benn
  Estimates suggest that immediately after the 2003 conflict, 60 per cent. of in ban and 30 per cent. of rural populations had access to safe water. In October 2003, the United Nations and World Bank's Needs Assessment of Iraq proposed a 2007 target of increasing water access in urban areas by 30 per cent., and in rural areas by 45 per cent., from immediate post-conflict levels. Considerable work has taken place since May 2003 to improve the quantity, quality and reliability of water supplies.

  Programme

  Contract cost (£)

  Programme details

  Emergency Public Administration Programme (EPAP)

  3,181,205

  This programme provides capacity building support to the Iraq public administration. Activities include the provision of long and short-term technical advice, support and training to key central ministries, to enable them to begin the process of re-establishing effective and accountable government in Iraq

  Technical Support to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) South

  491,406

  Provision of technical experts to the former Coalition Provisional Authority in southern Iraq in the areas of economic reform and justice. This work completed on 28 June following the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government

  Total

  3,672,611

  1522W
  In Basra the water supply situation remains difficult but is now better than before the 2003 conflict. Informal estimates by the former Coalition Provisional Authority (South) indicated that, in the south, coverage increased by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. from May 2003 to July 2004. Major infrastructure work which is mainly US funded is planned over the next year. United Nations agencies are providing up to 800,000 litres of drinking water per day to vulnerable groups and inhabitants of rural areas. Drinking water is also sold by bottle or tanker. The restoration of 14 Basra Governorate water treatment plants is on schedule for completion by the end of October 2004.

  In Baghdad, civil engineering work has now been completed at three wastewater treatment plants. The UN is operating water tankers and supplying water purification tablets to meet shortfalls. Water specialists from the USA are working with local government officials in Baghdad Municipality's water department to improve water treatment throughout the city.

  The supply of electricity in Iraq has improved since May 2003. Production now averages 4,750 MW, compared with the pre-conflict level of 4,400 MW. Most of Iraq is now receiving between nine and 15 hours of electricity daily.

  Significant programmes of long-term rehabilitation of electrical infrastructure are being undertaken alongside planning for the expansion of generating capacity with new plants. However, security problems continue to slow the progress of reconstruction and make precise forecasting difficult. The Interim Iraqi Government has set a target of 6,000 MW by the end of 2004. The United Nations and World Bank's Needs Assessment proposed a target of 8,760 MW by 2007.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding his Department has allocated to the Adam Smith Institute for work in relation to the reconstruction of Iraq; what the nature of the work is; and if he will make a statement. [188428]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not allocated any funding to the Adam Smith Institute for work in relation to the reconstruction of Iraq.

  DFID has contracted the consultants Adam Smith International Ltd. (ASIL) to provide services to assist with reconstruction in Iraq as follows:
  1523W

  Pakistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is providing to Pakistan for the reform of its education system. [188364]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has made a significant contribution to the reform of Pakistan's education system. During 2003–04, DFID spent £2.2 million on a number of initiatives, including support to the National Education Assessment System, a programme that assessed children's performance nationally and informed education policy. DFID also supported the North West Frontier Province Education Programme, the Northern Areas Education Programme, Sindh Primary Education Project and the Punjab Middle Schooling Project. These programmes have supported the Government of Pakistan to improve the decentralised management of human and financial resources for education, as well as strengthening teacher training for primary education, with particular emphasis on education for girls.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households were living in temporary accommodation in the Tamworth constituency in each year since 1997; and how many of those households included dependent children. [188125]

  Keith Hill
  Information is not collected at constituency level, only at local authority level. A summary of information reported by Tamworth district council about the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation as at 31 March of each year since 1997 is tabled as follows. The number of households in temporary accommodation containing dependent children or expectant mothers has been collected only since March 2002.

  Principal authority

  Area(s) which petitioned for parish status

  Outcome

  2000–01

  Ashfield

  Hucknall

  Declined

  Bromsgrove

  Lickey End

  One new parish created

  Harlow

  Church Langley

  Declined

  Newcastle upon tyne

  Blakelaw and North Fenham

  One new parish created

  Nottingham

  Wollaton

  Declined

  Restormel

  St. Austell

  Declined

  St. Edmunsbury

  Brackland

  Considered by district review but declined

  Total

  Two parishes created

  Declined

  2001–02

  Basildon

  Noak Bridge

  One new parish created

  Bradford

  Keighley

  One New parish created

  Bradford

  Oakworth

  Declined

  Burnley

  Padiham

  One new parish created

  Brentwood

  West Hornden Herongate and Ingrave

  Two new parishes created

  Dudley

  Stourbridge

  Invalid petition

  Leeds MBC

  Shadwell

  One new parish created

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  silverdale

  One new parish created

  1524W

  Households in temporary accommodation1 arranged by Tamworth district council, as at 31 March

  Total households

  Of which: with dependent children2

  1997

  109

  n/a

  1998

  83

  n/a

  1999

  88

  n/a

  2000

  92

  n/a

  2001

  105

  n/a

  2002

  94

  90

  2003

  83

  75

  2004

  not reported

  not reported

  1 Households in temporary accommodation arranged by the local authority pending inquiries, or after being accepted, under homelessness legislation

  2 Includes expectant mothers. Data collected only since March 2002.

  Source:

  ODPM P1E homelessness returns (quarterly).

  Indicts of Deprivation
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the electoral wards under which each Super Output Area in the Indices of Deprivation 2004 falls. [188272]

  Phil Hope
  There are 32,000 Super Output Areas and this is too large to send in this format. I have contacted the Office for National Statistics and it will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy of these on CD format.

  Local Government
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many ballots there have been to set up(a) parish and (b) town councils in each of the last three years; and what the result was in each case. [188310]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In accordance with the provisions set out in the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister may by Order create parish and town councils following petitions from electors in the area of the proposed parish which are presented to principal local authorities. Where parishes are created, they come into existence on the l April of the year following the Order being made. The following table shows for each year since 1 April 2000 the outcome of petitions received from principal local authorities in that year or before.
  1525W

  Principal authority

  Area (s) which petitioned for parish status

  Outcome

  North West Leicestershire District

  Council

  Ellistown and Battleflat

  One new parish created

  Stockport MBC

  Offerton Estate

  One new parish created

  Warwick

  Royal Leamington Spa

  One new parish created

  Total

  10 parishes created

  2002–03

  North East Lincolnshire

  Great Coates

  One new parish created

  Wear Valley

  West Auckland

  One new parish created

  Total

  Two prishes created

  2003–04

  Bedford

  Brickhill

  One new parish created

  Bradford

  Clayton

  Four new parishes created

  Sandy Lane

  Wilsden

  Wrose

  Leeds

  Drighlington

  Three new parishes created

  Gildersome

  Kippax

  Sefton

  Formby

  One new parish created

  Shepway

  Folkestone

  Two new parishes created

  Sandgate

  Total

  11 parishes created

  2004–05

  Fylde

  Saint Anne's on the Sea

  One new parish created

  Total so far

  1 parish created

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what opportunities there will be for parish and town councils in his 10-year vision for local government. [188316]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The vision for local government sees an important role for citizen engagement and participation so that they have greater influence over the delivery of public services. There are a variety of possible models to give communities a stronger voice at local level, one of which is through parish and town councils. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to issue a discussion document looking at the issue of citizen engagement, including the role of parish and town councils, later this year.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has(a) to protect the interests of staff over the age of 40 and (b) for a transitional scheme, in changes to the local government pension scheme. [188722]

  Phil Hope
  The proposals to amend the Local Government Pension Scheme, on which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted earlier this year, are planned to come into effect in April 2005. They fully protect all members rights accrued up to that time. Those members who reach 60 years or over by 31 March 2013, and whose age and membership of the Scheme when added total 85, will also continue to accrue membership to that date on the me basis as they did prior to April 2005. In these circumstances, further transitional arrangements are not required.
  1526W

  Park Homes (Fire Safety)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to require all park home sites to provide individual fire protection for each residence rather than communal fire points; [188728]

  (2) what regulations there are regarding fire protection on park home sites; and what plans he has to amend these. [188729]

  Keith Hill
  The relevant statute for the licensing and control of residential park homes is the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Section 5 of the 1960 Act provides local authorities with the power to regulate fire precautions on park home sites, by enabling the local authority to impose conditions on the site licences issued to site owners. The Act enables the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to issue model standards. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has exercised this power most recently in 1989, in Circular 14/89: "Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960—Model Standards". The model standards represent the standards that are normally expected as a matter of good practice on sites for residential mobile homes or static holiday caravans, or both. The local authority must have regard to the model standards in issuing or reviewing the conditions of a site licence. In addition, the Act provides that a local authority is required to consult with the fire authority for the park as to the extent to which the model standards relating to the fire precautions are appropriate to the land. Ultimately, it is up to the local authority on what conditions they apply to site licences. As part of the ongoing park home reform, the model standards are currently being revised and an informal consultation is
  1527W
  taking place with stakeholders and a formal consultation paper will be published in the summer of 2005.

  Currently it is not expected that this revision will require individual fire protection for each residence.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the councils and fire authorities which require individual fire extinguishers for park home residences rather than fire points within 30 metres of each residence; and if he will make a statement. [188730]

  Keith Hill
  This information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are no powers for the Fire Safety Service to require the information.

  Section 5 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 gives local authorities the responsibility for the regulation of fire precautions on park home sites, by enabling the local authority to impose conditions on the park homes site licences the authority issues. The local authority must have regard to Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's model standards in issuing or reviewing the conditions of a site licence. In addition, the Act provides that a local authority is required to consult with the fire authority for the park as to the extent to which the model standards relating to the fire precautions are appropriate to the land, and if the conditions (if any) are found to be unsuitable, the local authority must consult with the fire authority about the conditions that ought to be attached to the licence instead. Ultimately though, it is matter for the local authority to decide upon the appropriate conditions to apply to site licences and there is no requirement that information about a site licence is provided to central Government.

  A local authority has the power to enter a site and monitor the upkeep of site licensing conditions.

  Regional Observatories
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 1 September 2004,Official Report, columns 742–44W, from the Deputy Prime Minister, which Government Department has responsibility for overseeing the expenditure of the regional observatories. [188269]

  Phil Hope
  Regional observatories are voluntary partnerships formed in the regions. Central Government does not oversee their expenditure.

  Supporting People Programme
  Derek Conway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of Supporting People programme grants are for each London borough. [188589]

  Keith Hill
  The Supporting People programme grant for each of the London boroughs for 2004–05 was:

  London borough

  Supporting People programme grant 2004–05 (£)

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,997,640

  Barnet

  7,490,089

  Bexley

  2,777,648

  1528W

  London borough

  Supporting People programme grant 2004–05 (£)

  Brent

  13,723,511

  Bromley

  5,645,494

  Camden

  39,696,525

  City of London

  741,115

  Croydon

  8,881,039

  Ealing

  11,643,789

  Enfield

  11,849,724

  Greenwich

  9,505,899

  Hackney

  24,114,767

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  13,932,752

  Haringey

  23,323,001

  Harrow

  3,624,556

  Havering

  2,550,490

  Hillingdon

  6,239,503

  Hounslow

  5,614,200

  Islington

  16,551,521

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12,205,258

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  4,720,995

  Lambeth

  22,112,120

  Lewisham

  18,452,195

  Merton

  3,523,216

  Newham

  11,272,635

  Redbridge

  4,394,844

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3,015,294

  Southwark

  20,108,613

  Sutton

  3,833,837

  Tower Hamlets

  15,732,633

  Waltham Forest

  7,967,877

  Wandsworth

  11,860,631

  Westminster

  18,250,145

  Telecommunications Masts
  Derek Conway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will implement the recommendations of the Stewart Report, section 1:36 within planning policy guidance note 8. [188588]

  Keith Hill
  Section 1:36 of the Stewart Report recommends that telecommunication development should be subject to the normal planning process. The Stewart Report made this recommendation in order to improve local consultation. The arrangements the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister put in place following the Stewart Report provide for the same consultation on mobile phone masts up to 15 m in height as is required by full planning permission.

  Derek Conway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from local planning authorities on the recommendations of the Stewart Report on permitted development of masts at 15 metres or below. [188591]

  Keith Hill
  Since the publication of the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications in August 2001 10 local planning authorities have made representations about the Government's response to the recommendation of the Stewart Report on permitted development of masts up to 15 metres in height.

  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, in the light of the recent statement by Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency and the National Radial ion Protection Board on whether Tetra had any harmful effects, he plans to remove the permitted development rights granted to licensed
  1529W
  telecommunications operators under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (Part 24 of Schedule 2). [188819]

  Keith Hill
  The Government currently have no plans to remove the permitted development rights granted to licensed telecommunications operators under Part 24 of the "Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995".

  The National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB) independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) published a report on "Possible Health Effects from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA)" in 2001. The report noted that the signals from TETRA base stations, like their mobile phone counterparts, are not pulsed. NRPB advise that there is no reason to believe that signals from TETRA base stations should be treated differently from other base stations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on subsidies available for companies working to find and develop renewable energy sources. [187296]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Renewables Obligation is the key policy mechanism by which the Government are encouraging the growth necessary to reach the UK's renewable energy targets. It requires all licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales to supply a specified and growing proportion of their electricity from renewables. Renewable energy is also exempt from the Climate Change Levy, a tax on commercial energy use.

  In addition the Government also provides a range of other support for industry-led research and development and demonstration projects for longer term renewables and low carbon energy generation technologies, through the DTI and the Carbon Trust. Further details can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/index.shtml and http://www. thecarbontnist.co.uk/

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has lo introduce legislation against age discrimination in the work place following the judgment in the case of Rutherford and Bentley v. Towncircle Ltd.; and if she will make a statement. [188254]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Rutherford and Bentley case is not about age discrimination—it is about sex discrimination, and the Government welcomes the Court of Appeal judgment that UK legislation is not unlawful. The Government have undertaken public consultation on forthcoming age legislation, which will come into force in 2006, including proposals on upper age limits for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payments.

  British Nuclear Group
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she received from BNFL its first near term work plans and its lifecycle baseline analysis for British Nuclear Group sites; and what procedure is in place for amendment to these planning documents. [187502]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The first lifecycle baselines for British Nuclear Group sites were received on 30 September 2003. The first near term work plans for BNFL sites were received on 15 March 2004. Updating lifecycle baselines and near term work plans will be an annual process.

  British Telecom (Service Obligations)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to instruct BT to meet its obligations to customers who have a medical priority in the event of breakdown or disruption due to planned maintenance. [188391]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Business Link
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated administrative cost is of devolving Business Link services to the regions. [186347]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The combined estimated administrative cost to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Regional Development Agencies, of devolving the management of Business Link Operators to the Regional Development Agencies is less than £650,000.

  Business Support Agencies
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how her Department measures the success of its business support agencies. [186318]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The common monitoring framework for all DTI business support product provision measures immediate benefits to assisted businesses, quality of service they receive and the process required to deliver a good service.

  All business support products will also be included in an annual Business Support Cross Product Monitoring Survey. The monitoring survey aims to measure the client experience and subsequent impact and effectiveness of each scheme.

  In addition DTI undertakes regular evaluations of the economic benefits of each its products and services and these are published on the DTI website.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions the
  1531W
  Sustainable Energy Policy Group ministerial committee has had in relation to the Combined Heat and Power Strategy; [187581]

  (2) what discussions (a) the Sustainable Energy Policy Network (SEPN) Advisory Board, (b) the SEPN Programme Board and (c) the SEPN Strategy Group have had in relation to the Combined Heat and Power Strategy. [187582]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Sustainable Energy Policy Network (SEPN) Ministerial Committee, the SEPN programme board and SEPN strategy group regularly have wide ranging discussions on energy policy issues, including the contribution of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) to the objectives set out in the Energy White Paper.

  Minutes of the Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board's discussions can be found on the SEPN website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/structure.shtml# advisory. The CHP Strategy was not on the Board's agenda at the three meetings held since its creation in December 2003.

  Corporate Venturing UK
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total funding is that has been given by her Department to support Corporate Venturing UK since it was launched. [186343]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The total funding provided by this Department to Corporate Venturing UK since its inception is £1,465,415.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's proposed funding arrangements for Corporate Venturing UK. [186344]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has no plans to provide further funding for Corporate Venturing UK.

  Cybersquatting
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what statistics the Government collate on(a) incidences and (b) the cost to British business of cybersquatting on British companies and individuals. [187952]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government do not run the internet and we do not have responsibility for internet domain names. Statistics for Top Level Domain names are held on the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Arbitration and Mediation Center website (www.arbiter.wipo.int/.domains/index.html). Since 1999 WIPO has recorded 554 instances of disputes for generic top level domain names (.int.com etc.) in which the complainant was domiciled in the UK.

  Nominet UK is responsible for uk internet domain name registration. As of 31 August there were over 3.6 million uk registrations in Nominet's register database. To date, Nominet has received 1,813 disputes into its Dispute Resolution Procedure since September 2001.
  1532W
  Nominet's Dispute Resolution Procedure is free of charge and Nominet provides it's administrative and mediation services free. The domain name registry responsible for com.net etc. offer similar dispute resolution procedures; where they are administered by WIPO they are subject to fees as set out at (www.arbiter.wipo.int/domains/fees/index.html).

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the practice of cybersquatting; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce cybersquatting. [187957]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  WIPO defines cybersquatting as the pre-emptive, bad faith registration of trademarks as domain names by third parties who do not possess rights in such names. Cyber squatters exploit the first come first served nature of the domain name registration system to register as domain names third parties' trademarks or business names of famous people as well as variations thereof. A common motive for cybersquatting is the intention to sell the domain name back to the trademark owner or to attract web traffic to unrelated commercial offers.

  The Government support the development of affordable alternative dispute resolution procedures by domain name registries.

  It is ICANN's (Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers) responsibility to co-ordinate, at a global level, the internet domain name system. ICANN's board have adopted a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for all registrars serving the com, .net, and org domains.

  Nominet UK manages the database of uk domain name registrations. Nominet have a Dispute Resolution Procedure developed in close consultation with UK stakeholders.

  Defence Information Infrastructure (Future) Contract
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the consequences for(a) employment opportunities and (b) skills in the north-west of the award of the Defence Information Infrastructure (Future) contract to each of the current bidders. [188263]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: No assessment by DTI has been made of the UK employment implications related to either of the bidders for the MoD's Defence Information Infrastructure (Future) procurement.

  European Directives (Environment)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list each environment-related European Directive the implementation of which involves her Department; and what steps her Department is taking towards implementation in each case. [187213]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This Department is involved in the implementation of all environment-related European Directives, because of their implications for business, but takes the lead on the following current measures:
  1533W

  (a) The End-of-Live Vehicles (ELY) Directive (2000/53/EC). Implementation has been partially effected by the ELV Regulations 2003 (S.L 2003/2635), and will be completed by the forthcoming ELV (Producer Responsibility) Regulations, on which public consultation took place earlier this year.

  (b) The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2002/96/EC) and The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2202/95/EC). Draft Regulations to transpose these Directives were published for consultation on 30 July 2004.

  (c) The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (1994/62/EC). DTI has introduced Regulations (SI 2003/1941, amended by SI 2004/1188) relating to the essential requirements (composition and definition) of packaging and packaging waste.

  (d) The proposed Directive on Batteries and Accumulators and Spent Batteries and Accumulators (COM(2003)723 final). A first consultation, seeking stakeholder views on the proposed measure, has recently closed, and responses are being assessed.

  (e) The proposed Directive to amulet the Whole Vehicle Type Approval Directive, specifying reusability, recyclability and recoverability standards for vehicle design (COM(2004) 162 final). Negotiations have not yet began on this proposal.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many full-time equivalent staff have been assigned to work on each environment-related European Directive, the implementation of which involves her Department. [187214]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The equivalent of 13 full-time executive, administrative economic, and legal staff have been assigned to work on all the range of environment-related European Directives on which DTI takes the lead in implementation.

  Gas and Electricity Supply
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has had of increases imposed by Centrica gas suppliers on prices to domestic customers; what action she is taking to ensure greater diversity in generating electricity with greater use of coal; and if she will make a statement. [188097]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  While gas retail prices are a commercial matter for the companies concerned, consumers are normally free to seek a better deal and can switch energy supplier. Although some gas suppliers have announced gas prices recently, even after these price rises the real price of domestic gas will be significantly lower than that seen over most of the last 30 years

  We are continuing to monitor developments regarding diversity in the electricity generation market e.g. through the Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group (JESS) which consists of officials from Government, Ofgem and National Grid Transco.

  We recognise the value of coal fired generation, especially its ability to meet peaks in demand and cover supply intermittency. We believe it will have a continuing role in a diverse energy balance provided that its associated carbon emissions can be reduced through clean coal technologies. We plan to publish around the end of the year a Carbon Abatement Technologies Strategy aimed at supporting the development of low carbon technologies from fossil fuels such as coal.

  MOX Plant (Sellafield)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public money has been given to the MOX Plant at Sellafield in each year since 1990; what the projected sums are for future years; and if she will make a statement. [187524]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The construction and operation of the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) has been funded by BNFL from income from the company's commercial operations. No publicly voted money has been provided to the company.

  The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which will become operational from 1 April 2005, will assume full financial responsibility for the UK's civil public sector nuclear assets and liabilities.

  A number of BNFL's assets will transfer to the NDA in April 2005, including SMP. Money voted by Parliament intended for the clean up programme will not be used to subsidise commercial operations such as SMP.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much revenue was forecast to be generated by the MOX Plant at Sellafield at its inception in each year to 2004; what the outturn has been; what the projections are for future years; and if she will make a statement. [187525]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government commissioned an independent review of the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) economic case by Arthur D. Little in 2001. The consultants analysis in the report, stated that: "there is a robust economic case for proceeding with SMP" and that "the expected Net Present Value (NPV) of the national economic interest case for SMP is £216 million".

  Details of SMP annual revenues are commercially confidential. The recently published audited 2004 Annual Accounts for BNFL noted that the most recent financial forecasts for SMP, which are used both for economic appraisal and accounting for SMP contracts, has shown some deterioration from last year. This reflects recent difficulties in achieving production ramp up and BNFL's current best estimate of the future production profile.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries were expected to place orders with the MOX Plant at Sellafield at its inception; and how many have done so to date. [187526]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The economic case for the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) presented to the Environment Agency in 1997 was based on MOX business from Japanese, German, Swiss and Swedish customers. To date, SMP has secured contracts from German, Swiss and Swedish customers plus commitments from Japanese customers. I understand from BNFL that the company is hopeful of securing Japanese MOX contracts in the future.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much profit the MOX plant at Sellafield is expected to make in its lifetime. [187527]
  1535W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This is a commercially confidential figure under Exemption 13—Third Party Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the Government are working with BNFL to ensure that the best value for money is achieved for the taxpayer with respect to the operations of this plant.

  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made since December 2003 in respect of the consideration by the European Commission of details provided by the Government on the proposed financing of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [187604]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The European Commission is still considering the matter. We hope for a decision soon.

  Nuclear Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response has been received from the European Commission following the plan presented by the United Kingdom on 1 June in respect of the nuclear waste storage silo B30 at Sellafield. [187503]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As of 7 September, UK authorities had received no formal or substantive response from the Commission to the plan presented on 1 June in respect of B30 at Sellafield. The Commission has however issued a press release dated 3 September in which it states that it will refer the UK to the European Court of Justice. The UK remains keen to engage in a full and co-operative dialogue with the Commission aimed at satisfactorily resolving the remaining Euratom Treaty safeguards issues at the B30 plant.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to evaluate the impact of new overhead power lines on the economy of communities reliant on tourism. [187491]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This is one of a number of issues for Government to take into account when considering an individual application for consent to a particular proposal for a new overhead line. In Scotland it is for Scottish Ministers to take that decision.

  Renewable Energy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many householders have taken advantage of the Clear Skies renewable energy grants scheme since the scheme started operating; and how much has been awarded in grants. [188171]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the start of Clear Skies 4,204 household applications have been made with a total value of £2,489,050. Of these 3,939 have been accepted and 2,347 have been paid, with a total value of £1,297,050.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on future plans for the Clear Skies renewable energy grants scheme. [188172]
  1536W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department is currently considering how best to allocate the recent Spending Review Settlement for sustainable energy. While the settlement was a good one in the context of a tight spending review, it unfortunately will not allow us to do everything.

  We are currently considering the case made by the industry to make a further extension to Clear Skies in the context of the overall funding made available for renewables and low carbon generation in SR2004.

  An announcement about continued funding will be made shortly.

  Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the timescale for the consultation on the renewables obligation. [188419]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are two separate consultations on the Renewables Operation under way at present.

  First, the Government launched a consultation on the terms of reference for the Review of the Renewables Obligation which will take place in 2005/06. The review will address the effectiveness of the Obligation to date, the future profile of the Obligation, its working arrangements and the transition to market over time for renewables technologies including taking account of support under the Obligation and the Emissions Trading Scheme. The consultation period on the terms of reference ends on 30 September. A preliminary consultation is planned for early next year followed by a statutory consultation of all stakeholders later in 2005 with a view to any necessary changes that can be made by secondary legislation taking effect from 1 April 2006.

  In addition, on 8 September the Government published a separate consultation paper on a number of limited changes to the Renewables Obligation to strengthen the development of electricity generation capacity using renewable energy sources in the UK. This is a more limited consultation concerning measures to:
  extend the profile of the Obligation to 2015/16;
  allow tradability between Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation Certificates (NIROCs) and GB ROCs;
  introduce measures that will further secure the buy-out fund in the event of a shortfall occurring;
  consider the introduction of a single recycling mechanism for the separate buy-out funds;
  introduce more flexibility for small generators.

  The period for this consultation ends on 1 December, and the Government plans to make any necessary changes to take effect from 1 April 2005.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the calculation of the effectiveness of renewable obligations will include the operation of renewable obligation certificates. [188420]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes. The operation of Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are an important element of the Renewables Obligation. The forthcoming review of the Renewables Obligation in 2005/06 will include, among other things, an assessment of the effectiveness of the operation of the ROCs market.
  1537W

  State Aid
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the levels of state aid to industry in other EU member states relative to the UK and of whether this results in unfair competition. [186419]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The European Commission publishes regular reports on levels of state aid spending in member states, based on information which member states are required to provide, and the results are available on the Commission's website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/

  EU rules on state aid provide a safeguard against any member state funding businesses in a way that will distort competition and trade within the single market. The Government sees this regime as essential in ensuring a level playing field for businesses across the EU, and we are committed to the objectives agreed at Lisbon and other European Councils of less and better targeted state aid.

  Telephone Billing;
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require British Telecom to allow its competitors to offer a single telephone bill for its customers. [186331]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tidal Energy
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote tidal energy; and what plans she has to increase investment in its further development. [187041]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The main form of support for all renewable technologies is the Renewables Obligation (RO) which provides a stable and long term market for renewable electricity. Electricity generation from both wave and tidal stream technologies is eligible for the RO.

  However, these technologies are still at the developmental stage. Therefore the principal form of support to date has been through the DTI's Technology Programme that since 1997 has committed around £15 million towards the development of these technologies.

  On 2 August the Government announced a further £50 million funding primarily focused on supporting the UK's marine renewables industry through the next phase of development of these technologies, which includes small scale demonstration and pre-commercial stages.

  The Department is now working closely with the Carbon Trust, Scottish Executive and other stakeholders looking at mechanisms for applying the funding, subject to State Aid approval.
  1538W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the potential contribution to the UK's energy needs of tidal power. [187042]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A study has been commissioned to provide a spatial quantification of renewable sources of energy—wave, tidal and offshore wind across the waters of the UK continental shelf. In addition to the spatial variation of these resources, temporal variations will also be assessed. This study (ATLAS) will assist in deciding which areas of the sea will next be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment.

  The first stage of the study which has just been completed provides information on the energy levels with a resolution of about 12 km. The second stage will involve the conversion of the raw energy potential into the amount of energy presently available. It will also allow higher resolution in specific areas such as through main channels. The study is expected in the autumn and we intend to publish it.

  Additionally, there have been two previous studies1,2 which examined the potential tidal stream power resource in the UK. The later of those studies completed in 1996 under the EC JOULE-II energy research programme identified a total of 42 potential sites in UK waters with a combined annual output totalling some 31 TWh/yr which represents 8 per cent. of UK annual electricity demand in 2003.
  1 Tidal Stream Energy Review ETSU T/05/00155, 1993
  2 Marine Currents Energy Extraction: Resource Assessment, Final Report, EU-Joule contract JOU2-CT93–00355, 1995

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates have been made of the costs of steel production in the construction of wind farms. [186600]

  Mr. Timms
  A typical 2 MW wind turbine weighs around 260 tonnes and approximately 95 per cent. of that by weight is steel. Installed costs of onshore wind turbines are around £700,000 per MW, of which the turbines can account for around 75 per cent., although this will depend on factors such as the cost of the foundations and grid connection etc. One a per tonne basis, steel costs even at current market prices would account for less than 10 per cent. of the cost of the turbine.

  However, the cost of the steel itself is not necessarily the driving cost fact in all components of the turbine. For example, the tower section of the turbine is a relatively simple structure and in this case the amount of steel used will be the primary cost factor. However, other sections such as the nacelle, which contain complex components such as the turbine generator etc, might account for 25–40 per cent. of weight and 25 per cent. of the cost of the turbine. Although steel is still the primary component by weight, other raw materials and the processes involved in making these complex components account for a more significant proportion to total costs.
  1539W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the 50 MW threshold, above which she determines planning applications for wind farms, is based on the wind farm's theoretical maximum output, or its actual projected output. [187039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When looking at the capacity of a power station for the purposes of applications made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, it is the rated capacity which counts. That is the capacity which can be generated by the station and fed through the alternators without causing damage to the alternators.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what constitutes a single wind farm for the purposes of planning applications; and whether there is a maximum distance between two clusters of turbines, beyond which they would be regarded as two wind farms. [187040]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department is of the view that a wind farm could be considered as one where it used the same common services such as transmission cables, electricity sub-station and control room. If separate services were to be used then it would be two stand alone proposals and fall to be determined as two separate applications. While there is no maximum distance between each turbine the Department would expect the turbines to be spaced in such a manner that the distance between each turbine is the optimum for generation and satisfying environmental concerns.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates have been made of levels of carbon dioxide production as a result of building wind farms. [187570]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A number of studies have estimated the overall environmental cost of building wind power generation based on energy payback or life cycle analysis. These calculations project the energy output as a ratio of energy required to build, maintain and decommission the power station.

  The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within three to five months, and over its lifetime a wind turbine will produce over 30 times more energy than was used in building, maintenance and decommissioning according to a study commissioned by the British Wind Energy Association.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the number of fighters serving with the militias in Afghanistan and (b) the arms available to them. [188362]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is difficult to estimate accurately the number of fighters serving with militias in Afghanistan accurately, due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable intelligence reporting and the precise definition of what constitutes a militia fighter. Nevertheless, we estimate there to be around 50–60,000. They are predominantly armed with Soviet-era small arms and heavy weapons from the 1950s–1980s period.
  1540W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with other members of NATO on the need for additional resources for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. [188363]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom strongly supports the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) as an essential part of the international community's efforts to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan. Our leadership of Stage 1 of ISAF expansion and our deployment of Harrier GR7 aircraft to support both ISAF and coalition operations are examples of this commitment. In this context, we routinely engage with our NATO allies to discuss what additional resources are needed to facilitate ISAF expansion.

  Coastal Protection (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many coastal protection vessels have been deployed in Northern Ireland waters by the Royal Navy in each year since 1997; and which the vessels were. [187417]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period in question, four Royal Navy vessels were initially assigned to Northern Ireland patrol duties: HMS Itchen, HMS Blackwater, HMS Spey and HMS Arun. These ships were progressively withdrawn during 1998 and replaced by the current patrol ships HMS Cottesmore, HMS Dulverton and HMS Brecon which, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Hoon) on 21 July 2004, will be paid off by April 2007.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department is planning to release its budget. [187128]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of the 2004–05 budget can be found at Table 1 of the current edition of the Ministry of Defence's 'Government Expenditure Plans 2004–05–2005–06' (Cm 6212).

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British service personnel worked as part of the team of the US military judge advocate in Iraq, Colonel Mark Warren. [185908]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ono United Kingdom officer worked with Colonel Warren.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 July, 2004 Official Report, column 245W, on Iraq, how many enquiries by (a) civilian authorities and (b) military police resulted from these incidents; what the conclusions were; and if he will make a statement. [186420]

  Mr. Ingram
  Eight incidents that led to allegations against United Kingdom forces and compensation being paid to Iraqi people have been investigated by the Royal Military Police. Three concluded that no crime could be established and five have been referred to the relevant prosecuting service.
  1541W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi detainees and prisoners of war were held by British forces in Iraq on 29 June. [188320]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were no prisoners of war or detainees held by British forces in Iraq on 29 June. However, 49 internees were held.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a British officer was responsible for supervising Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Jordan during his time at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004. [188302]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: No. At no time have United Kingdom officers had direct responsibility for supervising any of the US personnel posted to Abu Ghraib.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Colonels Campbell James and Chris Terrington were part of a joint reporting or command chain with the US army during their time in Iraq. [188303]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: Colonel Terrington and his successor, Colonel Campbell-James were embedded within the C2 (Intelligence) Division of the US Combined Joint Task Force 7.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern(a) the handling of captured firearms and ammunition in Iraq, (b) the personal retention of captured weaponry and (c) selling such weapons; how many (i) officers and (ii) soldiers have been found in breach of such rules; how many have been subject to disciplinary action; and what sanctions have been applied. [176025]

  Mr. Ingram
  In Iraq, all captured enemy ammunition is handled by qualified Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel, in accordance with the Ammunition and Explosive regulations and Joint Service Publication 482. Captured weapons are transferred to a central facility for destruction, repair, re-distribution to the Iraqi Security Forces, or when given approval, returned to owners. Personal retention of captured weapons is not permitted. In some cases, operational memorabilia is cleared for return to the UK for retention by the capturing units. Service Police conduct anti-smuggling checks on equipment, vehicles, containers and baggage transported back to the UK and service flights are subject to checks by HM Customs and Excise.

  As at 31 August 2004, a total of three service personnel had been reported by the Royal Military Police for possession of captured firearms from Iraq.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions were made available to interrogators and other soldiers involved in the handling of prisoners in Iraq from March 2003 onwards in order to prevent European Convention on Human Rights violations under Article 3 occurring through each of the five techniques identified by the Court in 1978. [174551]

  Mr. Ingram
  All UK armed forces personnel are instructed that Iraqi prisoners should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which include the prohibition of torture. Each major unit also has a number of personnel trained to a greater degree in prisoner handling.
  1542W
  All UK interrogators must successfully complete a stringent course prior to undertaking any operational interrogations. During the course they are specifically instructed that individuals being questioned must, again, be treated at all times in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his statement of 7 January 2004,Official Report, column 139WH, on the case of Baha Musa, when he expects the investigation to be completed; whether its outcome will be placed in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [171623]

  Mr. Ingram
  The investigation into the death of Baha Musa has concluded and the case is now being considered by the Army Prosecuting Authority. Any ensuing trial would be held in public.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the relocation of Defence Science and Technology Laboratories facilities and personnel to Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [186357]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: Work to relocate Dstl facilities and personnel to Porton Down, has focused on the selection of a strategic partner who will provide the new facilities at Porton Down, and become the facilities management supplier to Dstl for 15 years from 2006.

  Four companies have now been short-listed to receive the invitation to tender (ITT), which is expected to be released towards the end of 2004. We hope that a preferred bidder will be appointed in autumn 2005.

  RAF Croughton
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons UK forces at RAF Croughton, are not allowed access to Commissary and BX services run by the US. [188752]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: In accordance with the terms of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement the US Visiting Force is permitted to
  "import free of duty the equipment for the force and reasonable
  quantities of provisions, supplies and other goods for the exclusive use of the force" (Article XI (4)).
  These provisions, supplies and other goods are made available through Army Air Force Exchange Services (Base Exchange—BX) and Defense Commissary
  Agency stores.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise regulations require the United States Visiting Force to refrain from selling goods imported or purchased tax and/or duty free to any persons other than members of the US Force, its civilian component and their dependants.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision comparable to the Commissary and BX service available to US forces at RAF Croughton, exists for UK forces. [188753]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding 13 September 2004]: RAF Croughton is made available to the United States Visiting Force under the terms of the NATO Status of

  1543W
  Forces Agreement 1951. The United Kingdom forces are not stationed at RAF Croughton and there is, therefore, no need to provide facilities comparable to the US Commissary and BX service.

  Warrior
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the propensity of the Warrior to engage in(a) undemanded firing of weapons and (b) other actions attributable to design faults in the electrical and safety systems. [186641]

  Mr. Ingram
  Technical investigations have been carried out since 1999, following a small number of reported incidents involving the undemanded firing of the Warrior chain gun. The investigations concluded that there is a very low risk of the undemanded firing of the chain gun or main armament. A Post Design Service task is currently in progress with the Design Authority to explore whether any design changes may be justified. In addition, a safety notice has been issued to the Warrior user community informing them of the problem, to ensure the continued safe operation of the vehicle.

  Two other technical investigations into the undemanded power traverse of the turret and undemanded operation of the rear door have also been carried out. Solutions to address both these problems are also being pursued by the Design Authorities. A modification programme to prevent the undemanded power traverse of the turret is due to commence this month.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent attempt to assassinate Sheikh Hasina, the parliamentary opposition leader in Bangladesh. [188313]

  Mr. Alexander
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his press statement of 22 August, we were shocked to hear of the bombings in Dhaka on 21 August and the many deaths and injuries they caused. A copy of the statement is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/news/policy/press-releases. We extend our sympathies to all those injured, and to the families of the victims. We condemn these bombings and call on all concerned to refrain from further violence, and to exercise restraint. We welcome the Bangladeshi Prime Minister's public expression of determination to see those responsible brought to justice, and hope that this can be done through an investigation process in which all parties, and the public, can have confidence.

  Departmental Pamphlets
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of printing his Department's pamphlet, "Inclusive Government: mainstreaming gender into foreign policy"; and how many pamphlets were printed. [188457]
  1544W
  Mr. Straw
  The printing cost of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's booklet "Inclusive Government: mainstreaming gender into foreign policy" was £2,730. We printed 3,000 copies.

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which his Department is responsible. [187318]

  Mr. Rammell
  On the Foreign and Commonwealth Office UK estate, there are:

  No rooms are set aside specifically for the use of smokers; there are, however, licensed bars at the Main Building in London and at Hanslope Park in which smoking is permitted in designated areas.

  Two rooms are set aside for worship, one in the FCO Main Building in Whitehall and the second at Hanslope Park—both rooms are designated as Multi-Faith. In the Old Admiralty Building (OAB) there are no rooms set aside solely for worship although two meeting rooms have been identified which may be used for multi-faith worship if not being used for their primary purpose.

  No rooms are specifically set aside for nursing mothers and pregnant women, although First Aid Rooms in the Main Building, OAB and Hanslope Park may be used if desired.

  European Union (Cost-Benefit Analysis)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the Government last undertook a cost-benefit analysis of United Kingdom membership of the European Union, including(a) indirect costs and benefits and (b) direct costs and benefits. [188781]

  Mr. MacShane
  UK membership of the European Union is vital for British jobs and prosperity. There is broad consensus among academics that UK membership of the European Union promotes growth, competitiveness and employment through the operation of the internal market. Our trade with Europe accounts for 3 million British jobs. 53 per cent. of our total imports of goods and services are from Europe. 50 per cent. of our total exports of goods and services go to Europe. And 65 per cent. of our investment overseas now goes to Europe.

  The Government continually consider the direct and indirect costs and benefits of specific EU legislative proposals, in the context of ongoing European policy development.

  Ewa Jasiewicz
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government regarding the detention of Ewa Jasiewicz; and if he will make a statement. [188068]
  1545W
  Mr. Mullin
  We were informed of Ms Jasiewicz's detention on 12 August when she called our embassy in Tel Aviv to report that she had been refused entry. Following legal appeals and counter-appeals by Ms Jasiewicz and the Israeli authorities, we understand that Ms Jasiewicz returned to the UK on 1 September. The issue of entry and exit to Israel is a matter for the Israeli authorities. However, our ambassador in Tel Aviv has recently written to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to raise our concerns over the treatment of British journalists and representatives of British media organisations.

  Iran
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons programme. [186868]

  Mr. MacShane
  Discussions between senior officials have taken place during the summer. A further report on Iran's nuclear programme by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be discussed at the meeting of the Agency's Board of Governors, which began on 13 September.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Iran about the Bushehr nuclear plant. [188368]

  Mr. MacShane
  Discussions with Iran, relating to its' nuclear programme, have taken place between senior officials during the summer. There has been no recent ministerial discussion with the Iranian Government on this subject.

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the political parties registered for elections in Iraq; and if he will break them down by(a) religious and (b) ethnic affiliations. [187616]

  Mr. Rammell
  The timetable for the organisation of the elections has not yet reached the stage of registration. The Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq timetable foresees registration taking place in November. We anticipate that a broad range of political forces and independent candidates will take part in the elections.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is giving to the preparation of women candidates for parliamentary elections in Iraq. [187619]

  Mr. Rammell
  This Government will make every effort to assist the holding of representative elections in Iraq in January next year, including helping implement the provision in the Transitional Administrative Law that calls for a target of 25 per cent. representation in the Transitional National Assembly by women. The 1546W
  stipulation in the electoral law that every third candidate on election lists should be female bodes well in this regard.

  The Department for International Development, through its Political Participation Programme which is being administered by the British Council, is spending £5 million on helping Iraqi women's organisations participate in the elections.

  Laos
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Laos concerning the arrest of four Christians in Kasy District in Vientiane province on 2 August; [187838]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Government of Laos concerning the intimidation of Christians by the authorities in parts of Laos in recent months, including in Nam Thuam village, Vieng Samay village and Hua Muang village; and if he will make a statement; [187839]

  (3) by what methods the British Government monitor abuses of religious freedom in Laos; and if he will make a statement. [187840]

  Mr. Alexander
  We are aware of reports of the mistreatment of Christians in Laos. Our embassy in Bangkok (which is accredited to Laos) monitors the situation. Although Lao people are officially free to worship, they may not preach in public. The Lao authorities themselves acknowledge incidents where officials have not permitted freedom of worship for Christians. We understand, however, there has been some limited progress, with a number of churches being allowed to re-open and an overall drop in the number of believers detained.

  Our contacts with the Laos authorities are very limited. We are not therefore able to confirm individual reports, nor to raise individual cases on a regular basis. Ministers and officials have, however, raised our concerns over freedom of religion on a number of occasions, both in bilateral contacts and through the European Union. Most recently, on 18 June, our ambassador to Thailand raised the persecution of Christians with Deputy Foreign Minister Phongsavath Boupha.

  We will continue to raise our concerns with the Lao Government when opportunities arise; and to encourage it to implement recent reforms on religious freedom.

  Maldives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the treatment of political prisoners in the Maldives. [188340]

  Mr. Alexander
  We remain concerned about prisoners detained without charge in the Maldives, and raise this regularly with the Maldivian authorities. Our Acting High Commissioner recently discussed this issue with
  1547W
  the Maldivian Attorney General, and on 6 September was part of an EU delegation which met the Maldivian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The EU delegation called upon the Maldivian government to immediately repeal the state of emergency and restore all fundamental rights to the detainees. We welcome the steps taken by the Maldivian Government to enter into an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross on prison monitoring, and look forward to the early conclusion of such an agreement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in the Maldives. [188341]

  Mr. Alexander
  In December 2003, the Maldives established a Human Rights Commission (HRC) to protect, promote and preserve human rights. However the bill that would give the HRC the necessary legal power has not been passed, and we continue to have concerns, including about freedom of expression and association, and detention without charge. Following the arrests of nearly 200 people, including Special Majlis MPs, during and after the demonstrations of 12 and 13 August, we and EU partners called on the Maldivian authorities to repeal the state of emergency and restore fundamental rights to those detained. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell) reiterated our support for the President's reform proposals, and stressed the importance of ensuring that the Special Majlis, and the people of the Maldives are free to discuss constitutional change, during a meeting on 25 August with the Maldivian Special Envoy.

  NATO Russia Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to develop the NATO-Russia Council as a tool in the war against terrorism. [188367]

  Mr. MacShane
  The struggle against terrorism was one of the drivers behind the foundation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. On 7 September the NATO-Russia Council issued a statement condemning the recent atrocities in Russia and undertaking to intensify common efforts against this shared threat, including working on measures to allow Russian naval forces to join allied units in NATO's maritime interdiction force in the Mediterranean.

  Nicholas Baker
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1656W, on Nicholas Baker, what progress has been made in the case of Mr. Nicholas Baker; what discussions on the case the Department has had with the Japanese Government over the last four months; and what further steps have been taken. [188337]

  Mr. Mullin
  Mr. Baker's appeal is currently ongoing in the Japanese Courts.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has discussed Mr. Baker's case with the Japanese authorities on a number of occasions over the last four months, at both ministerial and official level, most recently in August.
  1548W
  We will continue to raise Mr. Baker's case with the Japanese authorities at every appropriate opportunity. We remain in touch with Mr. Baker and his family about his case and will inform them immediately of any developments.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to publish annually the number of interceptions of communications he approves under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [188052]

  Mr. Straw
  No. The Annual Reports of the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner publish the numbers of interception warrants issued by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the First Minister in Scotland. In line with longstanding policy, endorsed by successive Interception Commissioners, the figures for warrants issued by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are not published. The reasons are explained in the latest Annual Report published on 22 July 2004 (HC883).

  Sudan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first received reports of Janjaweed activity in Darfur; when he first raised the question of Janjaweed activities in Darfur with his counterpart in Khartoum; what assurances were then sought; and if he will make a statement. [187273]

  Mr. Mullin
  Attempts by the Government of Sudan to recruit militias, as part of their response to the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) uprising, was first reported on 12 May 2003. The tern "Janjaweed" was first used by the British Government on 8 September 2003, following its use at negotiations in Abeche. However, different groups use the terns rather loosely to mean different things. The Government of Sudan understand it to mean "bandits"; whereas displaced persons will use it for almost any armed Arab on horseback.

  We have been raising with the Government of Sudan their response to the SLA since May 2003. In May of this year the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs visited London. During his visit my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and I all raised the need for the Sudanese Government to disarm the militias and protect their civilians from the human rights atrocities that have been taking place. When the Foreign Secretary travelled to Khartoum and Darfur at the end of August he re-iterated this need to both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Sudanese President.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions concerning the situation in Darfur his Department has had with officials from(a) the Sudanese embassy in London and (b) Sudanese Government officials in Khartoum between 22 July and 7 September; and on what dates, and where, these discussions took place. [188486]
  1549W
  Mr. Straw
  We are in regular touch with the Sudanese authorities, both through our embassy in Khartoum and the joint Department for International Development/Foreign and Commonwealth Office Sudan Unit in London. During the period specified, the main contacts included:26 July—the British ambassador in Khartoum met Naguib El Kheir, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.
  29 July—the UK Special Representative for Sudan met the Sudanese ambassador in London.
  2–3 August—the UK Special Representative for Sudan visited Sudan. Those he met included Saddiq al Mahdi (Umma Party), Yahya Hussein (Minister at the Presidency), Mohamed Yousef (Minister of Humanitarian Affairs), Qutbi Al Mahdi (Presidential Political Adviser), Mustafa Ismail (Foreign Minister).
  6 August—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Africa Director met the Sudanese ambassador in London.
  12 August—the UK Charge d'Affaires in Khartoum attended the UN/Government of Sudan Joint Implementation Mechanism with Jan Pronk, UN Secretary General's Special Representative (UNSR) and EU ambassadors and Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismael, the Sudanese Foreign Minister and his team.
  16 August—the UK Charge d'Affaires in Khartoum met Dr. Awad E1 Jaz, the Sudanese Minister of Energy and Mining
  18 August—the UK Charge d'Affaires in Khartoum attended a meeting at the Foreign Ministry with the International Organisation for Migration Mission
  19 August—the UK Charge d'Affaires in Khartoum attended the Joint Implementation Mechanism at the Foreign Ministry with Jan Pronk, UNSR and EU ambassadors and Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismael, Sudanese Foreign Minister and his team
  23–24 August—I visited Sudan. I called on Mustafa Ismail and President Bashir. I met other members of the Government at a lunch.
  2 September—the British ambassador in Khartoum called on Salah Ghosh (Director General National Security)
  6 September—the British ambassador in Khartoum called on Yahya Hussein (Minister at the Presidency)
  7 September—the UK Special Representative for Sudan met the Sudanese ambassador in London.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the Government's assessment of whether the atrocities committed in Darfur constitute genocide and (b) the implications of Secretary of State Powell's comments on genocide in Darfur to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9 September. [188995]

  Mr. Mullin
  There is no doubt that grave crimes against humanity have been committed in Darfur. These may amount to genocide. What Colin Powell said to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee underlines the need for all the evidence to be examined by an international commission of inquiry, which we would like the Security Council to set up.

  The evidence currently available further underlines the need for sustained international action to press the Government of Sudan to carry out its responsibilities. That is what we are seeking through the Security Council.
  1550W
  During my own visit to Sudan this week, I will also be making clear to the Government of Sudan its prime responsibility to protect its own citizens and to bring to justice all those responsible for human rights abuses.

  UK Presidency
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations the Government are making for the forthcoming UK Presidency of the EU. [188297]

  Mr. MacShane
  Each Government Department and devolved Administration has established its own structure for preparing for the Presidency, including teams within the European Union Directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK Permanent Representation to the EU. The Cabinet Office European Secretariat has an overall co-ordinating role.

  During our Presidency we will hold two European Councils in Brussels. Other formal Ministerial Councils and meetings of officials will take place in Brussels and Luxembourg.

  Some informal ministerial meetings will take place in the UK during the UK Presidency. Planning for these and other official level events is under way.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the main themes for the forthcoming UK Presidency of the EU will be. [188298]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's main priority for the UK Presidency of the EU in 2005 will be to take forward the EU policy agenda in an efficient, effective and impartial way, with a strong emphasis on the agenda which we will inherit from the preceding Dutch and Luxembourg Presidencies. That agenda is set out in detail in the Council's Multi-Annual Strategic Programme, covering the three year period from 2004–06, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a logotype for the UK Presidency of the EU has been agreed. [188299]

  Mr. MacShane
  The logo and a number of related issues are under discussion between Government Departments. It is not the usual practice for a future Presidency to publish its logo before the preceding Presidency has done so: the Luxembourg Presidency logo has only recently been unveiled.

  Zimbabwe
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Zimbabwean Government on its raid on the MDC offices in Bulawayo. [188877]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our embassy in Harare is monitoring the situation carefully. We condemn the intimidation and harassment of the Government of Zimbabwe's opponents, and will continue to make this clear.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make urgent representations to the Zimbabwean Government on the arrest of MDC member Mr. Nelson Chamisa. [188878]
  1551W
  Mr. Mullin
  Mr. Chamisa was released without charge on the afternoon of 10 September. The British embassy in Harare was in contact with Mr. Chamisa after his arrest and will continue to monitor the situation.

  We regularly raise human rights issues with the Government of Zimbabwe.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Access Management Grant Scheme
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the take-up of the Access Improvement Grant Scheme by local authorities has been; what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Scheme in meeting its stated objectives; and what will become of the Scheme as a result of Rural Strategy 2004. [186987]

  Alun Michael
  Take-up of the Access Management Grant Scheme has been very good. 24 access authorities, covering 96 per cent. of mapped access land in mapping areas 1 to 5, have bid for funding to support their preparatory planning work. Five local authorities have, so far, submitted bids for infrastructure work. Most authorities are still at the planning and consultation stage and we expect them to submit infrastructure bids during the autumn.

  The Scheme has been running for five months and it is therefore too early to assess how well it will meet all the objectives set for its first year. The Countryside Agency has reported on progress in the first three months, during which period the Scheme has proved successful and popular with local authorities. The Agency will be carrying out a more detailed assessment of the Scheme's overall performance in October. This will inform decisions on the level of funding and priorities for next year.

  I have extended funding for a further two years, to provide the necessary support to enable local authorities to complete access planning and on-site infrastructure work by March 2007.

  This work is an important early step in delivering the Rural Strategy 2004 objective of making the countryside more accessible for all. As the scheme currently runs only until March 2007, it will not be incorporated into the streamlined funding arrangements announced in the Strategy, which we plan to complete by March 2007. If a requirement for funding is identified beyond March 2007, we will review how best to meet it within the context of the new arrangements.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the latest figures are that she has collated on the sale of biofuels. [186570]

  Mr. Morley
  Currently, around two million litres of biodiesel are sold each month in the UK. We are not aware of any sales of bioethanol. Biodiesel sales have been stimulated by the existing 20p per litre duty rate cut. A similar incentive for bioethanol will come into force in January 2005.
  1552W
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of biofuels sold were produced from imported vegetable oil in the last year for which figures are available. [186571]

  Mr. Morley
  Currently, around half of the two million litres of biodiesel sold each month in the UK comes from imported biodiesel and this is mainly produced from virgin rape seed oil. It is known that some palm oil is used in the production of biodiesel. Total imports of palm oil in 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, amounted to 1.28 million tonnes but information is not collected on the use of the oil. A further one million litres of biodiesel a month comes from recycled waste vegetable oil produced in the UK.

  Cattle Passports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate how many cattle have been killed because the British Cattle Movement Service has rejected a passport application or notification in each of the last five years for which records are available. [189082]

  Alun Michael
  Figures are not held for the number of calves that have been killed as a consequence of being refused passports. There is no compulsion for these calves to be destroyed, heifer calves refused passports may live out full and productive lives on the farm where they were born and any calves born to them may be registered in the normal way.

  The British Cattle Movement Service merged with the Rural Payments Agency on 1 April 2003.

TRANSPORT

  A120
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce proposals for the improvement of the A 120 road east of Braintree. [188557]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the outcome of the recent Spending Review, we are currently considering funding allocations across departmental programmes, including the Targeted Programme of Trunk Road Improvements. Subject to the outcome of this exercise the Highways Agency intend to present at Public Consultation this autumn, proposals for delivering the dualling of the Al 20 between Braintree and Marks Tey. I shall review the findings of this exercise, together with the outputs of the work currently being undertaken by the Highways Agency, with the intention of being able to take a position on this proposal by Spring 2005.

  Disabled Parking
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the entitlement of those diagnosed with myasthenia gravis to disabled parking provision. [188627]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 9 September 2004.Official Report, column 1327W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman).
  1553W

  Safety Cameras
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for auditing safety camera partnerships; and to which bodies the partnerships are answerable. [188336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A partnerships' accounts and its operation in line with the Department for Transport 'Handbook of rules and guidelines for the operation of the national road safety camera programme for England and Wales' is audited by the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission for the partner with lead responsibility for financial matters, most often one of the local authorities within the partnership.

  The rules and guidance (a copy of which is in the Library) require a partnership to submit its proposed programme to the Department for Transport for approval. Partnerships include one or more police authorities and local highway authorities. Partnership staff are employed and managed by them, and each partnership is answerable to them for its operation in line with the rules and guidance for the programme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  People Smuggling
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to co-ordinate Government resources in monitoring non-commercial aircraft movements to detect people smuggling; and if he will make a statement. [183225]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government monitors the movement of non-commercial aircraft through the Border Agencies Working Group, a forum that brings together representatives from the control authorities, the Civil Aviation Authority and Transec. The Group co-ordinates an on-going series of multi-agency operations at small ports and airfields, which assess levels of risk, and provides a forum for the control authorities to develop shared intelligence.

  Additionally the Immigration Service regularly assesses the risks to the UK immigration control and will be monitoring whether the recent disruption by the police of an alleged facilitation attempt using light aircraft in Kent was a "one-off" or is part of a trend to target small airfields. The border agencies and law enforcement are actively engaged in a series of joint working initiatives to identify and combat external risks and organised criminal activity targeting the UK borders at small ports and airfields.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department's TOGETHER campaign attempts to tackle antisocial behaviour in Leyton and Wanstead. [187741]

  Ms Blears
  TOGETHER is a campaign for both practitioners and the public across all of England and Wales. The approach includes prioritising local concerns about antisocial behaviour, getting the right people from local agencies working with the community 1554W
  to tackle the problem and making effective use of available sanctions and providing feedback to the community on progress at all stages.

  On the practitioner side, the campaign is an ambitious programme that is designed to provide help, resources and know-how to every practitioner across the country. It has three core aims; to make the use and application of tools and powers simple and effective, to take the best of what is developed locally and spread it nationally, and to create a change in culture so that action is taken. The TOGETHER Academy, Action Line and Website—backed up by practical step-by step guides and antisocial behaviour ambassadors remove excuses for inaction and raise the level of practice across England and Wales.

  On the public side it is for individual Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to decide how to take forward the campaign at a local level. The TOGETHER campaign pack gives the tools for local authorities, police and community groups to run a TOGETHER campaign in their area.

  Burglary (Wandsworth)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results of the evaluation of the Reducing Burglary Initiative for the London borough of Wandsworth. [187828]

  Ms Blears
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said in reply to my hon. Friend's oral question about the Reducing Burglary Initiative on 14 June 2004,Official Report, column 515 that the report of the findings of the process evaluation of the initiative would be published in the summer, though this will not identify projects individually. However, because of delays in finalising the report for publication, it will now be published later this autumn.

  Crime Trends
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made, using the Home Office Trends in Crime model, of the impact on crime rates of(a) economic and (b) demographic changes in each year since 1995. [187234]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office Trends in Crime model is an empirical model which attempts to explain annual changes in recorded crime in England and Wales by reference to annual changes in a number of economic, demographic, and criminal justice variables. It has been developed by joint external and internal research effort with the purpose of providing the Home Office with a tool for identifying those determinants of crime that are both within and outside of its control.

  The model is robust, but highly aggregated. As such it cannot account for all the factors that impact on crime rates. It has nonetheless demonstrated that economic and demographic factors have been important determinants of changes in crime over time.

  The model has not been used to attribute annual changes in crime to each of the explanatory variables. However, the model predicts that, if other factors remain constant, a permanent 1 per cent. increase in the growth rate of consumption expenditure reduces the

  1555W
  growth rate of crime by about 1.7 per cent. On a similar basis, an increase of 1 per cent. in the growth rate of the proportion of young males in the population would increase the growth rate of crime by about 0.5 per cent.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide his Department's staffing levels for 1998–99, in the format set out in table 6.1 of his Department's Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04. [181494]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 29 June 2004]: Since 1998–99, the Central Home Office has been re-organised to meet its Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and it not possible to make a direct staffing level comparison in the format set out in the Department's

  Staff distribution—1998–99 Central Home Office (excluding agencies)

  Civil service full-time equivalents

  Casuals

  Secondments

  Total

  Criminal Policy Directorate

  457

  0

  0

  457

  Police Policy Directorate

  682

  17.5

  414

  1,113.5

  Organised and International Crime Directorate

  102

  0

  23

  125

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  4,500

  100

  0

  4,600

  Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate

  209

  2

  11

  212

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  176

  0

  0

  176

  Research Development and Statistics Directorate

  226

  12

  0

  238

  Planning and Finance Directorate.

  167

  0

  0

  167

  Corporate Resources Directorate (in 2003/04 called Human Resources, Corporate Development Services Directorate)

  652

  6

  2

  660

  Legal Advisors

  33

  —

  —

  33

  Communication Directorate

  99

  —

  —

  99

  Ministerial and Central Secretariat

  77

  —

  —

  77

  Prison Service Monitoring Unit

  4

  —

  —

  4

  HM Inspectorate of Prisons

  12

  —

  —

  12

  Prisons Ombudsman

  15

  —

  —

  15

  Total Central Home Office (excluding Agencies)

  7,411

  1,37.5

  450

  7,998.5

  Home Office: agencies

  Prison Service

  38,352

  1,043

  0

  39,395

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,1185

  315

  0

  1,500

  Forensic Science Service

  1,284

  11

  0

  1,295

  Fire Service College

  185

  0

  0

  185

  Total Home Office

  48,417

  1,464.5

  450

  50,331.5

  Immigration
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extension of leave to remain applications had not been decided by the end of the original leave to remain period as at(a) 1 January 2003 and (b) 1 January 2004; and how many of those outstanding cases had been outstanding for (i) over six months and (ii) over 12 months on such dates. [186954]

  Mr. Browne
  The requested information on outstanding applications is not readily available and could only be obtained by examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  It is the aim of General Group in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to decide 70 per cent. of all new chargeable applications within three weeks and 100 per cent. within 13 weeks.
  1556W
  2003/04 Annual Report. This comparison is further made more difficult as a result of the current Spending Review and Strategic Plan commitments to reduce staffing levels. The streamlining Department's headquarters resulting in a reduction of staff numbers by 30 per cent. to focus resources on the front-line will mean further format comparisons will be as difficult. There will also be similar reductions in the headquarters of Prison Service and Immigration and Nationality Directorate (reducing in total headquarter staff numbers by 2,700 full-time equivalents).

  The following table provides the closest comparison. Staff that were recorded in Criminal Policy Directorate, Police Policy Directorate and Organised and International Crime Directorate are now organised within the Criminal Justice Group, Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group, Community Policy Group and Correctional Services.

  Name that Tag Campaign
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted as a result of the "name that tag" campaign; and how much reward money has been paid out as a result. [187062]

  Paul Goggins
  No prosecutions have been brought as a direct result of "name that tag" as yet, but police investigations are well under way following information received.

  Crimestoppers are not aware of any money at present having been paid out yet as a reward under the "name that tag" campaign.

  Table 2e of the "Crime in England and Wales 2003–2004" Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/04 shows that the proportion of people perceiving high

  1557W
  levels of vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property in their local area has decreased from 35 per cent. according to the 2002–03 British Crime Survey, to 28 per cent. according to the 2003/04 BCS.

  Operation Scrap-It
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how Operation Scrap-It affects the residents of Leyton and Wanstead. [187743]

  Ms Blears
  Operation Scrap-It started in October 2003 and will run until March 2006. It entails building up the infrastructure (pound space, removal trucks, skills and knowledge) across all London boroughs to meet the agreed target that nuisance vehicles will be removed within 72 hours of reporting by October 2004. The rest of the country will then be able to learn from this good practice.

  This scheme is already proving successful in my hon. Friend's constituency.

  LB Redbridge only started the removal of untaxed vehicles on 7 September 2004, nine vehicles from Wanstead were removed on the first day.

  Between the period 1 May 2004 to 31 August 2004, LB Waltham Forest (Leyton) have removed 45 vehicles. This has included six untaxed vehicles, 39 abandoned vehicles and 10 surrendered vehicles.

  Operation Scrub-It
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how Operation Scrub-It has affected the residents of Leyton and Wanstead. [187746]

  Ms Blears
  Graffiti can lead to an area becoming more and more run-down, with a corresponding increase in crime and fear of crime. Untackled graffiti undermines faith in the services that authorities provide.

  That is why Sections 48–52 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 enable a local authority to serve a "graffiti removal notice" on the owners of street furniture, statutory undertakers and educational institutions whose property is defaced with graffiti. If the owner does not remove the graffiti in compliance with the notice, the local authority may do so and recover its costs.

  In response to concerns about the regulatory impact of these powers, we are currently piloting the new powers in 12 areas of the country. The pilots began on 31 March 2004 and we will consider further roll-out once these are completed. The 12 authorities piloting these powers are:

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council

  Bristol city council

  Cambridge city council

  Dartford borough council

  Doncaster metropolitan borough council

  Epping Forest district council

  Kirklees metropolitan borough council

  London borough of Merton

  London borough of Westminster

  Northampton borough council

  Southampton city council

  1558W

  Wansbeck district council (with Northumberland county council)

  Transsexual People
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents were reported to the police in which hatred of transsexual individuals is involved in the most recent period for which figures are available, broken down by police authority. [187390]

  Ms Blears
  Information concerning the number of incidents reported to the police in which hatred of transsexual individuals was involved is not recorded.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Art Galleries
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which art galleries, broken down by region, have received funding from arts councils in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available; and how much funding was granted in each case. [187978]

  Estelle Morris
  Over 1,300 arts organisations receive funding from Arts Council England on an on-going basis. The Arts Council has a funding agreement with these organisations which is reviewed regularly to ensure the funds invested are meeting the terms of the agreement. Regular funding to arts organisations is paid out of grant-in-aid.

  In total, 245 Visual Arts organisations receive core funding from Arts Council England. The full list is too long to be printed in Hansard, but copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A breakdown of funding by region is provided in the following table. Regularly funded organisations are awarded funding towards core costs for the period mirroring the Treasury's spending review cycle. The most recent announcement of allocations to Regularly Funded Organisations was made in March 2003, and provides funding up to 2005–06.

  Visual Arts Organisations—total by region

  Region

  2003–04 (£)

  2004–05 (£)

  2005–06 (£)

  Total number of organisations

  East

  1,077,076

  1,214,727

  1,349,332

  13

  East Midlands

  604,850

  809,688

  952,036

  17

  London

  10,973,477

  12,392,161

  13,809,144

  60

  National

  395,570

  392,000

  526,382

  5

  North East

  1,621,016

  1,898,894

  2,329,783

  23

  North West

  2,025,674

  2,618,336

  3,008,199

  24

  South East

  2,634,428

  2,854,981

  3,069,174

  29

  South West

  1,644,667

  1,895,411

  2,191,050

  22

  West Midlands

  2,330,717

  2,825,232

  2,892,737

  30

  Yorkshire

  1,692,700

  2,087,075

  2,351,150

  22

  Source:

  Arts Council England.

  Ministerial Air Travel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list for each year since 1997 the number of miles flown by each Minister in her Department on official departmental business. [181863]
  1559W
  Mr. Caborn
  Records on this issue are not held centrally and to gather figures would be at disproportionate cost to the Department.

  However, since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. These report information reaching back to 1995–96. Information for 2003–04 is currently being assembled and will be published shortly. All ministerial and civil service travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, Travel by Ministers, and Civil Service Management Code, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Parks (London)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are for the refurbishment of parks in London. [184282]

  Mr. Caborn
  The only parks for which the Department is responsible are the eight Royal Parks. Plans for their upkeep and refurbishment are set out in the Royal Parks Corporate Plan 2004–05, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

  People in receipt of attendance allowance by parliamentary constituency as at February on a yearly basis since 1997

  Thousand

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  All

  8.9

  8.9

  9.4

  9.4

  9.4

  9.4

  9.5

  9.8

  Edinburgh, Central

  1.3

  1.2

  1.3

  1.2

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  1.4

  Edinburgh, East and Mussleburgh

  1.6

  1.7

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  2.0

  1.6

  1.8

  Edinburgh, North and Leigh

  1.7

  1.5

  1.8

  1.6

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.6

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  1.1

  1.2

  1.3

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  Edinburgh, South

  1.9

  1.8

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  1.9

  1.8

  1.7

  Edinburgh, West

  1.2

  1.4

  1.5

  1.6

  1.4

  1.3

  1.7

  1.7

  Note:

  Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample at February of each year. From November 2002, the methodology for producing these figures was changed to allow statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported case load. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system are now included.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what dates since 1 July the customer service computer was not working in the Cardiff Office of the Appeals Service for disability living allowance. [188820]

  Maria Eagle
  The administration of the Appeals Service is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Appeals Service, Christina Townsend. She will now write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Adrian Flook, dated 14 September 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding which days since 1 July the customer service computer was not working in the Cardiff office of the Appeals Service for Disability Living Allowance.
  1560W

  Recruitment Costs
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the recruitment costs of(a) the chairman of the Film Council, (b) the chairman of Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries and (c) the chairman of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment were; and what (i) the salary of each chairman and (ii) the combined salary cost of each chairman's staff was in the latest year for which figures are available. [185877]

  Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the lion. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 303–04W. The chairs of the three bodies concerned do not have dedicated support staff.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Attendance Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been in receipt of attendance allowance in the(a) Edinburgh, Central, (b) Edinburgh, North and Leith, (c) Edinburgh, West, (d) Edinburgh, Pentlands, (e) Edinburgh, South and (f) Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh parliamentary constituencies in each year since 1997. [187947]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  The computer system in Cardiff has been fully operational and available for use each day since 1 July. However, the issue as I understand it concerns the external customer contact email address for that office.

  For a period between the end of June to the end of July, emails sent to the Cardiff office email address were not monitored or actioned due to an administrative reorganisation within the office. I can only apologise for this error but can confirm that during this period, all other channels of communication were functioning as normal.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Benefit Claimants
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in relation to applications for benefits from residents of(a) Aylesbury and (b) Milton Keynes in each year since 2000, how many applicants

  1561W
  were required to take a medical examination; what benefits were applied for that required a medical examination; and how many of those medical examinations were undertaken at (i) Luton, (ii) Aylesbury and (iii) Euston. [187566]

  Incapacity benefit claimants, whose claims were administered by Aylesbury or Milton Keynes district offices and who had medical examinations.

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Aylesbury

  648

  943

  963

  3057

  2393

  Milton Keynes

  905

  945

  1268

  779

  0

  Location of Medical Examination Centres carrying out examinations of incapacity benefit claimants from Aylesbury and
  Milton Keynes district offices.

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  District Office:

  Exam Centre:

  Aylesbury

  Aylesbury

  594

  827

  876

  1496

  1331

  Aylesbury

  Euston

  0

  13

  9

  5

  8

  Aylesbury

  Luton

  21

  62

  59

  70

  52

  Aylesbury

  Other

  33

  41

  19

  1486

  1002

  Total

  648

  943

  963

  3057

  2393

  Milton Keynes

  Aylesbury

  816

  384

  662

  582

  —

  Milton Keynes

  Euston

  2

  3

  2

  3

  —

  Milton Keynes

  Luton

  37

  491

  487

  158

  —

  Milton Keynes

  Other

  50

  67

  117

  36

  —

  Total

  905

  945

  1268

  779

  —

  Notes:

  1. The Department for Work and Pensions centralised work for Milton Keynes at Aylesbury from 1 July 2003. Medical Services are therefore unable to give specific figures relaying to applicants of Milton Keynes in 2004 as all work is referred to Medical Services from Aylesbury.

  2. The other category includes where a customer has had a Domiciliary visit or visited another Medical Examination Centre apart from Luton, Aylesbury or Milton Keynes.

  3. The "other" category for Aylesbury district office cases in 2003 and 2004 is high as it contains 1447 (2003) and 954 (2004) customers who attended Oxford Medical Examination Centre. These customers attended Oxford as they live in Oxford but the referrals show as Aylesbury due to centralisation; the Department for Work and Pensions centralised work for Oxford at Aylesbury in 2003.

  Source:

  Medical Services data

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Clinical and Educational Negligence
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affair; if he will make a statement on the consultation on removing eligibility from children and placing it on parents in the case of clinical and educational negligence cases; and what assessment has been made of the implications of using conditional fee agreements in such cases. [188408]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no plans to remove the financial eligibility for legal aid from children and place it on their parents. In November 2002 we consulted on revising the guidance in relation to funding judicial review applications in the name of the child, which had particular relevance in education cases. The revised guidance was implemented from April 2003. The Legal Services Commission has issued a consultation paper, "A New Focus for Civil Legal Aid—encouraging early resolution; discouraging unnecessary litigation" which contains proposals on the use of conditional fee agreements generally, and the appropriate balance between private and public funding. The consultation closes on 15 October and we will announce the way forward thereafter.
  1562W
  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the following tables.

  The only benefit requiring a medical examination dealt with by Aylesbury and Milton Keynes district offices is incapacity benefit.

  District Judges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many district judges are employed in the criminal jurisdiction of England and Wales; and how many there were in 1997. [188981]

  Mr. Leslie
  As at 1 September 2004 there were 126 district judges (magistrates courts) and 148 deputy district judges (magistrates courts) in post, in the Magistrates Courts of England and Wales. Prior to 2000, district judges and deputy district judges were formerly known as stipendiary magistrates and acting stipendiary magistrates. In 1997 there were 91 stipendiary magistrates and 85 acting stipendiary magistrates.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he sanctioned the visits of any members of his Government to(a) the Democrat and (b) the Republican conventions in the United States. [188110]
  1563W
  The Prime Minister
  No member of the Government attended in an official Government capacity the Democratic or Republican conventions in the United States.

  Peerages
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister what the place of residence, at the time of their elevation, was of each peer created since 1 May 1997, broken down by(a) nation within the UK and (b) region of England, for peers resident in England at the time of elevation. [188266]

  The Prime Minister
  323 people have been elevated to the peerage since 1 May 1997.

  The place of residence at the time of their elevation is shown in the following table. Information for judicial peers is not held in the format requested.

  Residence at time of elevation

  Number

  England

  North West

  19

  North East

  5

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  15

  East Midlands

  3

  East of England

  24

  West Midlands

  12

  South East

  38

  South West

  13

  London

  147

  Scotland

  19

  Wales

  9

  Northern Ireland

  9

  Judicial (no home address)

  10

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Academic Performance
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to prevent isolation and lack of commitment among students who are not achieving as much as their peers. [188292]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ensuring the personalisation of teaching and learning is the effective response to difficulties of isolation and lack of commitment, the work of the Primary and Key Stage 3 National Strategies is central to this. Both Strategies help teachers give careful attention to pupils' learning needs, set challenging targets for them linked to high quality assessment, and offer tools to make lessons pacy, challenging and more enjoyable.

  Citizenship Lessons
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment the Department has made of citizenship lessons within the national curriculum since their introduction; [188120]
  1564W
  (2) what (a) assistance and (b) guidance the Department gives on teaching the citizenship curriculum in secondary schools. [188124]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NfER) to conduct an eight year longitudinal study Al the impact of the subject on pupils' knowledge, understanding and skills. The study began in 2002 and reports of the first two years are available at www.nfer.ac.uk. Ofsted's section 10 inspections and QCA's monitoring reports provide effective progress reports on school practice and provision and have shown that good progress is being made. They are available from www.ofsted.gov.uk and www.qca.org.uk respectively.

  The QCA has developed and sent to all schools a range of guidance to support the introduction of citizenship education, including schemes of work and guidance on assessment and curriculum planning. The Department published in June a self evaluation tool for schools to help them monitor progress in developing citizenship education. The Department has also put in place a package of support for continuing professional development of teachers in citizenship education.

  Departmental Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on energy efficiency in his Department's buildings. [186680]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department remains committed to reducing energy usage in all its Department's buildings. A range of measures are in place and regularly reviewed and updated to ensure improved performance meets the requirements of the national policy "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate".

  Non-classroom Learning
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the role of out-of-classroom education and field trips in school education; [188166]

  (2) what the Government's strategy is for ensuring (a) equality of access and (b) increased access for all schools and their pupils to out-of-classroom learning; [188167]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the merits of including out-of-classroom learning in Ofsted school inspections. [188168]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Our "Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners" sets out our commitment to high standards for all within a broad and rich curriculum. Out of classroom learning is key to an enriched curriculum. It can take many forms, for example, through fieldwork, a statutory requirement of the Geography curriculum; through visits to farms and projects within school grounds, accessible to schools through our Growing Schools web service; through heritage and cultural visits, where high quality provision is provided through our Renaissance in the Regions programme; through music, where our Music Manifesto pledges access for every young person to a range of music experiences; through our PE and School
  1565W
  Sports Strategy where we are creating a national network of 400 Specialist Sports Colleges and School Sport Partnerships to increase and enhance school sport, Schools will decide which out of classroom opportunities best meet the needs of their pupils. The Ofsted school inspection framework covers, and will continue to cover, all aspects of a school's provision, including out-of-classroom learning. needs of their pupils. The Ofsted school inspection framework covers, and will continue to cover, all aspects of a school's provision, including out-of-classroom learning.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action the Department is taking to increase the number of people training to enter the secondary school sector as teachers. [188123]
  1566W
  Mr. Miliband
  Since September 2000, £6,000 training bursaries have been offered to postgraduate trainee teachers. An additional £4,000 Golden Hello is also available to those who train in and go on to teach priority subjects in a maintained secondary school. From September 2005, the value of the training bursary for those training in mathematics and science will increase to £7,000 and the Golden Hello payment for those subjects will rise to £5,000 for trainees entering Postgraduate Certificate in Education and equivalent courses at that time. These incentives have helped to increase recruitment to courses of initial teacher training for secondary school teachers by almost one-third between 1999–2000 and 2003–04.

  The Teacher Training Agency's Use your head. Teach, advertisement campaign for 2004–05 will focus on the recruitment of teachers for secondary schools and priority subjects

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education (Admissions)
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  I am delighted today to commend to the House the report from Professor Steven Schwartz, vice-chancellor of Brunei University, on fair admissions to higher education.

  Professor Schwartz and his group have over the last 15 months carried out an extensive and thorough examination of the processes for admission to higher education and have consulted widely on two occasions before presenting their conclusions. I am indebted to Professor Schwartz and all who have worked so diligently with him on this important task.

  Responsibility for admissions to higher education rests firmly with the institutions themselves. They have to be satisfied that the students they admit have the ability and potential to complete their studies successfully. That is right and proper and this report unreservedly maintains that position. It also confirms, on the basis of the evidence, that admissions processes in our universities and colleges of higher education are generally fair. Nevertheless, Government has an interest in ensuring that admissions processes also command the confidence of prospective students, their parents, advisers and teachers. That is why I invited Professor Schwartz to identify options for institutions to adopt when assessing the merit, achievement and potential of applicants for their courses.

  The report "Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice" will stand as a practical guide for institutions as they review and develop their admissions policies, practices and systems. Everyone involved with admissions to higher education has a deep concern to ensure that they are fair and that they are seen to be fair. In pursuit of that end, Professor Schwartz has identified five underlying principles that I wholeheartedly endorse as the basis for fair admissions.

  These principles will support:

  transparency in admissions processes;

  selection for merit, potential and diversity:

  reliability, validity and relevance of assessment methods;

  minimising barriers for applicants: and

  professionalism in all aspects of admissions services.

  Taken together, the five principles provide the bedrock for building fair admissions systems that provide equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations. The implementation guidelines also offered by Professor Schwartz will help institutions in mainstreaming the principles within their
  142WS
  own admissions systems. I hope that all universities and colleges will take immediate steps to introduce the principles and guidelines within their own arrangements.

  The report is more than just a guide however. It is also a call for action by higher education institutions and across the wider education establishment including some matters for Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  These include:
  setting up a new Centre of Expertise on Admissions. I can confirm that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will work with Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to see how this Centre can be established, perhaps under the umbrella of the HE Academy where it would dovetail well with the role for staff development.
  research to assess the feasibility and reliability of a single, national test for potential that is not fully demonstrated by exam results. I support this as an early task for the new Centre of Expertise on Admissions and will look carefully at the outcomes of the study alongside the final report from Mike Tomlinson on 14–19 qualifications reform that is due in the autumn, before deciding on the way forward. What we must not have is tests for tests sake, but if there is a genuine need, it would be right to explore the opportunity.
  ensuring that consistent levels of advice and guidance are available to all applicants. Similar messages are emerging from Mike Tomlinson's working group as well as from the End to End Review of Careers Education and Guidance that my Department has undertaken. As part of its work on the Youth Green Paper—to be published in the autumn—the Department is considering how it can best ensure that all young people are able to access and interpret the information and advice they need to make well-informed decisions.
  the introduction of a radically different system for applications to higher education whereby students will not apply for higher education courses until they know their exam results. I am concerned that over very many years such a system has acquired the reputation of a holy grail for the HE admissions world—desirable but not achievable. I am aware of the complexity of the practical difficulties that would need to be overcome before a post-qualification application (PQA) system could be introduced, but I remain persuaded by the arguments for PQA which have been endorsed by Professor Schwartz and his group. It must be fairer and more transparent for students to know their final results before making important choices about where and what to study, and this must also aid decision-making by universities. PQA could also help many students, including those from families without a tradition of HE, to feel more confident in applying to our leading universities. I have therefore asked Sir Alan Wilson, the Director General for Higher Education and the former Vice Chancellor of Eeeds University, to lead the work on implementation for PQA. He will be assisted by an implementation group which he will establish. Sir Alan will consult with all interested parties. engaging fully the devolved administrations, and advise me on the arrangements and an appropriate timescale for the introduction of PQA.

  Finally, Professor Schwartz has asked that I initiate a further review of admissions after three years as a means to assess progress in implementing his group's recommendations. I accept that it would be sensible to follow up this initial review and that three years will allow time for some of the more immediate benefits to have been realised and for appropriate action to be underway to secure the longer term ones. I shall commission the further review in due course.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing and Planning in the Regions
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I am pleased to announce the publication of a consultation paper concerning the merger of the regional housing boards and the regional planning bodies.

  The paper responds to one of the recommendations in Kate Barker's review of housing supply (ISBN 1–84532–010–7) published in March. We have already accepted her recommendation that responsibility for housing and planning regional strategies should be merged. The paper proposes that responsibility should rest with regional assemblies. This is in line with our general policy on devolving decision-making and the broadening of the role of assemblies on integrating regional strategies.

  The paper also covers proposals for taking forward Kate Barker's recommendation for the provision of independent advice to the regions to strengthen the evidence base that supports regional housing and planning strategies and increase the transparency of the processes for producing these strategies.

  Consultation will run until 30 November 2004. Copies of the consultation paper have been made available in the Libraries of the House and it is available on the ODPM website.

  Poor Planning Authorities
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In my statement of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column

  Percentage of applications determined within time

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Major

  Threshold

  28

  30

  40

  50

  Standard to be met

  50

  52

  57

  60

  Minor

  Threshold

  37

  40

  50

  55

  Standard to be met

  55

  58

  63

  65

  Other

  Threshold

  55

  60

  65

  70

  Standard to be met

  70

  73

  75

  80

  Threshold = performance below this level at previous year ending June would qualify authority for standard.

  Standard = percentage achievement required within 13 weeks for major and eight weeks for minor and other applications.

  We will encourage authorities to draw up trajectories and improvement plans as soon as they are identified as potential standards authorities, and will review their progress against trajectories shortly after they are designated. Help in this process will be made available, including support from the new planning advisory service that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has invited the Improvement and Development Agency to host. Further support comes in the form of continued funding through the planning delivery grant after 2005–06, as announced in July following the spending review.

  In the course of the year for which an authority has been designated as a standards authority, my officials will contact the authority's planning service to collect information on what steps have been taken or will be taken to improve its planning performance. This will be assessed to determine if further action will be needed to support performance improvements. Regard will be
  144WS
  57WS, I explained our approach to achieving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreement six (PSA6) target. This requires all local planning authorities to complete local development frameworks by 2006 and to perform at or above best value targets for development control (BV109) by 2006 with interim milestones to be agreed in the service delivery agreement. The revised PSA6 target, announced in July as part of the outcome of the spending review, will require all local planning authorities to sustain this level of performance to 2008.

  We are now one year nearer to the 2006—07 target date and, whilst local authorities' performance overall has shown encouraging progress, there is still much to be done. I am therefore setting out today ways in which we are working with local planning authorities and strengthening our strategy of engagement with those that are performing poorly in their handling of planning applications.

  We will continue to designate poorly performing authorities as planning standards authorities on an annual basis, as described in my statement of last year. Where their performance falls below specified thresholds, in terms of the percentage of applications determined within the target time frame, then they are asked to achieve specific performance standards in the following year. In 2004–05 both the thresholds and the standards were raised by 2–5 percentage points. This was a relatively modest increase to give local authorities further time to make use of the additional resources available though planning delivery grant. We envisage a more significant ratcheting up of both the thresholds and standards for 2005–06 (by up to 10 percentage points) as a necessary step towards meeting the targets in 2006–07, as follows:
  given to authorities' progress towards the specific performance standards they were set and, in the longer term, authorities' ability to reach the targets set out in ODPM's public service agreement six (PSA6).

  Engagement with an authority will be reviewed at the end of the year for which it has been designated as a standards authority in light of whether it has achieved the standards specified in the best value order and any demonstrable sustained improvement in performance over the period. We will remain engaged with authorities until we are confident that a sustainable level of improvement has been achieved, with the level of engagement proportionate to the risk of failure.

  Authorities causing serious concern will be asked to self-assess their performance against trajectories and draw up improvement plans to share with the relevant Government office for the regions, who in turn will report on progress to ODPM on a quarterly basis. If performance continues to deteriorate then we will

  145WS
  consider the case for further snore direct intervention. In doing so we would adopt the proportionate approach outlined in my earlier statement and would have regard to the authorities' CPA status.

  Authorities causing a lesser degree of concern will be asked to self-assess performance against trajectories and share their conclusions with the relevant Government office for the regions on a quarterly basis. Government Offices will report to ODPM by exception, where performance shows significant deterioration.

  I will consider the case for relaxing the intensity of engagement or for disengagement with other authorities where the annualised performance in all three categories of application is on or above the relevant planning standard and the authority's own trajectory for two consecutive quarters.

  Over the last year 39 planning standards authorities were found to have made significant improvements in performance, and outstanding improvements in a number of cases. I congratulate them all on their success in improving their performance and I expect to see them making further rapid progress towards meeting and exceeding the national targets. The 39 authorities were:

  Bedford District Council

  London Borough of Brent

  Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority

  Bristol City Council

  Calderdale Met. Borough Council

  Canterbury City Council

  Chichester District Council

  Durham City Council

  London Borough of Ealing

  East Cambridgeshire District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  Epsom and Ewell District Council

  Fareham District Council

  Forest Heath District Council

  Gloucester District Council

  Havant District Council

  Isle of Wight Unitary Authority

  Kerrier District Council

  London Borough of Lambeth

  Leeds City Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Unitary Authority

  Milton Keynes Unitary Authority

  North Devon District Council

  Oldham Met. Borough Council

  Reading Borough Council

  Reigate and Banstead District Council

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  Rossendale District Counci

  Sheffield City Council

  146WS

  Spelthorne District Council

  Taunton Deane District Council

  Three Rivers District Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Wear Valley District Council

  West Lindsey District Council

  Weymouth and Portland District Council

  Worcester District Council

  The new planning advisory service (PAS) will play an important role in supporting local planning authorities. This includes through a newly developed improvement planning programme. Already the PAS has held an introductory event on improvement planning which will be followed up with a series of regional workshops and other ongoing support. Also as part of the PAS a new advisory panel on large applications is now gearing up to assist a number of local planning authorities in the high demand regions of London and the wider south east.

  The PSA6 targets are challenging but we believe achievable. We will continue to monitor progress and to keep our strategy for engagement under review as we approach the target year of 2006–07.

  North East Regional Assembly
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I am today publishing a consultation paper on draft guidance to the Electoral Commission on drawing up the constituencies for a North East regional assembly.

  If, following a yes vote in the referendum on the establishment of a regional assembly in the North East, the Secretary of State proposes that a regional assembly should be established, the Government will direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on the drawing up of the electoral areas for a North East regional assembly. This direction will be accompanied by statutory guidance on what the Electoral Commission should take into account in preparing its advice. It is this guidance on which we are consulting.

  The consultation paper includes a full draft of the guidance the Secretary of State proposes to issue. The Secretary of State proposes to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on:
  the number of electoral areas;
  the electoral areas into which the North East is to be divided; and
  the name by which these electoral areas are to be known.

  Therefore, the draft guidance sets out the matters the Government feel that the Electoral Commission should take into account when preparing its advice. The Secretary of State is not proposing to seek the Commission's advice on the total number of members for a North East assembly.

  A copy of this consultation paper will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and in the "Regions" section of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. The end date for the consultation is 22 October 2004.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  We welcome the fact that Legislative Council elections were generally well run. Clearly there were a number of technical problems on the day in some locations and we understand that the SAR Government and the Electoral Affairs Commission will be looking into these. That said, there appears to have been fair treatment for all candidates and we have no reason to question the validity of the outcome.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offers in the 22nd Offshore and 12th Inshore(Oil and Gas) Licensing Rounds
  The Minister for Energy and E-Commerce (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of the 22nd offshore and 12th onshore oil and gas licensing rounds, I am today offering 97 offshore licences (58 of them under "promote" terms, seven under frontier terms and 32 under the traditional terms) and 26 petroleum and development licences for the onshore area. The companies will have a fixed period in which to accept the offers made.

  This is a very good result and demonstrates the keen interest still being shown in exploiting the United Kingdom's hydrocarbon resources.

  A list of the successful companies in the rounds can be viewed on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/.

  Regulator of Community Interest Companies and Sectoral Regulators
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  To assist discussion of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill in Standing Committee, it may be helpful if I outline how the Government intend the powers of the new regulator of community interest companies (CICs), created by clause 24 of the Bill, to interact with those of other regulators in particular sectors of activity, and in particular the regulators of registered social landlords (RSLs).

  The consultation paper on CICs which the Government published last year said that the CIC regulator
  "will work with other companies' regulators, and with any sectoral regulators with relevant competences, to ensure that there is a single interface between CICs and their stakeholders on one hand, and regulators on the other".1

  The consultation confirmed that this is the right approach, and that simplicity of regulation is highly valued by social enterprises. The single most important step in achieving it is to integrate the new regulator with companies house. The CIC regulator will therefore be located in companies house, and the processes for setting up a CIC and making annual community interest company reports will be linked to the equivalent processes for all companies.
  148WS
  The consultation paper referred to "sectoral regulators with relevant competences" because CICs potentially have a wide range of uses. Some CICs may therefore operate in sectors that are already subject to legal and regulatory constraints in matters such as the use of assets. In such cases, the Government are determined that overlapping regulation should be avoided.

  We have already identified one sector where work is necessary to achieve this. registered social landlords, or RSLs, are subject to statutory constraints on the use of their assets, and on their activities, under housing legislation. The RSL sector is regulated in England by the Housing Corporation, in Scotland by Communities Scotland, and in Wales by the Housing Directorate of the National Assembly for Wales.

  RSLs currently use a variety of legal forms, and we believe that some may be interested in becoming CICs, or in establishing CIC subsidiaries. The Government are particularly mindful of the need to avoid complicating the regulation of RSLs that choose to use the CIC form, in the light of a recent report on the Housing Corporation by this House's Committee on Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions, which stressed the need to streamline the regulation of RSLs and to avoid duplication.

  We intend to achieve this streamlining for RSLs using the CIC form, by making orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, to enable the CIC regulator to delegate relevant powers to the appropriate RSL regulators in England and Wales. The orders will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. The position is rather different in Scotland because of the devolution settlement, and we are in discussion with the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland about the appropriate way to arrange the delegation of powers.

  The detail of which powers should be delegated to the RSL regulators is being discussed by the Government, the RSL regulators and the devolved administrations. The principle will be that the CIC regulator should delegate those powers that duplicate or overlap with those of the RSL regulators. Regulatory action in respect of RSLs using the CIC form will then normally be the responsibility of the relevant RSL regulator, using either their powers under housing legislation, or the powers delegated to them by the CIC regulator.

  The real value of delegating powers in this way is that it will allow the RSL regulators to take the clear lead in regulating RSL CICs. Those CICs can then be confident that the relevant RSL regulator in England, Scotland or Wales is the key body with which they must deal, in respect of their obligations both as RSLs and as CICs. Delegated powers will be exercisable concurrently by the CIC regulator and the sectoral bodies, but we expect that the CIC regulator will only have a limited "backroom" role in respect of RSLs using the CIC form, for instance in agreeing their registration as CICs. Clause 39 of this Bill allows the CIC regulator to use his supervisory powers only to the extent necessary to maintain confidence in CICs, and it will not normally be appropriate for him to act where he has delegated those powers to a sectoral regulator.
  1"Enterprise for Communities: proposals for a Community Interest Company", para 46, published March 2003, available at www.dti.gov.u1c/cics.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Lord George
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Alan John George, Knight, GBE, having been created Baron George, of St Tudy in the County of Cornwall, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Richardson of Duntisbourne and the Lord Kingsdown.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Sir John Olav Kerr, Knight, GCMG, having been created Baron Kerr of Kinlochard, of Kinlochard in Perth and Kinloss, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Scotland of Asthal and the Lord Williamson of Horton.

Georgia: Territorial Integrity
2.49 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, with their European Union partners, to support the Georgian Government's efforts to restore their territorial integrity.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, President Saakashvili visited the United Kingdom in July for talks with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who confirmed his support for the territorial integrity of Georgia and for Georgian government efforts to re-establish this by peaceful means.
An EU policy statement of August, to which we actively contributed, also restated this principle. We will continue to work closely with our EU partners on this issue.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. Is she aware that in the past few weeks the situation has in many ways become a great deal more delicate? We are all aware of problems in the North Caucasus, which look increasingly explosive, and of the potential overspill from the North Caucasus to the South Caucasus. We have seen reports of President Putin's suggestion that Russia is entitled to take pre-emptive action across the borders. Does the Minister think that there is merit in the proposal that international monitors from the OSCE, for example, or the EU should be invited to
1020
play a much more active role in patrolling and monitoring the borders of Georgia with Russia in order to ensure that allegations which are flying backwards and forwards at present about cross-border intrusion and arms smuggling are properly assessed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the fact that the situation has become more delicate, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, put it, and of course Russia has some very immediate concerns about the North Caucasus area. The noble Lord is right to point out that, given the geographical proximity, there are bound to be some shared interests, particularly in view of what happened recently with the terrorist outrage and the possibility that the terrorists themselves may move around between these areas.
Quite honestly, Her Majesty's Government will consider any serious, well thought-out initiative to promote dialogue and regional co-operation on security issues, including the very important issues of counter-terrorism. Whether or not having international monitors on the borders is the right thing to do at present is a matter that will be open to much dispute. We are talking about distinct problems in the North and South Caucasus, but Her Majesty's Government do not want to shut the door on anything constructive if there is a possibility of taking it forward.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, have the Government yet replied formally to the recent Russian doctrine of pre-emption?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I think that the question of pre-emption was dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General when he had to address these issues recently. With regard to this matter, we have said that there may well be times when pre-emption is appropriate. The position was set out by my noble and learned friend on 21 April when he said that it is the Government's view that,
"international law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat that is more remote. However, those rules must be applied in the context of the particular facts of each case … The concept of what constitutes an 'imminent' armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats".—[Official Report, 21/4/04; col. 370.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Abkhazians broke off the negotiations in Geneva when a peaceful commercial vessel attempting to enter the port of Sukhumi was bombarded by a Georgian warship? Does she not think that a better atmosphere would be created, in which dialogue could take place between Georgia and Abkhazia, if the blockade of Abkhazia were lifted and the airports and ports of Sukhumi and the railway line between Moscow and Sukhumi were repaired and opened for international communications?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, things which facilitate international communications are very important. However, at the same time, these blockades are sometimes in place because of the fear of international terrorism. Only in the past week or so, we have seen how justified that fear has been, although obviously the incident in Beslan was in the North Caucasus and not in the South Caucasus.
The whole question of trying to get dialogue going on this issue is enormously important. However, there are three distinct conflicts in the South Caucasus: that between Georgia and Abkhazia; that between Georgia and South Ossetia; and of course the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. When we talk about these things altogether, it may bring the problems together in a way that allows us to talk, but it is very difficult to see what the right package of solutions would be in those circumstances.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what pressure is the Prime Minister putting on President Putin to honour the 1999 OSCE commitment from the summit in Istanbul to remove Russia's military bases and troops from Georgia, as it did from East Germany and Poland?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, these matters have been discussed with our friends in Russia, as has the point about the relationship of Georgia to the two provinces in question—South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In his exchanges with the Russian President, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we should like to see far greater dialogue. The OSCE is already one of the means for that dialogue, but that is principally a dialogue between Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course there is also a UN role in relation to Abkhazia.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether at present there are any OSCE observers inside Abkhazia, and do the Government form any view on the extent of Russian support for the Abkhaz people when Russia refuses any consideration of autonomy or independence for Chechnya?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the OSCE role is in relation to South Ossetia and not in relation to Abkhazia. It may be possible for a security position in North Ossetia to develop, but the OSCE role is specifically about Ossetia. The UN has the role in relation to Abkhazia, and a UN observer mission in Georgia was established in 1993 to verify the ceasefire agreement between Georgia and Abkhazia. It did not relate to Georgia and North Ossetia.

British Army: Regimental System
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to phase out the regimental system in the British Army.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, no. We have no intention of phasing out the regimental system. The value of the regimental system is not in doubt. But it must adapt, as it has done in the past. The changes that we are making reflect the reduction in infantry battalions made possible by the changes to the Northern Ireland commitment and the decision to end the Infantry Arms Plot. I can assure the House that we will maintain famous names, regional identity and traditions wherever possible.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteous and predictably evasive reply. Does he agree—I am sure that the answer to this will be da—that we have the best armed services in the world and that the excellence of our Army is due to the splendid calibre of its officers and men and to their close affection for the family regimental system, as it is now? Is he aware—the answer to this may be nyet—that I have strong family connections with the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, the Welsh Guards and the Black Watch and that I totally support the Scottish regimental system as it is at the moment?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I knew that I was not looking forward to answering this Question. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness that our Armed Forces are the best in the world. I say "of course" because I think that events over many, many years, including over the past year in particular, have shown that. Of course I accept the value of the regimental system.
However, I must tell the noble Baroness that changes to the Army's infantry structure do not automatically mean that the history, traditions and contribution of famous regiments will disappear or cannot be incorporated within a new structure. It is a fact that very few of our regiments and corps exist today in exactly the same form as they did in the past. There has been a constant process of change and regeneration and that is why our Armed Forces are the best in the world. New organisations are being created in them, fostering previous military renown while developing their own traditions and reputations to engender the loyalty and camaraderie which are right at the centre of our excellence.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I had the honour many years ago to serve in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, now serving in Iraq. Over the past decade at least, they have had an outstanding record of recruitment, based on roots in geography, community and culture. While welcoming what the Minister said about the importance of regional connections, does he agree that any attempt to merge regiments into so-called large regiments which do not have common links of that kind will end in a disastrous reduction in both the quality of those regiments and the recruiting record?
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course we want the new merged regiments to have links with each other; that is important. In future, those individual battalions will

1023
be fixed by role, and largely by location, and in any new structure the Army will seek to retain existing geographical links. We believe that that is likely to result in even greater identity between the recruiting area and the location in which people serve. I repeat, because it is important to the House in particular, that our aim is to ensure that the links are maintained wherever possible.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree at this time of great uncertainty in terms of national security that to cut four infantry battalions with their extensive and ever-changing commitments is an act of dangerous folly?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords; I do not agree with the noble Lord. We are restructuring the Army and the infantry in particular to increase significantly the manpower available for expeditionary operations. In that respect, the restructuring of the infantry about which the noble Lord asked is made possible by progress made towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Such progress is predicated on full normalisation being secured in Northern Ireland. If that does not happen, we shall keep what we propose under review. Because of that, we have been able to reduce the number of infantry battalions in the Province by four, a move which, owing to the need to take battalions through this task, has freed up 16 battalions for use on other tasks.
The manpower freed up by that move will be redistributed across the Army, not only to develop more robust and resilient establishments in the infantry but also to bolster the most heavily specialist areas, such as logistics, engineers, signallers and intelligence. What is crucial to all of this is the phasing out of the traditional practice of arms plotting. That will further increase, we believe, as does the Army Board, the efficiency and availability of Army resources.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, do the Government recognise the regional significance and necessity of ensuring that at least one regiment of the line is maintained in each constituent area of the United Kingdom?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we know very well our obligations and the necessities around the whole of the United Kingdom. As I say, because of progress in Northern Ireland, it has been the considered view that four battalions that are presently serving there do not need to remain there.
Lord Garden: My Lords, I welcome very much the Government's moves towards getting rid of arms plotting and the inflexibility and inefficiencies associated with it. But, having said that, for all the reasons given by other noble Lords, we are uncertain, and I should like to know the Minister's view. Is he certain about the effect on recruitment and retention at a time when our forces are employed in Iraq,
1024
Afghanistan, the Balkans and Africa? Should we not just keep infantry numbers static, even if we reorganise, until we see how things work out?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that I have already answered that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the abolition of arms plotting. He, with his experience, will know that it has served its purpose. We believe that there will be great benefits in having battalions based in one location rather than having to move around, as they do regularly. That in itself, in time, will help recruitment. Of course, we are carefully monitoring recruitment at present. The record has been much improved in the past few years, perhaps because of the amount of activity. However, the noble Lord is quite right; we have to watch carefully and ensure that any new measures we implement do not affect recruitment. We think that this measure will improve it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I make the same declaration as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Does the Minister accept that regimental loyalty, particularly if based on areas, once lost is not easily replaced? Will he be more precise as regards what he proposes to do? If these regiments mean anything, will not such a change lead to a dilution of regimental tradition, loyalty and ties, and possibly affect recruitment?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we do not believe that it will. As I have explained, and as the noble and learned Lord knows well, changes in this system have occurred for many, many years. Since 1958, 54 infantry and 23 cavalry regiments have been the subject of amalgamation, 35 of which occurred after the Options for Change review in 1992. As I understand it, all those succeeded satisfactorily. We shall watch with great care to ensure that the changes we propose do not in any way dilute the regimental system.

Mental Health: Ethnic Communities
3.6 p.m.
Lord Chan Lord Chan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the past 12 months to implement the recommendations of the Department of Health report on mental health in ethnic communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, progress is being made through major reform of and investment in mental health services for black and minority ethnic communities, although much still needs to be done.
In partnership with leading national experts, sustainable change is being introduced. Among initiatives being put in place are 80 community engagement projects, 500 community development

1025
workers, a programme of education and training in cultural competence for frontline staff and a national census project on race and ethnicity in mental health.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. While accepting the progress made in partnership working with some minority ethnic groups, including the Irish, does he agree that the amount of work done to improve mental health services to make them relevant to the needs of ethnic minority people has been quite small?
Is the Minister aware of the results of the 13 community surveys on ethnic mental health conducted in the first quarter of last year involving more than 500 participants, in which I declare an interest as a participant? What is the Government's response to the survey's findings that nine in 10 felt that service access was problematic and half of the 110 service users, patients, had experienced racial discrimination in mental health services? Should more be done to ensure that the mental health workforce has the appropriate management skills because compulsory treatment will be proposed in the new mental health Bill?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I did not mean to imply that we are satisfied with the progress that has been made. However, I did mean to imply that progress was being made. I accept the noble Lord's point that more needs to be done. We are aware of the information and surveys to which the noble Lord referred. Certainly, I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord in keeping this important issue at the forefront of the Government's and the public's attention.
To give one example, we are developing 10 pilot community engagement projects that have been identified across England reflecting the needs and concerns of a wide range of black and minority ethnic groups. That is why we are trying to put in place the kinds of services the noble Lord rightly says that we need.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, Professor Sashidharan's report, Inside Out, was very important. The Government responded to it by setting out targets that they wanted to adopt. In particular, in view of the emphasis placed on community development by Inside Out, they pledged to recruit 500 community development workers by 2006. What progress are the Government making on that?
Lord Warner: My Lords, extremely good progress, and we expect to meet our target.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that children from ethnic minority groups account for nearly one in five children in public care, but just one in 10 of the general population; and that one in three Afro-Caribbean boys is likely to spend more than five years in care as opposed to one in 10 white children? In the light of that, how is he promoting closer partnerships between foster carers,
1026
children's homes and child and adolescent mental health services, to prevent these children developing mental ill health when they grow up?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am only too well aware from personal experience both as a former director of social services and as a government Minister of the points the noble Lord makes. The Government are producing a National Service Framework for Children which will include provisions on improving child and adolescent mental health services. The House will not have to wait for very long; indeed, this document will be produced very shortly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister will know of the finding by the Healthcare Commission in July that black and ethnic people are being let down by mental health services in the NHS. I wonder whether he shares my suspicion from that finding that, for all the extra resources going into the NHS and all the reorganisation that the Government have brought about, the new money is simply not finding its way to where the healthcare is most needed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, there is always a difficult balance to be struck in running an organisation as large as the NHS. Many Members of this House will know that we are shifting the balance of power much more to local decision-making. However, we are confident that the money is reaching the parts that it ought to reach and we are seeing improvements. Improvement may not be coming as fast as we would like, but it will be for the Healthcare Commission, when it completes next year's assessment of the NHS, to tell us whether that is right. In the new national standards published in July, the Government made it very clear, in core standards 7 and 8, that we must challenge discrimination in the provision of health services and promote equality and respect for human rights. We expect those services to respect the needs of all the people in our communities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a high percentage of black and ethnic prisoners in our prisons? He will be aware of the welcome National Health Service input in prisons nowadays. Do medication and health records move with prisoner patients with mental problems from prison to prison and go out with them into the community where there can be serious mental health problems?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have done a great deal to improve the prison health service and have brought in arrangements so that the NHS plays a bigger role in the healthcare services provided to prisoners. It is important that those records move with the prisoner. As far as I am aware they follow the prisoner in the way that the noble Baroness said, but I shall check and write to her.

Grenada
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Baroness Falkner of Margravine asked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts are being made to assist the people of Grenada following the recent hurricane in the area.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, a significant regional and international relief effort began as soon as possible following the impact of Hurricane Ivan to the island of Grenada. At the forefront of the immediate response was HMS "Richmond", supported by R FA "Wave Rider" pre-positioned in the area to provide early assistance. This included re-establishing the island's emergency operations centre, restoring power and providing medical support to the general hospital.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for that Answer. Does she agree that an urgent and necessary impact assessment needs to be carried out on the needs of the people of Grenada, and that timely and generous assistance is due to them? Does she also agree that, in the longer term, HMG needs to work with Commonwealth partners to provide the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean with longer-term technical assistance in terms of hurricane resistant buildings and public buildings infrastructure so that we can minimise future loss of life?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before I address the noble Baroness's question, perhaps I may express my sadness at the loss of life in Grenada and in other parts of the Caribbean and offer the support of the House to the people of the Caribbean in trying to reconstruct their lives. I also give a particular mention to my noble friend Lady Howells, who has very strong family ties with Grenada.
I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a need for an urgent and necessary impact assessment. That is already being carried out by the World Bank and by the International Committee of the Red Cross. An assistance programme will be put together, which we will of course support.
I also agree that Commonwealth partners need to work together. In this area the Commonwealth Secretariat is well able to give technical assistance.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I must declare an interest. Until last year I was chairman of the UK friends of St George's University on the island of Grenada and made annual visits to the medical school. Is the noble Baroness able to tell us what effect this hurricane has had on the teaching and clinical programmes of the medical and veterinary schools in Grenada and to what extent the UK Government will offer support to the work of that university?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is too soon to say what the longer-term impacts might be. In terms of the current situation, the hospital is up and running. The immediate problem is with respect to shelter. Some 60,000 Grenadians lost their homes and that is the immediate priority for the Government of Grenada.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I begin by saying that I was able to get through to Grenada at one o'clock today. I was told that one cannot imagine the devastation in Grenada—90 per cent of the houses are down. There are problems with elderly people going into shock. I should like very much to thank the Minister for the very quick way in which the Government responded to Hurricane Ivan's terrible devastation of Grenada. We appreciate the promptness, but we are more concerned about the long-term strategies that will be put in place for the welfare of Grenada. The nutmegs, cocoa and tourism have gone. The people of Grenada are without water and few have any food left because there is still no power. I should very much like to hear from the Minister on the long-term strategy for Grenada.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that I am very pleased that my noble friend was able to finally get through to Grenada. On the long-term strategy, we have to wait for the needs assessment. We have been told by the International Committee of the Red Cross that it expects to conduct its assessment within the next week. The World Bank assessment may take slightly longer. My noble friend may be aware that we intend to work through the Caribbean Development Bank, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which all have concessional lending facilities available for countries recovering from such disasters.
My noble friend is quite right: islands like Grenada were just recovering from the difficulties they experienced post-11 September and we must do all we can to support them in terms of their longer-term recovery.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have visited Grenada, which is a beautiful spice island. Is this not a wonderful opportunity to organise volunteers to go and help with the vegetation in the long term?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in the longer term it may well be possible to organise groups of volunteers in particular areas. Given the current scale of devastation in Grenada, the immediate need is for those who are expert in humanitarian relief.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
3.19 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount Bledisloe be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Chalfont.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Mayhew of Twysden be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Baroness Fookes.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
3.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"SALE OF THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY TO THE RACING TRUST
Any sale of the successor company to a body other than the Racing Trust shall not take place unless the sale has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are many friends of racing in this House who are only too well aware of the valuable contribution that the Tote makes to horseracing at every racecourse throughout the country. It is vital that that support—some £10 million each year—is safeguarded.
However, notwithstanding the Tote's long and noble tradition of supporting racing, we on these Benches agree that the time has come to modernise its structures, thus enabling it to compete more effectively in the market place. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Astor who introduced a Private Member's Bill which sought to achieve that very goal in 2000.
It is for those reasons that we fully support the Government's stated intention that the Tote should be sold to the Racing Trust. Such a sale secures our twin aims of safeguarding the Tote's multi-million pound annual contribution to racing while also allowing it to compete commercially.
Yet there is a cloud on the horizon. Noble Lords may have read about rumours that the Treasury feels that it could perhaps raise more money if the Tote was sold to venture capital firms and is therefore having
1030
second thoughts about a sale to the Racing Trust. For example, I refer noble Lords to the article in the business section of the Observer on 1 August this year, which states:
"Betting industry sources say senior Labour politicians now believe it would be beneficial for the racing industry to receive a huge, one-off cash windfall rather than keep the pooled betting business for the length of a new seven-year licence".
While I would not normally pay much attention to such rumours, nor indeed do I believe all that I read in the papers, the indicative amendment introduced and then withdrawn by the Government on Report supported that view in the event that a sale to the Racing Trust was withdrawn and abandoned.
Throughout these proceedings, the Government have steadfastly refused to put their intention to sell the Tote to the Racing Trust on the face of the Bill, despite an explicit manifesto commitment. Indeed, the Minister has been very careful with his words and has failed to give any guarantees about the purchaser of the Tote.
Let us be very clear: the Bill before us today gives Ministers carte blanche over the Tote. All it actually does is nationalise the Tote at zero cost to the Exchequer. The Government would then be free to sell the Tote to whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted and at whatever price they wanted. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Treasury nationalising the Tote and subsequently selling it to the highest bidder, thereby jeopardising the Tote's contribution to racing.
Our amendment is designed to act as a check on the Government and to help them ensure that they honour their 2001 manifesto commitment to,
"sell the Tote to a racing trust to allow it to compete commercially, with all long-term profits invested in the sport".
Our amendment is not designed to be complicated or contentious.
We on these Benches have supported Part 1 of the Bill solely on the basis of a sale to the Racing Trust. If that is not possible—and given that there may be good reasons why such a sale is not possible—we believe that it is incumbent on the Government to return to Parliament to seek its approval to sell the Tote to another bidder.
Noble Lords may be aware that the sale of the Tote to racing is the subject of ongoing discussions between the European Commission and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am grateful for the Minister's letter dated 20 August confirming that the Commission had a number of queries about the Government's proposals. Although the Minister was unable to provide any details on the nature of those discussions in his letter, it would be helpful to learn today if an agreement has been reached, at least in principle, with the Commission.
I am confident that many noble Lords would share my frustration if the sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust were undermined by an adverse state-aid ruling from Brussels. When we last discussed the sale of the Tote at Report stage, the Minister was told—I hope in no uncertain terms—that unless all the preparatory

1031
work had been done to reach an agreement in principle with the Racing Trust, Her Majesty's Opposition could not support Part 1 of the Bill as it stood. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen.
The Minister kindly sent a letter on 12 August to say that while government accounting rules permit planning and preparatory work to be undertaken prior to Royal Assent, the department took the view that it could,
"not carry out any detailed negotiations on price or of sale terms, nor start preparation of the Sale and Purchase Agreement".
The letter goes on to say, in the finest Civil Service jargon:
"I sincerely hope that we will be able to reach a position by 14 September where all parties can be confident that the balance of probability is firmly tilted towards the likelihood of concluding a successful sale of the Tote to Racing".
As noble Lords may appreciate, we on these Benches need something more concrete than,
"the balance of probability [being] tilted towards the likelihood"
of a sale to the Racing Trust. It is not even clear that the Government have managed to achieve that at the moment. My understanding of the situation is that it remains fluid and far from certain as to whether the Tote will be offered to the Racing Trust at a price that it can afford.
Certainty and clarity on this Labour Party manifesto commitment are required on the face of Part 1 of this legislation today. Certainty and clarity are required in the form of a clear indication that the Government intend to sell to the Racing Trust. We on these Benches believe that there is still far too much uncertainty over the Government's policy to sell the Tote to the Racing Trust. As such, we are unable to support the Bill without the required safeguard contained within my amendment.
I should reiterate that this is not a controversial amendment. The wording and intent have evolved throughout the passage of the Bill to include the concerns of noble Lords and the Minister—indeed, noble Lords from all sides of the House. The principle of the amendment supports the Government's stated policy to sell the Tote to the Racing Trust. Further to that, it secures a vital safeguard to the Bill in the event that a sale to the Racing Trust is not possible. There are precedents for such a safeguard and it would do nothing but strengthen the Bill before us today. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches understand that the transfer of the Tote from whatever it was—through the nationalisation process to the private sector—is a complex and unusual matter. It is very necessary. The reasons for it being in the Labour Party manifesto are well understood. It is long overdue that the Tote should be out of the purlieus of government in the way that it has been. The Government and those who have run the Tote have served the interests of all those involved—the punters and racing—very well.
1032
I absolutely understand the thinking behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In Committee, I again agreed with much of what he said. Time has now moved on. The programme has not exactly kept to that which was foreseen. We are at a disadvantage in your Lordships' House today because we have had the Summer Recess. Negotiations have taken place in terms of finding the proper consideration that would be paid by the Racing Trust if this deal is the deal that finally moves the Tote into the private sector. We understand—all noble Lords will understand—that the Treasury has a public service remit. It deals with public funds and will need to take careful note of the value of what is being sold or transferred and not give any favours to anyone in so doing other than to the nation that it serves. I put that in more clumsy words than the Minister did when we discussed the issue.
3.30 p.m.
There is a difference between the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the Minister, who explained carefully and clearly to us the difficulties that he was in by giving the undertaking required of him: should the deal fall through it would return to the starting blocks—if I may use that sporting analogy. We would not want to rehearse the reasons he gave now.
A deal of trust in the Minister is required by all interested parties. I am sure that he and those connected with the matter are sincere that the benefit should go to racing. That is what we all have been aiming at. I am sure that the best efforts have been made during the past weeks to make sure that the negotiations have gone in that direction. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us, while we are deciding how we are to react to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that things have moved forward apace and that the intention is to do what the Minister said that the Government intended to do. We are somewhat behind at this stage because the matter is complicated.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us how far apart the Treasury and the special advisers to the Racing Trust are. I imagine that there is a gap in terms of the appropriate consideration. There are all kinds of matters about which we know very little. All we know is that there has been a general expression of good will towards the trust. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has been at great pains to explain to us both in your Lordships' House and privately how things are going. I know that he has had a difficult time, but I think that he is probably more optimistic now than he was some weeks ago. Perhaps he will rise to his feet to tell us something of that in a moment.
This is an extraordinary affair. We are dealing ultimately with public funds which are not to be sneezed at. People to whom I have talked both inside and outside racing tell me that the value on the open market would be in the nature—including the betting shops and the Tote pool operation—of not much less than £350 million. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says that there is a rumour that there are those who

1033
would prefer that we got shot of all this and sold it to the highest bidder and let racing take its slice now, whatever that may be.
I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and others, and he will probably be able to argue in the House today that that road would ultimately be unsatisfactory for racing and that the road of going to the Racing Trust, if the consideration can be agreed on, will be much more beneficial to racing in the short, medium and long term.
I assume that the Minister will tell us that he and his department are using their best endeavours to get the agreement between the special advisers and the Treasury settled in the near future so that it can go ahead. However, a number of minor issues need to be addressed. Although I have worked in business circles and in the City, I am not aware of what is appropriate in all the aspects of such a deal.
I hope that I am not treading on any toes, but for example, when we went to the annual general meeting of the Tote, the admirable chairman of the Tote, Mr Peter Jones, expressed the hope—it is on public record—that 5 per cent of the agreed price would be shared among the staff of the Tote. I found that an interesting concept, and perhaps that is normal among transfers of this magnitude. When I think about it, however, I do not know whether it is appropriate for a transfer of this kind. One has to say that in the climate in which City operations are now viewed by both the public and the press, a little clarification on the matter is needed.
I do not know whether the Minister will be able to say anything on that matter. I cannot think that the chairman of the Tote produced that figure in public without it having some authority. Noble Lords might be interested to know what exactly that means if we are going to sell something for £350 million with 5 per cent going to the staff. Does it embrace the directors of the company and all the staff down to the doorkeeper, the chauffeur and so on? Does the Minister recognise that? Is that figure normal in such transfers? If so, is it appropriate in this case?
It is one of the points that we need to know about. Your Lordships' House might be a good place for the air to be cleared on the matter. It might be an extremely good idea. The Tote is an admirable organisation that has served us well. The staff obviously deserve recognition, whether they be directors or just lowly members of that operation. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what would be appropriate in this case.
Without saying anything about voting to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, if he intends to go through the Lobbies, we would prefer at this stage to trust the Minister—if he says what I hope he is going to say and we are reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that we do not have to follow the noble Lord into the Lobbies.
I hope that the rumour about the idea that it may be better to sell the Tote to the highest bidder—without going through the complications of the Racing
1034
Trust—can be scuppered in your Lordships' House this afternoon so that we can all retain our seats and not go into the Lobbies. I imagine that the noble Lord will not be pressing his amendment. I look forward to the speeches that follow.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his kind and supportive remarks and his supportive behaviour throughout this legislation. During August we went in very great detail through the relevant benefits to racing of an open market sale and a sale to racing. I do not want to go into the figures for obvious reasons, but I can confirm that on any conceivable scenario it is far better for racing to buy the Tote than it is for an open market sale to take place and half the proceeds to be given to racing. I give the House that assurance. I went into the matter with an open mind, but I now have a closed mind on the basis of the detailed paperwork that we have done.
I must remind the House that I am chairman of the shadow Racing Trust, the precursor body of the Racing Trust to which the Government plan to sell the Tote. I have taken advice from the House authorities which confirms that that interest does not disqualify me from taking full part in the proceedings on the Bill. Therefore I will give the House my best advice on the position as it stands. I am afraid that that will take rather longer than I would like because of the complexity.
As will be clear from my speech, I hope that there are not any votes this afternoon. Should a vote take place, your Lordships will understand that in view of my rather sensitive position I shall not go into the Lobbies on either side.
Through the proceedings of the Bill there has been a standoff about the proposed new clause standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Luke, and myself. We supporters have said that it is desirable that, were the Government to decide to abandon their manifesto pledge to sell the Tote to a racing trust and instead decide to flog it off to the highest bidder—I do not think there is much probability of that—they should first put that policy to both Houses of Parliament for approval. Ministers have put forward a number of arguments why they do not want to do so, most notably because they think that if they were to they would be negotiating with the trust with a pistol held to their heads. That was the position in July—stand-off.
When last the House debated the matter we decided to proceed as follows. Discussions would take place over the summer. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained, there could not be negotiations because government expenditure conventions prevent full-scale negotiations taking place until after a Bill has received Royal Assent, but there would be discussions about the valuation bases and so on which are the necessary prelude to negotiations. The Government agreed that they would talk only to the Racing Trust. The hope was that by the time we got to Third Reading

1035
today it would be so obvious that we were within spitting distance of a deal that the amendment was redundant.
Those discussions have been taking place between the Government's appointed valuers, PWC, and the Racing Trust's, Rothschilds. They have been up and down. This time last week I would have had to say to the House that they were more down than up. It had seemed to our advisers that PWC had been taking a very aggressive attitude towards the valuation of the Tote. I can give many examples, but one will suffice.
According to the PWC valuation model, the Tote will be making more money out of its pool betting after seven years—which is when its exclusive licence will elapse—than it is now. If we believed that assumption, we would say, "Get rid of the exclusive licence now". We would not have gone through the long process of fighting to keep the exclusive licence for seven years. That is but one example of a very large number where it seemed to us that PWC were being aggressive about valuation.
However, over the past week discussions have taken a turn for the better. There still is a gap—a not insubstantial gap—between PWC and Rothschilds, but it seems to be narrower than had been feared. It begins to look—all possible fingers crossed—that if the process continues it might be that a price will emerge which is acceptable and affordable to racing. I, anyway, am optimistic.
Where does that leave the amendment? I still believe that the arguments that have caused racing to push amendments along this line all summer are correct. I do not give much credence to Ministers' counter arguments. They argue that they have a pistol to their heads. Is that right? If the Racing Trust offered a ludicrously small amount or could not finance a deal and it fell apart, Ministers would come back to both Houses of Parliament and say, "We cannot do a deal with the Racing Trust". They have a majority of 160-odd down the Corridor—not much bother—and normally this House does not seek to overrule the Commons. They would have to put their case to both Houses and, to be honest, I think they would carry it; they generally do. If their reasons were bad they would not deserve to carry it. So I do not find their arguments very convincing.
Unfortunately, although I have argued the case at length with Ministers, they do not seem to agree with me. They seem determined to resist the amendment, and they will.
So it is right that the House balances the argument for the amendment with the cost of pursuing it today. First, if the amendment is carried, the Bill will have to go back to the Commons, and I am quite sure that the Commons will send it back to us. It will not go there until after the conference season opens, and this will in turn delay Royal Assent. We are on a very tight timetable if we are to achieve the target date of completing the Bill by the end of the year. Further delays at this stage would be very undesirable.
1036
And to what effect? Let us suppose the Commons overturn an amendment of this House and the Bill comes back here. We would then face a difficult choice. We can either do what we usually do—huff and puff a bit and then agree with the Commons—in which case we have not achieved much for the extra delay; or we can stand firm and risk the loss of the whole Bill.
I am aware that there is a question mark hanging over the whole legislative programme at the moment—namely, the Hunting Bill and the possible loss of Bills as a result of the Government's decision to go ahead with that Bill. I shall not give my views on that decision on this occasion. The thought of losing the Bill in the brouhaha over hunting is appalling.
Even without the safeguard proposed in the amendment—to which, after all, I have put my name, so I think it makes some sense—there are very strong safeguards that stop Ministers making up their mind to go off and flog the Tote to the highest bidder. Their word is one. It could hardly have been put more strongly by the Minister in another place, Mr Caborn, and my noble friend the Minister here.
To do that they would have to welsh on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge. It has happened, but I do not think that it would happen readily again. They would have to eat their repeated words. They would attract the ferocious wrath of the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents the workers at the Tote—and in view of the discussions at Brighton this week I am not entirely sure that they would want that. And there would be some people—even in new Labour—who do not think that the first priority of the Government is handing the Tote over cheap to City fat cats.
Racing's friends in both Houses of Parliament would be aghast. The same people that the Government are slapping in the face with the Hunting Bill would feel slapped again by such treachery to another country sport—racing. We would then go into the general election as the party that had strengthened the hold over the country's punters of the big three bookmakers—Hill, Ladbrokes and Coral—who would end up owning it. I am only an amateur politician, but if I was a professional politician down the end of the Corridor I would not fancy doing that at all.
So, even without the amendment to the Bill—as I say, I hope Ministers will accept it—it is profoundly unattractive for the Government to go down any alternative route.
3.45 p.m.
It is, of course, a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whether he decides, in the light of these conflicting considerations, to press his amendment. However, if I were in his shoes—and knowing what a robust, steadfast supporter of a sale to racing he has been throughout, and I pay tribute and thank him for that—I would want first to listen closely to the Minister's reply today. I hope he will say that he will accept the amendment, but failing that, let us hear what he has to say.

1037
Will the Minister repeat in no uncertain terms that the Government's clear policy and intention is to sell to a racing trust and none other? Will he confirm that valuation discussions are continuing, will continue for some time and can be expected to narrow the gap between the PWC valuation and Rothschilds? Will he confirm that the striking of a valuation is not the end of the story but the first chapter only; that there will then have to be discussions between Ministers and the trust, which I have the honour of chairing, that take into account inter alia the Government's explicit political commitment and racing's capacity to finance a deal, as well as factors such as Brussels state aid considerations?
The onus is with the Minister. He has a task on his hands to persuade the House that the Government still are determined to fulfil their manifesto commitment and that, having willed that end, they are willing to embrace the means to the end through a flexibility in negotiations. If he can do so, then, perhaps with a slightly sad sigh, we should be prepared to wave a fond farewell to the new clause, which has helped to concentrate Ministers' minds during the summer process quite considerably. If not, then the House must vote accordingly.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I wish to express my concern over some of the limitations in the scope of the amendment, particularly in regard to public funds. The House will not be surprised if I refer to the situation as it will affect Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is excluded from the British Horseracing Board's Owners Premium Scheme because of an utterly outdated agreement made when there was no horse-breeding industry in Northern Ireland to speak of. For the purposes of this scheme, the BHB recognises that Northern Ireland is an "international jurisdiction" as opposed to a part of the United Kingdom.
When the previous legislation was introduced, Northern Ireland was excluded from it. With new legislation imminent, including the abolition of the Levy Board and the transfer of its role to the British Horseracing Board, it is now imperative that, as Northern Ireland and its citizens are under the jurisdiction of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—not a new phrase—the racing industry and the people who work with it in Northern Ireland are allowed to enjoy the same benefits as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I declare two interests, first, as a member of the shadow Racing Trust, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey; and, secondly, as a horse owner with a strong interest in horse racing, which is intended to benefit if the sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust takes place. I therefore have a strong interest in seeing the Bill passed and it resulting in the sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust.
1038
We should not forget the background to the Bill, which is that the ownership of the Tote is entirely ambiguous. Having started and built up the Tote, and never having had a penny piece of government financing, racing believes strongly that it owns the Tote and should be given it. Nevertheless, out of pragmatism, racing has accepted that it is right to enter negotiations with the Government for the transfer formulae of ownership to the Racing Trust. That requires a Bill to create the Government's ownership and the Racing Trust, thereby allowing the Government to sell it. Therein, of course, lies the problem. Having created unambiguous government ownership, the Bill leaves us in mid-air, because the Government can sell to whomever they wish.
Clearly, racing has been grateful for the manifesto commitment, but the time is fast approaching when we shall need to see that commitment become reality and that is where the problems start. While I completely accept that the Government still intend, and would like, to transfer the Tote to the Racing Trust, it is by no means clear that that will happen. Good intentions can be ambushed by all kinds of things. Difficulties could well emerge in the sale process, which has not gone very far for various reasons. For example, Europe could cause unanticipated problems. We do not know that at the moment.
The Treasury could cause problems on price. We should not discount that. It is all very well for non-Treasury Ministers to say that it is not a problem, but the Treasury will believe that it has the final say on the price. Both sides have already appointed sets of advisors. I have been involved in many commercial situations where advisors drive deals away from completion, because of the way in which they behave and the kind of issues that they expose. And, of course, the deal could fall apart because of the folly, pigheadedness or whatever of any one of the parties to it. So it is by no means clear that, the Bill having been passed unamended, the sale to the Racing Trust would take place.
However, it is possible to think about the balance of probability. We can hear optimistic statements such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but there is no certainty in that. From the perspective of racing, how much certainty is it reasonable for it to have about the inevitability of the transfer of the Tote to the Racing Trust? That is the issue before us.
Is timing important? Clearly, sooner rather than later, would be racing's view. However, if there was a choice between losing the impossibility of the Tote being transferred outside racing in any circumstances and a little delay, I think that I could cope with a little delay. It would not be ideal, but that would be better overall for racing than losing the Tote because of inadequate protection having been built into the Bill.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, say that because of his special circumstances, which I do not quite understand, he would not be able to support the amendment to which he has put his name. I was disappointed to hear him, as chair of the shadow trust, say that. Those who have put so much time and effort

1039
into the transfer of the Tote to the Racing Trust would want to see much greater certainty and that has been argued for throughout. Like all other noble Lords, I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, but I have to say on behalf of racing, for which I believe I speak, that we will need clear assurances before we are satisfied that the Bill, unamended, is a satisfactory foundation for the transfer of the Tote to the Racing Trust.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not have an institutional interest to declare, but I declare a strong interest in racing. I broadly sympathise with the points that were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. He raised an interesting point about the proposal to share 5 per cent of the sale price of the Tote among its staff. I do not know what the position on that is, but if it represents £10 million, £20 million or £30 million of public money, we need clarification.
I have broadly supported the approach that is set out in Amendment No. 1 from the beginning, although I understand the problems that the Government, the Minister and the Treasury have in giving that kind of commitment. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply and I hope that I do not have to vote against him.
I have stated that I have always been in favour of the Racing Trust in principle, but my main position is the interests of racing. When compared to that, whether ownership of the Tote passes to the Racing Trust or to another body is a minor point. I am concerned only with what is in the best interests of racing. I know that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has done everything that he can, but without the figures it is very difficult for us, even at this late stage of the Bill, to form a view.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned a figure from the City. City people have floated much higher figures than that to me. If the figure was £500 million from private sources, that is a serious amount. As a former stockbroker, I know that the only figure that matters is the one that people in the end will pay and we do not yet know that. The price is a serious issue. I was very impressed when my noble friend Lord Lipsey said that he is quite convinced that the route through the Racing Trust, as is being negotiated, will be in the best financial interests of racing. If that is the case, I shall be very happy.
It would be embarrassing and unhelpful if some venture capital trust or "fat cat", as my noble friend put it, were to emerge and take over the Tote, but from racing's point of view, money is money and it is desirable. If there is a large amount of it, I would rather have it from a "fat cat" than receive much less from noble and distinguished sources.
I am therefore unclear as to what is the best bet for racing, but it does not seem to be a clear choice between taking the private course—and abandoning the commitment to use the trust—and using the trust. One could do a back-to-back deal. Were it the case that venture capitalists were prepared to give much more than can be raised from the other source, we could meet the Labour Party's manifesto commitment—we
1040
have not always done that and quite rightly, too—by passing the Tote to the Racing Trust for it to sell for a very high price to a private venture capital firm. In that way the money would come back into the trust, with the trust remaining in existence and receiving half of what might be £200 million, as well as receiving rent. There are ways in which that could be done. I am not advocating that approach. I am simply making the point that from racing's point of view what matters is what will give the most money to racing. We wait to see that outcome.
As I said, I hope I shall not have to vote on the amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it, having listened to the Minister's reply. My position is very close to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on that.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said in his introduction to this clause, there has been Cross-Bench support at all stages of the Bill for the position he has taken. I am one of those Peers who have taken part in the debate, but maybe my interest is somewhat different from that of other noble Lords. I want the Tote to continue as an independent organisation. I want that not simply because of the invaluable support it has given for the sponsorship of racing, but because the Tote has been a successful, innovative organisation in its own right. It has been well supported by its loyal staff who have worked for it for many years—and perhaps they deserve some reward for that. Most importantly, it is trusted by the betting public. The Tote is a real alternative to both the traditional bookmakers and the new Internet booking organisations. As such, we need it to continue.
Throughout the debates at the various stages of the Bill, we have been very much informed by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, partly because of his particular knowledge of the Bill, but also because of his general knowledge of racing. I am not sure I would agree with him that racing is a country sport; I suspect he might concede that more people from urban areas watch racing than from other areas. Nevertheless, I found his argument compelling. If we support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and get into the traditional ping-pong between this House and another place, we will not be helping either the Racing Trust or the Tote. The time delay would result in such uncertainty that the objectives we all want to see might not be fulfilled.
I hope that when my noble friend the Minister sums up the debate, he will provide the House with sufficient assurances to make the amendment unnecessary.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue that has dominated the consideration of Part 1 of the Bill throughout its proceedings. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others have confirmed, everybody who takes part in this debate is committed to the interests of horseracing. I commend them on that commitment, and I know that the amendment before us now reflects

1041
their concern. I pay tribute to the consistency and the objectivity with which these matters are being discussed.
We have considered a number of amendments of this kind before. They are designed to strengthen the position of the Racing Trust before negotiations commence between the Government and the Trust. I cannot blame anyone for doing so, but at the same time it has to be recognised that I, as a Minister of the Crown, have the interests of the taxpayer to take into account as well. We have to achieve a fair balance in our work. At each stage of the Bill's consideration, both here and in the House of Commons, the Government have argued that these amendments are unnecessary, and we still hold to that view—not because we disagree with the sentiments behind the Bill, as we too are committed to horseracing and to the Racing Trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has quoted our 2001 manifesto commitment, which states:
"We are committed to sell the Tote to a racing trust to allow it to compete commercially, with all long-term profits invested in the sport".
We have repeated that over and over again, and yet here I am standing before the House to say that our intention is perfectly clear. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has asked me to say, and I have no hesitation in doing so. We have taken practical, positive steps to achieve that aim since the matter was last debated in this House towards the end of July.
Before the Bill's proceedings commenced, the Government encouraged the development of the Racing Trust. Since then, we have had regular and constructive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and with the other members of the shadow Racing Trust. I hope that there is no disagreement between them on these matters. Certainly the Racing Trust has come across to us as a body with a consistency of purpose and no evidence of disagreement.
Throughout the consideration of the Bill, the Government have taken practical steps to make the sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust a reality. At each stage, we have started preparations as soon as has been possible. I made it clear on Report that the Government would continue to make the maximum possible progress in their preparatory work for the sale of the Tote, but I also made it clear that there were important rules of government accounting that prevented the conclusion of a final deal before the Royal Assent to this Bill. That is why it is not possible to give the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the guarantee he is seeking that these matters can be brought to a successful conclusion.
The government accounting rules are designed for the benefit of Parliament, not the Government. They ensure that the Government cannot commit themselves to expenditure in advance of the will of Parliament being expressed, which can only be achieved by Royal Assent. It would not only be cowardly of me to seek to depart from those
1042
Government accounting rules; it would be entirely contrary to the interests of the legislature in its relationships with Government. I hope, and I still believe, that all sides of the House will agree that that is the correct relationship and that the Government should not be able to commit to expenditure other than that which has achieved the will of Parliament.
We have made good and solid progress since I last spoke to the House in July. We have held extensive discussions between the advisers to the Government and the Racing Trust, who have now been outed as PricewaterhouseCoopers and Rothschilds respectively. These discussions have been about all aspects of the deal, not simply about the valuation.
I assure the House that the Treasury has been involved at all stages. There is no possibility of its saying, "We were not aware of any deal or valuation". The process has been entirely open. Yesterday, it was possible for PricewaterhouseCoopers, acting for the Government, to make available the key outcomes of the independent valuation that will set the context for negotiations. In return, we have received the Racing Trust's assessment of the Tote's value. That is exactly what I said in July I hoped would happen, and it is on that basis that I said we could approach a Third Reading on 14 September with positive progress having been made. Clearly, I cannot discuss the figures, because they are "commercial, in confidence".
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked me to say how far apart the figures were. If I did, I would be bringing all the negotiations into the public sphere. I cannot do that and would not wish to. Of course discussions about the valuation will continue in advance of Royal Assent; in particular, about the assumptions behind the valuations. If we can get agreement on the different financial advisers' assumptions, the probability is that any existing gap will be reduced, as valuations made on the same assumptions are less likely to have differences than those made on different assumptions. These are not negotiations, but discussions about the basis on which the valuation is made. They started pretty much immediately yesterday and are continuing.
I am confident that when the Bill receives Royal Assent and passes into law, giving us the power under government accounting rules to begin negotiations, we shall be able to start them with confidence and optimism that the legitimate interests of both racing and the taxpayer can be recognised and that a fair deal can be struck. My noble friend Lord Lipsey, who knows the figures, has said that he is optimistic—and certainly more optimistic than he was last week. However, I think that he used the word in its absolute rather than its relative sense. I share that optimism. It is our firm intention to begin negotiations with the Racing Trust as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
We have instructed our financial and legal advisers to pursue a successful sale to racing at a price that reflects the fair value of the Tote. Indeed, since July we have written to the shadow Racing Trust committing to a period of exclusive negotiation with it.

1043
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the European Commission. We have also made progress in our discussions with the Commission. The government team is meeting with its representatives later this month to discuss what we hope will be their final questions about state aid in relation to this transaction. I should remind noble Lords that when this matter arose before, we did not have insuperable difficulties with the Commission. We have to do it all over again because the authority we had to proceed is time-expired. But we have no reason to suppose that there will be any particular difference on issues of principle.
In all of these ways, the Government have acted on their stated policy of selling the Tote to the Racing Trust under terms that meet the objectives of all interested parties. In other words, all the things that I said in July would be done before Third Reading have in fact been done.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said about the report in the Observer on 1 August. He himself called them rumours. I beg the House to listen to assurances from Ministers and to the facts as they have been set out rather than to rumours. I say that because, as I have made clear, we have been working hand in hand with the Treasury throughout, which supports our approach. If those rumours had been true, that could not have been the case. Equally, if the rumours had been true, that would have implied that we have been working without the full collaboration of the Treasury. At no point during the passage of this Bill have the Government done anything other than make practical preparations for the sale of the Tote to racing. We are delivering on all the pledges I made during our proceedings on the Bill—and I was only repeating the pledges made by the Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, in another place.
The amendment tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Luke, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey requires the Government to return to Parliament for its approval to sell the Tote to someone other than the Racing Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has confirmed that this amendment arises from the concern that the agreement we hope to achieve with the Racing Trust will prove impossible because the Government will demand a price well beyond the trust's ability to raise finance. We have again heard reference to a Treasury plot to undermine publicly stated government policy. I can confirm that my noble friend Lord Lipsey is right in all he says about the implications of us abandoning publicly stated government policy in order to guzzle up the proceeds of a sale on the open market.
I have to say that I am taken aback by such suggestions at this stage. I can understand that they might have been made at the end of last year when the sales strategy existed only on paper, and I understand that it could have been thought at that point that we were pursuing other approaches at the same time rather than pursuing the negotiated sale to racing, which is the only course we are pursuing. We are well into the preparatory process. We have appointed the independent valuer, who has been instructed to
1044
establish a fair value of the Tote to racing, not a maximum value that might be made on a sale to the highest bidder. And, as I have said, we are working closely with the Treasury.
Of course, the Government have the fallback position, which we need. The Racing Trust does not exist and we cannot put into legislation binding negotiations with a body that does not exist. It would be utterly irresponsible for us not to take, in legislation, the precaution of ensuring that we are not constrained in protecting the interests of the racing industry and of the public. However, we remain convinced that a sale to racing is the best way to meet both of those interests.
Before I close, let me refer to two matters raised in debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised the issue of Northern Ireland. As he knows, horseracing is a devolved matter. The Tote and the Horserace Betting Levy Board do not operate in Northern Ireland and it will be for that administration to make any changes to legislation regarding horseracing and betting there.
Secondly, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about a staff share incentive scheme. The Tote board has indicated that it wishes to introduce a new incentive scheme involving some equity share as part of the sale. That is one of the matters which may need to be taken forward in the negotiations when they start, but in the first place it is for the Racing Trust to reach a considered view on the proposal once it has been more fully worked up, and it would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment at this time.
So, at the risk of repetition, we have not changed our position. We have fulfilled every promise that we have made—cautious promises perhaps, but we have met every undertaking made to this House. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, not to press his amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister's remarks have been extremely helpful. However, before he sits down, can he clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, which has confused me a little? If the Bill goes ahead and if a sale is made to a body other than the Racing Trust, is there anything to provide that the proceeds will go to racing interests, or would that be the end of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made it clear on Report and it is on the record that if, in the undesirable and unlooked-for event that we sold other than to a racing trust, 50 per cent of the proceeds would go to racing.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful as always to the Minister for his considered response to this debate. It is the case that if everything both the Minister and his colleagues in another place have said were to be accepted as gospel, they would have absolutely no difficulty in accepting our amendment. I say that because the amendment as it stands does not require the Government to come back to this House

1045
with details of the sale to the Racing Trust, rather it looks exclusively at the position which could possibly arise if the central plank of the whole of the Government's position was to crumble; namely, a failure to sell to the Racing Trust. That is what this amendment focuses on.
I am quite certain that all the negotiations have been undertaken in good faith and that what the Minister has set out for noble Lords is exactly the position the Government would like to see, but when we look at the legislation before the House the fact is that, as it stands, there is a chance that it would not be possible for the Government to sell to a racing trust.
Perhaps I may give one example. Before Easter, my noble friend Lord Wakeham asked in Grand Committee a question about Europe and the extent to which negotiations with the Commission had led to a conclusion over the question of whether an adverse state aid ruling from Brussels could scupper the deal to a racing trust. It was pointed out at that stage of our proceedings that a letter had been in place confirming that there would be no problem with this deal, but that it had time-expired and the Government intended to renegotiate the matter with the European Union. However, the Minister has told us today that those negotiations are not complete. He stated that discussions will take place next week. What if those discussions go wrong, leading to a position where a sale to the Racing Trust could not move forward?
The whole point of this debate can best be summarised by what the Minister said at an early stage of our proceedings; namely, that even if no one owns the Tote, Parliament is its guardian. Today we have an important responsibility to racing in general and to the Tote in particular. The amendment before your Lordships will ensure that we fulfil our role as guardian of the Tote. A sale to the Racing Trust may collapse for whatever reason and that was anticipated today from all sides of the House as a possibility. Some circumstances are incapable of anticipation as to what might happen as a result of negotiations.
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was down in the dumps and unhappy about the way negotiations were proceeding. This week it looks much better. For whatever reason, we are guardians of the Tote. Parliament and all Members of this House who have spoken during our proceedings support the Government's manifesto commitment to sell the Tote to the Racing Trust. But as the Tote's guardian, surely it is right and proper that Parliament has the final decision on the sale of the Tote in the event that a sale to the Racing Trust is not possible, not in the event that there is a successful conclusion to the current negotiations, but exclusively in the event that a sale to the Racing Trust is not possible. Anything less would be a dereliction of our duty. I should like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 181.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Arran, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Attlee, E.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bowness, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Methuen, L.

Buscombe, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Byford, B.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway,L.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Naseby, L.

Carrington, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Noakes,B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk,E.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain,B.

Dundee E

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles.B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Plumb, L.

Erroll, E.

Prior, L.

Feldman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L

Hanham, B.

Seccombe, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Selborne,E.

Hayhoe, L.

Selsdon, L.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Howard of Rising, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kimball, L.

Tebbit, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kirkham,L.

Trenchard,V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Trumpington, B.

Laidlaw, L.

Ullswater, V.

Laird, L.

Vinson, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Waddington, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wakeham, L.

Lucas, L.

Warnock, B.

Luke, L.[Teller]

Wilcox, B.[Teller]

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Addington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Bhattacharyya, L.

Billingham, B.

Andrews, B.

Borrie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bragg, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brennan, L.

Avebury, L.

Broers, L.

Bach, L.

Burlison, L.

1047

Christopher, L.

Listowel, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Craigavon, V.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McNally, L.

Desai, L.

Maddock, B.

Dholakia, L.

Mar, C.

Dixon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Drayson, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dubs, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dykes, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Elder, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Neuberger, B.

Falkland, V.

Newby, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Palmer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Parekh, L.

Fearn, L.

Patel, L.

Filkin, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Paul, L.

Fitt, L.

Pendry, L.

Gale, B.

Peston, L.

Garden, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gavron, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Giddens, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Golding, B.

Razzall, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Goudie, B.

Rogan, L.

Gould of Brookwood, L.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rosser, L.

Greaves, L.

Rowlands, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Griffiths of Burry Port, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sewel, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Sheldon, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Simon, V.

Harrison, L.

Slim, V.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haworth, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hayman, B.

Snape, L.

Henig, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strange, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tenby, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tordoff, L.

Joffe, L.

Triesman, L.

Jones, L.

Truscott, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Layard, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Leitch, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Walpole, L.

1048

Walton of Detchant, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Clause 21 [Licensing of Olympic Lotteries]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 13, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) This section shall only have effect once the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report setting out in detail the cost of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House knows, the Opposition are wholly committed to London's bid to stage the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As part of that commitment we are pleased to support Part 3 of the Bill, which will establish an Olympic lottery to provide an estimated £750 million towards the costs of staging the games in London.
The amendment is designed to strengthen our bid and to assist the work of the excellent London bid team, under the able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Coe. I was fortunate to be in Athens this summer to witness the impressive Kelly Holmes in her memorable run for her second Olympic gold medal. Everyone I met was impressed by the excellent organisation of the games.
In these opening remarks, I want to place on record our congratulations to the Greek Government and their organising committee on the successful staging of the 2004 Olympic Games. Similarly, I invite the whole House to join me in congratulating Team GB on their achievements this summer and in wishing our paralympic athletes every success this month. While every medal winner and personal best performance deserves our praise, I feel that particular mention should go to Kelly Holmes and to Matthew Pinsent and his coxless four for their outstanding achievements.
On the amendment, it is clear that the Government must be a key stakeholder in any Olympic bid. The International Olympic Committee has required the host government to act as the ultimate guarantor of the games, although the Government have indicated that they intend to discharge that obligation through the National Lottery and the London Assembly.
From our discussions during the passage of the Bill, noble Lords will be aware that, in recent times, the majority of Olympic Games organisers have had difficulty in keeping to their original budgets. Indeed, as the Minister for Sport said in evidence to a Select Committee in January 2003:
"On the financing, one point that was interesting on our visits to cities that have already run Olympics was that in broad terms, on the costs, every one of them has doubled from the first figure that was given".
As London 2012 formulates a first-class technical bid for the 2012 Olympics, it is essential that its budget, and the Government's formula behind that budget, is equally well researched and costed. Knowing my noble friend Lord Coe as I do, and having seen his dedication and commitment as a fellow Olympian at the Moscow Games, I have absolutely no doubt that the London bid will be technically gold standard.
Our bid has been strengthened by the recent words of support from the Prime Minister. Last week, it was heartening to hear the Prime Minister say that he considered the growing sense, both at home and internationally, that London can indeed win the Olympic bid for 2012 to be one of the most important developments of this summer.
I understand that this Thursday my noble friend Lord Coe is due to present an update on the technical details of the bid, including the budget, to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The final submission to the International Olympic Committee of London's full bid book will take place on 15 November this year. That comprehensive document will give details of the technical aspects of our plans to host the games, including security, funding, sporting facilities, infrastructure, transport and accommodation. London's full bid book will, of course, be thoroughly costed. My amendment refers to those costings.
On the cost overruns, it has been calculated that if one uses the Minister of Sport's observations made on 15 January 2003 and applies them to the London games—namely, if the costs for London were to be doubled from £4 billion to £8 billion—the public subsidy required would increase by some £2 billion, to £6 billion. Lottery funding to all the good causes would be devastated as all its income would be taken for approximately 18 months and that would lead to an increase in the council tax precept for Londoners from an average £20 a year to £95 a year for eight years.
While all the good causes support the London 2012 Olympic bid, noble Lords may be aware that the proposed Olympic lottery will impact upon their income. That is one of the reasons why my amendment requires the Government to provide an up-to-date report on the costs of staging the London games before the Olympic lottery commences. Such a requirement will assist the National Lottery good causes in planning ahead more effectively. The additional parliamentary scrutiny should assist the Government and the London bid team to maintain a tight control on the budget.
When I tabled a similar amendment in Grand Committee, the Minister indicated that he was not averse to the principle of laying before Parliament a copy of this document. I trust that the Minister is still minded to support such a proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 in my name is grouped with Amendment No. 2 of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The issues raised here are ones of reporting and of knowing what is going on throughout the bid—the initial costing and reporting what has happened in the process of bidding for the games.
We have discussed this matter on several occasions, trying to get the right answer, and have had private discussions with the Minister. This is one last attempt to try to make sure that we get enough information into the public sphere, that not only do we have a way of making sure that we know what we are doing throughout the bid process and that the general public know what is going on, but also that we have a good record about the way the process was constructed. The Commonwealth Games of Manchester and this bid may be the two big successes we have, compared with a series of failures.
Building up that store of knowledge is what I have always been interested in. Also, if we fail in the future at anything, let us fail for different reasons from the ones for which we fail at this time. I do not expect that we will fail—I hope that we will not—but let us build up a store of knowledge. That is all I am trying to do. It is one last attempt to clarify what the Government have done in this area and what they should do in future. We have made progress in discussions. With this amendment I give the Government one last chance to clarify where the information will be so that we can build upon our body of knowledge for all sporting and—hopefully—cultural events in the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been told by the Whips to keep this short so if I may read into the record for the sake of completeness my support for what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says about our performance in the Athens Olympics and our confidence in the quality of the bid for the 2012 Olympics. I will not say any more at this time because government Ministers more intimately concerned have already said very similar things.
The purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to ensure that Parliament is aware of the cost of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. We support the principle and I can confirm that we intend—as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked—to place details of the costs and revenues relating to the staging of the games before the House. As he said, the costs and revenues associated with staging the games in 2012 will be detailed in the candidate file being prepared for submission to the IOC. It has to be submitted by 15 November. It cannot be made public, according to its rules, until we have received confirmation of receipt from the IOC. But we intend to lay the full document before Parliament in November following receipt of this confirmation.
We believe that having the requirement on the face of the legislation is unnecessary. We resist the amendment because it has the potential to cause unintended delay to the start of an Olympic lottery. It could produce a further layer of bureaucracy. It could

1051
require a new report to be produced, or the repeated submission of information that would already be at the disposal of Parliament.
If a further report was required, for example after the IOC had selected London as host city in 2005, that could delay the issuing of Olympic lottery licences and therefore the start of the Olympic lottery, which I know is a cause close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I know that he wants to get the lottery game going as soon as possible. I hope that, given the assurance that he asked for, he will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, calls for the Secretary of State to lay reports before Parliament following the election of the host city and, in the event of a successful London bid, following the staging of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As he says, I have discussed the amendment with him. These reports would cover such issues as financing, the raising and distribution of lottery money, and the legacy. We are all agreed that there must be due processes in place to capture all available information in relation to the staging of a 2012 Olympic Games. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, understands that I do not think that the amendment is the best way of achieving that end.
There are already a number of arrangements in place to capture key information and hold accountable the bodies charged with delivering the games and ensure an appropriate legacy—which is a perfectly valid point by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. London 2012, the bid company, is already obliged to produce annual accounts that will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, the stakeholders have in place arrangements to ensure appropriate and rigorous oversight of the progress and financing of the bid.
We can be confident that in the event of an unsuccessful bid, DCMS, the London Assembly, the British Olympic Association, and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, would all be poring over the reasons why the bid failed.
In relation to lottery distribution, the Olympic lottery distributor is already responsible for producing annual reports to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament under the provisions of the Bill. This mirrors the arrangements for existing lottery distributors and, with existing powers of parliamentary scrutiny, provides sufficient financial controls.
4.45 p.m.
As regards the staging of the games, the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) would be required to produce annual reports and accounts, as would any other body created to deliver the games. LOCOG—a new word for me—is required by IOC to produce a post-games report dealing with all aspects of staging the games, including
1052
an analysis of performance. I cannot see that commissioning a further report would enhance the legislation in any way.
The following is the point about capturing the benefit of the games. We are keen to ensure that a key legacy of bidding, whatever the outcome, is transferable knowledge that can be applied to future bids. However, we do not think it necessary to do more than is already required.
In relation to capturing lessons learnt for the future. I can confirm that plans are already in place. By November this year, the Sports Council will sign off a mega events strategy, including a 20-year events forecast and guidance for bidding. The latter incorporates lessons learnt from the Commonwealth Games in Manchester and will assimilate any new 2012 messages. The information will be reviewed on a six-monthly basis by a new DCMS, devolved administration and UK sports events strategy forum, which will report to the sports Cabinet.
I hope that it is clear that we agree entirely with the thinking behind both amendments and that we have in place plans to ensure that these are given effect.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am also pleased to take this opportunity to support the principle behind the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. What he proposes in the amendment seems eminently sensible and should be of benefit to Parliament, sport and the general public.
I recognise that annual reports and accounts will be published. I also agree that the post-games report would be greatly important. The Minister is right to refer to the fact that in November this year we will have the opportunity to assess the funding of the games. However, the amendment that we have tabled is specific to the time between winning the bid in July next year and starting the lottery game.
At the present time there is no opportunity for Parliament to consider an important report, setting out in detail how the government of the day will fund the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012. It is import ant that Parliament does have that opportunity. It is particularly important in light of the widely rumoured favourite election date of 5 May 2005, which comes before the July decision in Singapore. It is appropriate that a new government have the opportunity. Certainly we would welcome from our Benches when we are in government after May next year the opportunity to come to Parliament with our thinking about the funding.
In the light of that expectation, I do not feel that the Minister is right to dismiss the importance of a report being presented to Parliament at that time in the process. For those reasons I would like to test the opinion of the House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 175.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Lyell, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Arran, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Bowness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Naseby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northesk, E.

Craigavon,V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dundee, E.

Plumb, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Erroll, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Fowler, L.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Henley, L.

Stewartby, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Tebbit, L.

Howard of Rising, L.

Trenchard, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Kimball, L.

Ullswater, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Vinson, L.

Laidlaw, L.

Waddington, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wakeham, L.

Lucas, L.

Wilcox, B.

Luke, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Adebowale, L.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Ahmed, L.

Billingham, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Borrie, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bragg, L.

Andrews, B.

Brennan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Broers, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Avebury, L.

Chan, L.

Bach, L.

Christopher, L.

Barker, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Barnett, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

1054

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNally, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Maddock, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Maxton, L.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Methuen, L.

Dixon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Drayson, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morgan, L.

Dykes, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Elder, L.

Neuberger, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Parekh, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

patel, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falkland, V.

Paul, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Radice, L.

Garden, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gavron, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rea, L.

Giddens, L.

Redesdale, L.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rennard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rix, L.

Gould of Brookwood, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rooker, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roper, L.

Greaves, L.

Rosser, L.

Griffiths of Burry Port, L.

Rowlands, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Sheldon, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Simon, V.

Harrison, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Haworth, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hayman,B.

Snape, L.

Henig, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tenby, V.

Hoyle, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jones, L.

Triesman, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Truscott, L.

Layard, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lipsey, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warner, L.

McDonagh, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Housing Bill
5.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Pitkeathley) in the Chair.]
Clause 137 [Duty to have a home information pack]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 94, line 40, at end insert "within a permitted period of 14 days of the property being placed on the market"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 183 and 194 together. Although they come from two different clauses, both relate to the building in of some leeway into the process of preparing a home information pack.
The provision of such leeway is crucial to the continued effectiveness of the housing market. I know that the Minister disagrees with that and although we had a Second Reading debate during our proceedings yesterday, we must continue with our amendments and our views on how the HIP should apply.
Even in this day and age of advanced computer systems, of desk-top publishing, of easily negotiable electronically held property databases and of surveyors equipped with laser-guided tape measures, if I wanted to put my house on the market this afternoon in order to execute a very quick sale under the regime imposed by Part 5 of the Bill, I would be unable to do so until my estate agent had produced a home information pack. It is possible that I could not afford that delay. There must be some flexibility in the system.
I am aware that some estate agents in areas where the home information packs were piloted were able to produce the information in the same amount of time as it took to draw up and agree property particulars. Although impressive, that still led to a delay of about
1056
a week in putting property on the market. Had the photograph of my house gone up in my estate agent's window on the day I had instructed the sale, that would have given prospective buyers an extra week to consider putting in an offer, knowing that the home information pack was being produced.
Although I do not know whether there are any statistics available, by and large I am sure it is a fact that sellers often want to sell in a hurry, while house buyers are happy to take a little more time. Fourteen days is by no means a figure that needs to be set in stone. Indeed, given the improvements in information technology, particularly with the advances of the National Property Gazetteer, it could be argued that as home information packs may well be ready in a couple of days a fortnight's leeway may be unnecessary. But I do not believe that we should make it a sine qua non that home information packs must be available on day one. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 183A and 185C. They too relate to day-one marketing. Amendment No. 183A is similar to that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It is a probing amendment following discussions that took place in another place. Following the Government's amendment to Clauses 138 and 139 at the Commons Report stage, some people believe that confusion has arisen on the timing requirements for the possession or production of the home information pack. To avoid any misunderstanding in the market, I am seeking clarification with Amendment No. 183A.
One interpretation of Clauses 138 and l39 as presently drafted is that the responsible person—the seller or his agent, if there is one—has to provide an HIP or part of a pack only if requested by the buyer. The responsible person has 14 days in which to do that—or more if terms and conditions are debated under Clause 139(5).
That appears to conflict with requirements in other clauses, which seem to require the possession of an HIP from the outset. I am therefore seeking clarification on whether the above interpretation of Clauses 138 and 139 is correct. Is it a relaxation of the Government's requirement for day-one marketing? If it is, it is welcome, but those outside the Chamber are confused. I would welcome clarification from the Government.
Amendment No. 185C is designed to help the Government on this issue. The Government's proposal to introduce home information packs will bring to an end the right of consumers to put their properties up for sale when they desire. In future, they will have to wait until the home information pack has been prepared. No one really knows how long that will take, as we have discussed several times already.
The Government seem willing to accept the very optimistic forecast that it could be as little as three days, while others who believe that they have a greater degree of realism and appreciation believe that it could be considerably longer. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, spoke of one week. It means the ending

1057
of "day-one marketing" and many of those who work in the housing market feel that it is not desirable and that it could have an inflationary effect on the market.
The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to keep the Government's options open. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to determine at a later date the appropriate period of time in which the home information pack must be made available to prospective purchasers after marketing commences.
We do not have to make the decision now. The Government have already said that home information packs will not be introduced immediately and that we are working roughly to 2007. That therefore gives us the opportunity to consult with the industry and, crucially, to monitor progress in the areas that are most likely to cause delay in the production of HIPs.
I know that the Government argue that if home information packs are not available to buyers when marketing takes place, their effectiveness will be undermined. I do not believe that that is true—and many who work in the field do not believe that it is true. Most prospective buyers arrange to view a range of properties in a given area before they narrow down their list of potential purchases. Often they will instruct an estate agent to arrange several initial interviews based on their criteria such as price, location and size. I hope that those more experienced will back me up on that. Indeed, I have done the same thing myself. At this stage, buyers will not want to be burdened with lengthy technical reports for each and every property that they view, for access to which, as I understand it, they would have to pay a charge.
Because the current home information pack proposals will delay the ability of consumers to market property, it is widely accepted that there will be some reduction in the number of properties coming on to the market. Independent studies have measured that and they give figures of between 13 and 30 per cent. If the figure is 13 per cent, that is still fairly detrimental. Even at the lower end of the forecasts, it is likely to have an inflationary effect.
The Government have questioned just how important day-one marketing really is to consumers and whether they will be put off placing their houses on the market if they have to complete a home information pack. There are conflicting views on this topic and I should be very interested to hear from the Minister whether his department has any plans to undertake some independent research into the matter before pressing ahead with day-one marketing. The amendment is designed to help them to do that, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it. It is an important issue and it is very controversial.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is absolutely right: this is a crucial area and it is one that will cause a huge amount of contention unless we get it right. It will be the area where most disputes occur because vendors invariably want their houses marketed from day one. They will give instructions for whatever reason, but they want to put
1058
their houses on the market now. Of course some people are coming forward at present and saying, "I want to market the house next spring. Start preparing particulars now", but that does not happen all the time, and a big section of the market will be put under considerable constraint by the Bill as it stands.
We talked about this matter a little last night. It was quite late and, on reading col. 998 of the Official Report, I noticed that I mentioned a somewhat similar situation in response to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on the question of buying Whiteacre. If one reads what I said in the Official Report and takes it by itself, it could be misleading. What I wanted to say was that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would be at a disadvantage if he had to sell his house in order to make an offer on Whiteacre. In the Official Report, it reads that the noble Lord could not submit an offer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Of course, the noble Lord could submit an offer, but if he had to sell his own house first in order to obtain the finances, he would be at a considerable disadvantage in wanting to buy the house compared with someone else who already had his house on the market with a home information pack.
These are critical amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, particularly with regard to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
Lord Rooker: This is a very important part of the Bill and the system. I fully accept that, but I certainly cannot accept some of the things that I have just heard, such as that the industry does not know what is going on and will be confused, and so on. From extensively published consultation documents, the industry knows exactly what we have been thinking about in some considerable detail for the past 18 months. So there are no surprises in this measure.
This is the first of a number of amendments about the duties in Clauses 137 to 141 to have a home information pack before commencing any marketing activity. I fully admit that this is an area which probably causes the most concern. I would argue that that concern is not justified and I shall try to give my reasons. However, we recognise the concern, which is why we have been doing something about it.
Ministers and officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have discussed the concerns extensively with key stakeholders, including the National Association of Estate Agents. We know that the key concerns are uncertainty over how the home information packs will impact on the market—that is a factor—and particularly how long it will take to compile the packs.
We know from experience that some agents who are providing home information packs on a voluntary basis—it is only a modest number at the moment; I realise that—can manage to compile packs in about five working days. We take the view that, given the advances in information technology, it should be possible to compile them in a shorter timeframe by 2007. And, once the Bill is enacted, that will act as a significant push to information providers to change

1059
their processes to ensure that the information is available very quickly. So, with compulsion on the way, it will cease to be a voluntary activity.
Some stakeholders are saying to us, "That's all very well in theory, but what if the practice turns out to be different?" What if an item in the pack—for example, the home condition report—takes a good deal longer and that acts as a logjam on bringing homes to the market? Those are issues that have been raised and it is a fair point. The big concern seems to be that if that kind of problem does arise, the Bill may be too inflexible as it stands to deal with the situation. It is that point on which I want to give the Committee some assurance.
First, following the Office of Government Commerce Gateway review of the home information pack programme, we are setting up a new, extensive programme support structure to oversee the route through to the implementation of the home information pack. All the key stakeholders have welcomed the move and they are actively involved. Therefore, it is not being done behind closed doors. Part of the job of the new programme arrangements is to bottom out and address the risks and develop effective contingencies. That work will identify and address any of the pinch points that could delay production of the home information packs.
Secondly, as I mentioned last night, there will be a dry run of home information packs before they come into force. We want to identify the components of the packs by the middle of 2005 and have them available from the middle of 2006. That will give a minimum of six months for estate agents and others to test the new arrangements before they come into statutory force. That gives a rough idea of the timetable and we have left ourselves plenty of time.
Thirdly, if we find that the speedy production of home information packs is at serious risk, provisions in the Bill would enable us to address the situation. Clause 144(9) allows the Secretary of State to address this kind of problem in regulations. He could vary the time at which a document is required to be included in the pack; he could make some kind of transitional arrangements; and he could make different arrangements for different areas, descriptions of property and other circumstances.
In short, there is an armoury in the Bill to deal with problems relating to the speedy availability of documents and other problems if they arise after all the other preparatory work, along with that of the stakeholders, has been done and defects come to light. So there is no question of the Government introducing home information packs in a way that will cause unnecessary delay in getting homes on to the market. That is not our purpose.
Some of our research has indicated that 40 per cent of consumers are dissatisfied with the current system. More recent surveys conducted by the Consumers' Association and the Yorkshire Bank both indicated a dissatisfaction rate of almost 90 per cent. Therefore, some action must be taken to improve the situation.
1060
One principal cause of that dissatisfaction is the lack of up-front information available to sellers and buyers. That lack of transparency at the start of the process is a primary cause of uncertainty, failed transactions and wasted costs. We genuinely believe that our reasonable proposals will remedy that, but the amendments would risk perpetuating the problems associated with the current system where sellers market their homes without the benefit of important information to guide their marketing decisions and buyers take important decisions on the basis of little or no information.
It is no good to say that this beggars belief; we know that it happens—it is happening now as we speak. We are talking about some 8,000 properties a day or 40,000 properties a week. People will be looking at places for a few minutes. They may have looked at lots of others as well but, on the basis of little or no information, they will make offers and then become very upset afterwards.
The time spent compiling the pack need not be long and we think that it is time well spent. As I have said before, all this information, save for the home condition report, already has to be provided at some stage in the process. The difference is that we are saying, "Do it upfront".
Some of the tick box forms that people fill in for fixtures and fittings and about the property itself—two or three of the forms one gets from solicitors—could be done beforehand. Sometimes there is undue delay, even as regards the solicitor getting the seller to complete the form, to tick the boxes. They say, "You are selling the house. I need the form. Tick the boxes". So, undue delay can be caused even by the seller not filling in the basic forms because they cannot decide to leave the curtains or the spice rack or something stupid like that. All of that is on the form and they simply have to tick a box.
So, there are delays. We are asking that that be done before the home is marketed. There is no problem about that. If someone decides that they want to sell the property, they obtain the forms and get them filled in. If we seek to cut corners, as the amendments would propose—the idea is to market under the present system, stick it up for sale today, find a buyer the next day, and sell the house—that is fine, but that apparent speed can be illusory. That is what we know from the present system. You think you have sold and you have not. Then there are protracted negotiations while the legal aspects are sorted out and local searches are commissioned. There can be arguments about the property and the things that are found out and arguments about the price. Each of those things can reveal problems which add to delay. Indeed, sometimes, not always but many times, they can lead to the collapse of the sale, and the whole process can be complicated by chains.
Having the relevant information at the start of the process creates a number of benefits. The seller and agent can use the home information pack to assist in setting the asking price. This is different—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in full flow. He repeatedly makes the point

1061
that all this upfront information is nothing but benign. However, to take one example, does he not accept that all the information that will now be required on the title of the property, which currently is not required of the vendor's solicitors until after exchange, will lead to a huge amount of wasted time and effort between solicitors in cases where, having agreed in principle to sell and buy, the property transaction then collapses because of a chain problem, a finance problem or a number of other issues; for example, change of circumstances? Does he not at least concede that in many cases those requirements will add considerably to cost?
Lord Rooker: I find that quite interesting from a lawyer; that is, the possibility of things collapsing after the offer has been made because of problems caused by finding out about technical hitches and details. It is true, I accept, that some documents might come in at the very end and that could cause a problem. However, I suspect—I shall take advice on this—that that would be in a minor amount of cases compared with the vast number that fail either because of the condition of the property or other matters relating to the condition which are found in the home condition report and which would make that miniuscule in comparison.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for what the Minister said. The truth is—this is where the problem of not having a good evidential base for all this is exposed—that survey work has been done and my own survey work among the solicitors of Suffolk and North Essex indicates that the majority of transaction failures are nothing to do with the condition of the property but are to do with valuation and obtaining finance. Valuations are not part of the home information pack. That will come later. So, far from this solving the frustrations and heartache of transactions that collapse, the statistics that we have—my noble friend Lady Hamwee quoted some last night—indicate that around 15 per cent of transactions collapse because of survey issues as compared with all the other issues.
Lord Rooker: We can bandy statistics. I have some better statistics than I had yesterday—this is not the group of amendments in which to use them—which will, I hope, rebut some of the points raised. The fact is that you cannot tell the connection, except in individual cases. If there is an argument on valuation, was it caused by someone finding out more about the property than they would have known without having the home condition report? They may say, "Hang on a minute. I'm not paying that much for the property. It's not worth that much because something's been discovered". It is true that that might be ticked off as an argument about valuation. Why did that arise in the first place? Because someone found out something and, if they had found out about it beforehand they would not have made the offer on the basis of false information. So, it can look like an argument about valuation but it may be that the valuation was done in ignorance of the home condition report and not knowing about the property in the first place.
1062
I was half way through a really good sentence about the time spent compiling the pack. Speed can be illusory and can be followed, as I have said, by protracted negotiations while the legal aspects are sorted out. Each of these issues can reveal problems that add to the delay and the collapse of the sale altogether.
Having this relevant information at the start of the process creates a number of benefits. I was going on to say that it is perhaps novel for the estate agent to set the price of a property based on knowing something about it. That may be novel for some estate agents. Knowing information on the property they can give better advice on marketing strategy and selling price. The pack will help to identify for the seller and the seller's professional advisers problems, for example, with the title. If there are problems with the title, the time to find out about them is before you market the property, not when you are supposed to complete.
Other benefits include transparency. If a buyer makes an offer knowing the true condition, they are less likely to complain later on about valuations and other matters. We think that the cost savings should be evident. As I have said—and I will give further details on this—our modest, conservative estimate is that some £350 million is wasted each year. That is a complete waste; there are no assets gained from that. Streamlined conveyancing will be possible due to the bulk of legal and other preparatory work being carried out in the days before marketing and not the weeks afterwards with the pressures involved.
We consulted on these matters some 18 months ago, including on the issues of the documents that would be needed for the title. So, there are no surprises about what is needed in the pack by professionals.
The benefits in terms of shortening the period from offer acceptance to exchange of contracts and making the process more transparent should more than outweigh any slight delay—it can be only a slight delay—to marketing while the pack is put together. To allow marketing, even for a limited period, without a pack perpetuates the failings of the current system. Buyers and sellers would be negotiating in the dark. This lack of upfront information, as we mentioned earlier, is the root cause of consumers' dissatisfaction.
Amendments Nos. 183, 183A, 185C and 194 may have been tabled on the assumption that sellers will be unhappy waiting until a pack is compiled before marketing commences, but what sellers really want is a quick sale, not quick marketing. There is a difference between a quick sale and quick marketing. It is a quick sale that they want; the outcome, not the process. We want to speed up the process so that the outcome becomes more certain for everyone concerned.
Amendment No. 183 would delay for 14 days the duty to have a pack. As I have explained, that would perpetuate the current problems and I cannot believe that it is a serious attempt to improve the Bill. As I have said, the same arguments apply to Amendment No. 183A. Amendment No. 185C would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing a permitted period, beginning when the marketing starts, within which a pack must be provided.

1063
I understand the concerns, and no one wishes to see unnecessary delays. However, as I have said, the Bill contains a range of mechanisms to enable us to deal with potential problems. With the homework and spadework that is being done with the industry in full co-operation between now and the bringing into force of the legislation, such problems will not, it is to be hoped, arise.
It is important not to underestimate the difficulties for enforcement authorities—someone will have to enforce this, as will be clear—of allowing marketing for a period without a pack. That would be a difficulty. If that period were allowed, it would be impossible to police the system and I think it would remove the benefits of upfront information to buyers and sellers and leave a high chance of aborted transactions. As I said last night, it would be selling a false prospectus to the public on the basis that they thought we had done something about it.
The Earl of Caithness: As the Minister was in the middle of his most interesting sentence, I did not continue the discussion at that point. However, I should like to take him up on three or four matters. The Minister keeps referring to the current problems the industry faces. We should not forget that over 70 per cent of transactions do not cause problems; they work perfectly well. They can be speeded up, but the market is not in crisis. The market is working. Areas need attention, but to give the general impression that the market is a complete failure and in dire need of improvement is a totally wrong picture of what is happening.
The Minister referred again to the £350 million in abortive costs of transaction failures. Let us remember that that figure of £350 million was based on a survey involving 30 properties and was extrapolated from that. We must also bear in mind that those who did the research gave a caveat on the figures and said, "These figures need further work". The Government have not done that further work.
I was very interested that the Minister then started to disagree with the research that he had carried out by Key Research on the question of failed purchases. It is true that 30 per cent of failed purchases are a result of an adverse valuation survey, but now the Minister wants to look behind that. He has been beating the drum that that 30 per cent—in fact he is calling it 43 per cent because he is adding in the 13 per cent of unfavourable surveys—is the cause of this Bill. If the Minister wanted a more accurate breakdown of why purchases failed, then the Government should have arranged it at a much earlier date rather than proceeding with a Bill, so that we could at least be talking of a sensible research programme that did not have a whole lot of caveats with it.
Finally, the 13 per cent of failed purchases due to an unfavourable survey in fact works out at a net figure of less than 4 per cent of all failed transactions. That does not reflect a market in crisis.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his clarification on Amendment No. 185C. It would
1064
appear that something similar to what I was requesting is actually in the Bill, but not being a lawyer. I find it quite difficult to interpret. I will look at the matter again and discuss it with others.
On Amendment No. 183A, again in trying to get to grips with how the legislation is written, I would have appreciated a little more clarification about how the 14 days works in the other two amendments to which I referred. In his reply, the Minister talked about how difficult this was to police, and said that that is why it had to be day one. However, some of it will be day 14, and somehow it will have to be policed. I will look carefully at what the Minister said and perhaps we will return to the issue.
Baroness Hanham: I too thank the Minister for his reply. I am bound to say that I think we will probably end up taking a different view on this throughout the Bill's passage.
The Minister made it very clear—it is becoming increasingly obvious—that this is an immensely bureaucratic system. When we get round to a system that is being policed, which is what the Minister now says it is, then we are really in considerable difficulty as regards the free marketing of a property. The fact that there is to be no flexibility about when the housing packs must be available is, if I may say so, rather foolish.
I do not think that the clauses to which the Minister referred, and the regulations which will perhaps come in to give some flexibility, are going to do the job at all. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that those who want to put their houses on the market can do so. They will then have a bit of time in which to finish off the bureaucratic information that must be made available. All this information, except for the home condition report, already has to be made available for the sale and purchase of any property.
I think the Minister may also be underestimating how long home condition reports will take to get done and, as I suggested yesterday, whether buyers will rely on those reports. We have not yet had any discussion about what integrity buyers will see in the reports and whether buyers will believe they can rely on what the reports say. It is likely that there will be double expenditure, with the buyer choosing to have yet another survey done, perhaps by a more qualified person than the home condition surveyor.
So, we do not agree with the Minister's view on this. I am sure that we shall return to the matter. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 183A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 183B:
Page 94, line 40, at end insert "unless the property is marketed as being sold without a home information pack"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 183B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 185A.
During these exchanges, I have mused on the fact that, had the Minister been a partner in my solicitors practice, which in itself is quite an interesting thought, he would probably have been one of those who used to say of domestic conveyancers—never, of course, one of our own partners—"They spend all their time asking questions like, 'Does the property have a roof?' And, if they are on the other side, 'The purchaser should rely on inspections'". I say that because I accept a little of what he says about the cumbersome nature of the process.
I suggested that the two amendments should be grouped with the last group that we debated last night on "voluntarism"—I cannot think of another word for it. Despite my request, that did not happen. I am moving the first one today because the Minister may have something to add to the issue. However, I shall not rehearse now the arguments for a voluntary home information pack.
However, I should like to pick up one point that the Minister has mentioned several times. It is relevant to this debate, and I for one have not yet got my head around it. The Minister talked about a dry run before the pack becomes compulsory. I have not yet understood how the dry run is to happen unless we have a voluntary scheme before the commencement orders bite. When the noble Lord replies, I should be grateful if he would explain just how he will ensure that there is a dry run without the problem that he has used to counter the arguments against a voluntary scheme.
These two amendments provide that a seller can choose to sell without a home information pack. It may well be that a seller would want to opt out for some of the reasons we have heard, and perhaps for others. I do not think that the buyer would be placed at a disadvantage as he will know that a pack is not available. If a buyer thinks a pack is so important that it affects his choice of property, he will not pursue his interest in that property.
The sellers may not want to provide a pack because of cost considerations—a matter which we have certainly more than touched on. The Government assume, if I understand this correctly, that the cost of compiling a pack will be absorbed by the selling agent until a sale goes through. That seems likely to put huge pressure on the agent to ensure that a sale does go through.
A number of noble Lords have expressed doubts about some estate agents, although not about all of them. But the profession as a whole has some way to go to up its reputation. There are some agents who would have a view to their own interests at least as much as to the interests of their clients and it sometimes seems to me that not every agent quite understands who his client is. I hope that the Minister can answer the specific point about a dry run and can add to it. I would hate to think that these are the killer amendments and I had not moved them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support the noble Baroness. She made a point that I wanted to raise at some stage. I shall follow what she said, which was that there would be pressure by estate agents to get a sale. I regret to have to say that that happens at the moment because a lot of estate agents work on incredibly low salaries but with high commission rates. That is a very bad practice in a professional business that sells somebody's prime asset. Where estate agents are on a low salary and high commission, there is huge pressure on them to get a sale as quickly as possible, regardless of the client's interest.
With a home condition report and a home information pack, there will be even greater pressure on them to get a sale. The directors will be saying, "This costs money and time for which we are not getting a proper reimbursement. Get rid of that property as quickly as possible. Get the vendor to accept a lower price. Let's get it off our books. Get it done and we can submit a fee account because that property has been hanging around". That might not be in the client's interest. On occasions, my partner and I have said to clients, "Do not accept the offer. Wait a bit". That has incurred no extra expense under the rules by which we operate at present but has proved to be for the benefit of the client in the long run.
When we discussed this yesterday, my Amendment No. 184A was grouped with the amendments. It was my fault that I did not realise it at the time and therefore did not speak to it. I notified the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I might at some stage raise Amendment No. 184A just to get his response. If one follows the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved, and adds this advertisement:
"This property is offered for sale without a home information pack or home condition report being currently available. Intending purchasers may be exposed to an increased risk of financial loss if adverse legal or structural matters affecting the property become evident after negotiations for the purchase have begun",
it is in the consumer's interest. It allows the prospective purchaser to say, "I am not going to bother with those properties that do not have an HIP. I will just concentrate on those that do"; or the vendor can say, "I am still interested in a property that does not have an HIP. It is exactly the same situation that I have been used to operating in in the past. I will carry on with the prospective purchase".
If, in due course, it is found that prospective purchasers are shunning properties that do not have home information packs or home condition reports, then the market will force estate agents to tell their clients that they must produce that information because they are missing out on the main section of buyers.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to pursue her amendment but I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on Amendment No. 184A.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I add to the point just made by the noble Viscount—
Noble Lords: The noble Earl.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do apologise. That is the most appalling error that a man can make in this House. I doubly apologise.
At Second Reading, in relation to concerns about the effects of the packs on low value homes, the Minister said that,
"we believe that it is best left to the market to provide solutions".—[Official Report, 7/6/04; col. 86.]
I wholly concur with that sentiment. The noble Earl is absolutely right in saying that people are quite capable of judging between one offer and another, between one estate agent and another, or between an offer with a pack and one without.
But how does the Minister see the position of a couple who are poor—perhaps old age pensioners—who have to sell a house to relieve their financial problems? Are they going to be denied the prospect of a sale unless they can find an estate agent prepared to bear all the up-front costs? I think that the up-front costs are going to be of the order of £800 to £1,000. That is without solicitor's fees and solicitors are not in the habit of doing abortive work without charging for it, at least, by no means always. So if one adds solicitor's costs, one is well over £1,000.
Who is going to bankroll that? If the answer is that some estate agents will bankroll it themselves, the noble Earl made the point that they are not going to hang around for ever. If the property is still on the market after six months, they will not wipe the debt off or continue to carry it. I can tell the noble Lord that the firms that will benefit from this will be the big battalions. This is highly anti-competitive. The small, newish estate agent is not going to be able to carry the debt of £50,000 to £100,000 of unpaid expenses that will be incurred in these home packs. So, if the Minister rejects these amendments, what is the fate of the poor seller? Who is going to carry the very substantial costs, which may ultimately prove abortive, but which, in any event, could be hanging around for months?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The two amendments in this group effectively create a voluntary system rather than a compulsory one. We have gone over this issue a fair bit already and I do not want to tire the Committee with more of our thinking behind the system. I simply say that we do not think that a voluntary system is right or fair or that it would, in the end, be at all effective. There are extensive benefits in the system as set out in the legislation. If we take Amendments Nos. 183B and 185A together, they would have the effect of making the system for home information packs voluntary. Effectively, the only duty would be for the seller or his agent to say whether the property was being sold with a pack.
Despite what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, says, we think that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that buyers and sellers are unhappy with the way in which
1068
properties are bought and sold. In many cases, people are losing hundreds of pounds on abortive surveys and searches. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, it is those who are perhaps least able to afford those costs who often end up bearing the brunt of them. I do not think that there is any doubt—and what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said underlines the point—that some of these costs can be quite crippling. But we think that, in the end, there will be a benefit for all in having a universal system, rather than a voluntary system.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made plain yesterday, there is a cost to the wider economy, apart from the substantial time that is wasted through abortive transactions. I do not think that anyone could seriously argue that the market is working well in all circumstances and should be left alone and unfettered; but, effectively, that is what the opposition to this main proposal suggests. Ultimately, it is not enough simply to suggest that technology will solve the problems over time. Yes, of course it will assist in the end in terms of introducing the proposed changes. That is why we have provided for a longer time, so that the benefits of speeding up transactions can be fully brought in.
I do not think that anyone has disputed the benefits of key information being provided up front. All that has been suggested is that essentially there is a disbenefit in delaying going to market, which, basically, is what is on offer here. Estate agents offering home information packs or condition surveys up front report that buyers and sellers welcome them and that many people are positively enthusiastic. Certainly, agents in my area say that to me, which I think is for two reasons. First, it is easier to market a property and, secondly, the sellers and their agents do not have the fear that extra efforts will not be rewarded.
Ultimately, this system will be welcomed, particularly when we have the added benefit of technological change. Last night, 1 heard the argument that we should simply wait for that: but we do not want to wait. Of course we want to accrue those benefits and see the system speeded up, but by having a voluntary system, which effectively would create a two-tier system across the country, all sellers would be missing out, and that would be very unfortunate.
In our view, the market is not working well enough. There are too many disadvantaged people for us to maintain the status quo. We need change and improvements so that consumers can see a real and lasting benefit. That is why the voluntary approach is not the right approach to adopt in this situation. Some people do not like compulsion, but, regrettable though it is, in this situation it is entirely necessary.
A couple of important questions and points were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the dry run, which she saw as a sort of voluntary system. All the pack components will be in force, including the home condition report and certification scheme. In answer to her specific point: yes, it is the commencement order that will bring in the duty after the dry run is over. It is important to respond to that point.

1069
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a point about paying the costs and the poorer seller. That class of seller already incurs costs under the present process. Those people can least afford the wasted costs with the associated abortive transactions that sometimes occur. I know I made that point earlier, but it is important. It is much more likely that there will be greater certainty in the process when the information is up front from the moment that the property is taken to market, which those people will welcome.
Clearly there is more debate to be had about where the costs will fall. I do not necessarily accept what the noble Lord said about where that cost will be. Nor do I accept his cost estimate, which, from the evidence that we have had so far, seems to be on the high side. I think that sellers really want greater certainty in the process and less frustration, which a universal system of home information packs will provide. That is why the voluntary approach is the wrong approach and why we think that we have got it about right. Some ironing out will be done and there will be a careful process of implementation. That is why we have set the timing as we have, which will be welcomed by the industry as a whole as we move towards that point of implementation.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may clarify one point with the Minister. Did he say that, under the Government's present proposals, the abortive costs that the market experiences at the moment will not arise in the future?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I would not want to say that there never will be abortive costs after the scheme has been introduced. I know that the noble Earl takes exception to the pilots in Bristol and does not have a high opinion of them, but so far the evidence suggests that abortive costs will be much less and abortive sales will be fewer in number. There must be a benefit from that. Neither of us would be happy estimating exactly how much less those abortive costs will be or how many fewer abortive sales there will be. All the evidence suggests that there will be greater certainty in the process, which is surely what people selling a home want. Do we not all want to see a better market that performs and works well for everyone?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to expand on the dry run. All Members of the Committee want that to work and for a better system to come out of it. However, it is fair to say that the practitioners in the Chamber have more anxieties about the exceptional cases; that is, the number of cases that will not fit neatly into the proposed package. I ask, first, what is the scale of the dry run? Secondly, what is the length of the dry run?
Thirdly, and most importantly, I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no point in having a dry run if one cannot learn from it and make such amendments as may be necessary in the light of it. My concern is whether there is anything in the Bill as presently structured—I do not think that there is—
1070
that will allow the Government to say, "Okay, we have learnt these lessons for sure. Two of them confirm our view about this Bill. One of them runs directly contrary to what we thought when we debated this and we will amend the legislation before it comes into full effect".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that I said earlier that there will be a commencement order that will bring in the duty after the dry run is over. We have got an implementation period, which, from memory, is around 2007, giving us about two-and-a-half years. That means that there is ample scope and opportunity for discussions with the industry. Those discussions are already taking place, which, as I said, are about ironing out wrinkles. Of course we can do that.
I think that, yesterday, my noble friend Lord Rooker gave an example in the legislation where we will be able to do things by order. I have not got that at the forefront of my mind, but I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and to Members of the Committee: yes, we will do this carefully and constructively and we will work with all the relevant stakeholders who are discussing those sorts of details with us now. As I said yesterday, we want to make this work with good will. Because we have a lengthy run-in period, we can achieve that, which is in everyone's interests.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to press this, but it is very important. If, for example, in the dry run, it was found that transactions of a certain type generally did not react constructively to the pack, in current legislation I do not think that there is anything that would allow the Government to say, "Fine, we are going to exclude that class of transactions from the compulsion".
The Government would not lose anything in conceding that parts of the Bill, such as the one on the basis of which these amendments are brought forward, could have within it the power of the Minister to make the provisions compulsory or not. At present, there is not that leeway. I am not asking for an answer now. But, because this has emerged as being really important, I am asking for the Government kindly to look at the whole of the dry run, which, in a sense, is the sort of pilot that we were talking about last night, and build into the legislation enough leeway so that if their expectations are not fulfilled by the dry run we are not trapped into having to come back to Parliament to change the legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes perfectly reasonable points. To recap: the scale will be national, there will be a six-month minimum period and of course we will learn from it. We have the power to make regulations to exclude different types of property and different components. If the noble Lord is looking for the authority for that he will find it in Clauses 143 and 144. I am reminded that it was not so long ago that we produced the home information pack consultation paper. There are few surprises in this debate because much of the content and thinking behind it is contained in that document.

1071
We have ample time to refine it further. The way in which we have set out the legislation provides us with the flexibility that the noble Lord seeks. This is where trust, good will and working together with the stakeholders can deal with some of the problems that perhaps the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, see as intractable.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am aware that we have spent about an hour on the first two groups of amendments. In introducing this amendment I deliberately did not repeat all the arguments from yesterday. I hope that I speak for my noble friend Lady Maddock—the noble Baroness can speak for herself—in saying that we do not need to have the Government's arguments repeated. New points are always welcome. We have got the message. We disagree on the matter. That is why I carefully did not repeat the arguments but used the amendment as a basis to ask a question on which my noble friend has built.
I still do not understand how a dry run will do anything much to assist knowledge if the arguments that the Government have been advancing about the need for compulsion apply. It seems contradictory, but I shall not pursue the matter now. We will pursue it later. So much of the Government's proposals are based on their understanding—as our arguments are based on ours—of the experience of different groups of people with different experiences of sales, properties and so on.
It would be extremely helpful if the Government could give us a list of all the survey work they have carried out so that we can consider whether they have hard evidence about what will happen to small estate agents—or what will happen to elderly people, perhaps someone having to move into a residential home, whose experience will be completely different from a young family moving to a bigger house. There are so many different aspects.
I hope that that will enable us to answer some of our questions. It would be extremely helpful to know what survey work has been undertaken. I am not sure that the Minister will be able to comment: perhaps he will do so later today. I leave that point with him and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 185 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 185ZA:
Page 95, line 1, leave out "to" and insert "where the responsible person is"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 185A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 185B:
Page 95, line 7, at end insert "; and
( ) the seller markets the property himself"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment proposes that an individual who markets a property himself, not through an estate agent, is not required to have a home
1072
information pack. There may be an argument about provisions applying to estate agents selling in the course of business. We have said already that we are interested in protecting consumers, but it is not at all obvious that a seller wishing to undertake the sale himself should be as restricted in his ability to sell as the provisions would ensure.
Most DIY home sellers, unless they have a background in conveyancing, would not have the expertise to assemble a pack. Sellers are consumers as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned technological advances. As a consumer or seller I might want to take advantage of what is available over the Internet. Information in the field of domestic property is now refined to make it as straightforward as possible for land registration and so on.
I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Government, who talk about choice, to provide that a DIY seller would not have a choice. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: It would be a great pity if the Committee accepted the amendment. It would make a large hole in the proposals in Part 5. It has been said both by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that a seller is a consumer as well as the buyer. When one normally thinks of consumer protection one thinks of the buyer and protection for the buyer vis-a-vis the seller. First-time buyers, an important group of purchasers of houses, they are buyers only.
This part of the Bill gives added protection, not only to first-time but to other buyers, so that above all when they make an offer they do so on the basis of intelligible and comprehensive information and knowledge about the property. That is the basis of having this material available from the moment of marketing as we have repeatedly debated on this part of the Bill.
In a chain there are chains of buyers and sellers One of the sellers may be selling their house without a professional estate agent. We have said many times that a chain is a most important consideration under this part of the Bill. There are many reasons why someone would wish to sell his property without an estate agent. It may be to save the commission; it may be someone with time on their hands to show people around the property and so on. Why should the element of purchaser protection, which I want to emphasise, be lost just because the seller or one of the sellers in a chain is selling privately and not through an estate agent?
Of course the assembly of much of the information may require more professional expertise than even the most bold vendor may have; yet we all know that people do their own conveyancing, selling and acting as an estate agent.
The additional requirement under Part 5—which has to be provided up-front instead of later on—is to have available a home information pack at the time of marketing. That is most important. It would be a pity if it was not required on all occasions. The attempts of the other side to make this a voluntary practice have

1073
been discussed. The amendment is another way of trying to reduce the effectiveness of Part 5 by saying, "It should apply only to those in the profession of estate agent". I think buyer and customer consumer protection would be severely limited if the amendment were accepted.
Baroness Hanham: Does the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, agree that the only part of the pack which would not have been required anyway in the normal course of events is the home condition report? As far as I am aware, the purchaser has had the choice of whether to obtain a survey. It is now being suggested that the purchaser should not have that choice—the decision is being foisted upon them by the Government. The Government are saying to them, "You are stupid not to get a survey. You must go ahead and have a survey, which will come with the home condition report in the pack". That is the first issue.
Secondly, the only time that I have come across a chain for purchase was when my daughter was buying a flat quite recently. What caused the trouble in the chain was the valuation of property further up, where people were negotiating to bring prices down and pressure was being brought to bear. That may or may not have been to do with a survey result, but I suspect that it was far more to do with how much money people further up the chain at the highest levels could obtain before pressure was put on to get the prices down.
This is a hugely bureaucratic system to provide a survey of a property on which purchasers may very well not rely anyway. There will be a whole caboodle of measures, including policing, to get people to do something they may not have wanted to do originally.
Lord Borrie: The noble Baroness has raised many wide questions, including whether or not a purchaser will rely on the survey. We have not yet discussed that and it is not my role to try to answer all those questions.
The aim of this part of the Bill, and the compulsory element of it, is to change the culture of the past where a vendor will market a property and put it up for sale without any indication of what it is like. Buyers are expected to produce an offer and, if they are going to compete with other buyers, as they do, to do so as soon as possible without having any idea about a whole range of issues that are fundamentally important if the matter is eventually to go through. This change of culture is wholly desirable.
Turning to the amendment, it would be a great pity if the requirement applied only when a property was put on the market by a professionally qualified estate agent.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have never felt less in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for whom I hold an ancient and deep regard. He speaks like a bureaucrat to his back teeth. If we are to change the
1074
culture—and we are changing the culture—this is a bureaucratic juggernaut to crush a handful of individuals who sell their own properties.
The noble Lord referred to a large number of individuals selling their own properties whereas it is a tiny number. We really should be able to accommodate the odd eccentric individual who does this. I suggest that self-interest will make the number extremely small.
We put up with individuals doing their own conveyancing. If the noble Lord and the Government want to be consistent with this bureaucratic theme, we had better put an amendment in the Bill which prevents people doing their own conveyancing. Believe me, that gums up the works and prevents the smooth-flowing, swift, transactional perfection that the Bill is supposed to bring about. So do that.
We allow people to go into courts and advocate for themselves. They gum up the works; they cause a frightful delay; they are a mess and a muddle. Stop it. We should not allow these individuals to get in the way of the perfect bureaucratic state.
I feel very strongly about this point. I urge the Government not to listen to the siren song of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The amendment will affect a tiny number of cases and we should be prepared to accommodate them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask a completely different question and slightly lower the temperature of my noble friend's torrent of vitriol against the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, if that is not too strong a word.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is too strong.
Lord Avebury: I simply want to ask what happens in the cases of individuals who, as my noble friend says, choose to market their property through the Internet and the role of the webmaster is simply to place the details of the property on a site and not to do anything else in connection with the sale, such as, as my noble friend mentioned, the conveyancing.
If an individual simply wishes to use a common website because that is where potential buyers, the purchasers, would normally look—and therefore it is a good place to show your wares—and undertakes the rest of the transaction himself, is the webmaster of that site a responsible person within the meaning of the Bill; or does he incur any other liabilities under the Bill simply by reason of the fact that he places the details of that property on his site?
Lord Borrie: I am sure my noble friend the Minister will answer that more adequately than I can. I would have thought that the webmaster was not an estate agent and that the vendor was retaining his own responsibility for marketing the property.
I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, give the example—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—of more and more people putting their properties for sale on the net in this way.

1075
It only goes to show that his noble friend Lord Phillips, who asked me vitriolic questions a moment ago, may be understating the case when he says that only a "tiny number" of people sell their own properties. I suggest that it is probably not a tiny number and that in future, because of the net, it may well increase.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think I am entering into some kind of private grief in this debate. I would not describe it as vitriolic, but it has certainly been illuminating.
To go back to where we should be and to consider the amendment and its effect, my noble friend Lord Borrie is right: this is another way of trying to develop a two-tier approach. The amendment seeks to put sellers who are selling direct, without going through an agent, in a different position. Clause 135 provides that the seller becomes responsible for marketing the property when he or she puts the property on the market or makes public the fact that the property is on the market. Clause 137 provides that a seller, while responsible for marketing a property, is not himself subject to the duty to have a home information pack if he employs an estate agent to market the property on his behalf and he believes on reasonable grounds that his agent has a home information pack.
That enables sellers to rely on their agents to meet the home information pack obligations. It avoids unnecessary duplication and expense and minimises the direct impact on sellers.
I should pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. He said that we were depriving a minority—"a tiny number" was, I think, the expression he used—of direct sellers of the opportunity of going to market without the encumbrance, as he sees it, of the home information pack. Around 95 per cent of homes are marketed by estate agents, so that leaves 5 per cent. I am not a brilliant mathematician but, if we are saying that something like 8,000 properties go to market a day—that is the figure I am most familiar with; some 40,000 a week—that means that 400 sellers a day go out to the market direct. I would not describe that as a tiny number. It is a tiny percentage, but it is a significant number during the course of a year. I dispute the claim that it is a tiny number.
In the vast majority of cases, of course, the home information pack duty will fall to the estate agent, but if the amendment were to be agreed, people would be tempted to see it as a form of loophole and it could increase significantly the number of direct sellers if they thought that it would give them some form of market advantage. The amendment would create another form of a two-tier system, where private sellers could market without packs, but those who use an estate agency would not have that facility. That would create uncertainty in the market and risk undoing the main benefits in the new system. In a chain of transactions, delays and problems with homes marketed by sellers without packs would cancel out the benefits of packs provided by estate agents for the homes that they were marketing. That would be a highly unsatisfactory outcome.
1076
As we said earlier, all sellers stand to gain from a more efficient and effective system where there is less waste and fewer transaction failures. The number of transaction failures is not insignificant. It is thought that a transaction failure takes place in 30 per cent of cases where a property goes to market. That suggests that there is a lot of scope for wasted expenditure.
We are trying to create a better and more effective market—a market that is well informed and works well. The amendment does not provide sufficient protection for the market and I dispute the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the numbers involved are tiny and insignificant. We would not be persecuting direct sellers. We are tying to provide for a better and more effective universal system. It is right that there should be a level playing field. We cannot accept the amendment for those reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what would happen to people who market via the Internet and whether the webmaster would be an estate agent. "Estate agent" is defined in Clause 132 of the Bill. I doubt whether many webmasters would fulfil that definition. However, it is possible for Internet estate agents to exist. I agree with the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Borrie of where the liability rests.
The amendment has allowed us to expand a little more on the benefits of the new system. I cannot accept that we would be persecuting those who wanted to sell direct.
Lord Avebury: I looked at the definition of "estate agent" in Clause 132(1) to which the Minister referred. It states:
"A person acts as estate agent for the seller of a residential property if he does anything, in the course of a business in England and Wales, in pursuance of marketing instructions from the seller".
If the owner of a property instructs the webmaster to put it on the website, is that not in pursuance of marketing instructions? I am not quite so certain that the definition has the meaning which the Minister has ascribed to it. I would sooner he took advice on it from those who are familiar with these matters than give me an off-the-cuff answer in Committee.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to take further advice. I have had some advice. In that situation, the webmaster is probably operating in the same way as a newspaper or broadsheet. That takes us back to the question of who is the vendor. It is not the webmaster.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister mentioned the figure of 5 per cent. I took that to mean 5 per cent of properties marketed. My strong impression is that the majority of people who try to sell their houses themselves are not successful and they eventually end up with estate agents. If the amendment were not accepted, all would-be direct sellers would be driven into the estate agency market. The Government may think that is a good thing; I think that it has an impact on people's choice and freedom.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment has certainly taken us into unexpected areas. The noble Baroness,

1077
Lady Hanham, has quite understandably anticipated some amendments that will come later. In identifying that the only novel item in the home information pack is the house condition survey, she rightly reminded us that the survey will not necessarily be adequate for lenders and that not everyone now chooses to have one. I suspect that it is often people whose finances are on a knife edge in making a purchase who take the calculated risk of not having a survey carried out. The Government are seeking uniformity, but what they are proposing contains a strong element of nannying.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie—the siren, whom I shall now think of as Lorelei—said that when one talks of consumers, one normally thinks of purchasers. I agree with that in a commercial context, where the seller is selling a number of similar or identical items. It is not the case here. I am not sure whether the noble Lord made the same point, but I shall clarify our position. In proposing the amendment, we are not suggesting that one DIY seller in a chain would exempt others in the chain producing home information packs. We shall certainly come back to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 185C not moved.]
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 138 [Duty to provide copy of home information pack on request]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 185D:
Page 95, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) A seller or responsible person acting on the instructions of the seller may decline to provide a potential buyer with a home information pack until such time as an offer for the purchase of the property has been accepted by the seller."
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 189A has been grouped with this amendment. I do not think that it bears any relation to Amendment No. 185D so I shall degroup it. I shall come back to it as a separate amendment.
Amendment No. 185D is a simple amendment. When discussing an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to people who come along "shopping for particulars". They look at a vast number of houses before they narrow down their search. If each of them wants a home information pack, a huge amount of extra paperwork and wasted time will be involved in preparing those packs. The packs are not going to be insubstantial documents.
Members of the Committee will know that I pointed out at Second Reading that an Office of Fair Trading report noted that in Denmark, which the Government think offers such a good comparison that it has to be used in their arguments, the home information pack now goes up to 800 pages. There will be a lovely lot of people carrying around 800 pages. But do they have to carry around 800 pages? If somebody comes to me and asks for a home information pack and I know that person is not going to buy the house because he has looked at five other properties and has yet to buy anything, can I say to him, "No, I am not going to give
1078
you a home information pack. You can look it up on the web". Does that satisfy the requirement for providing a home information pack? Or do I have to give him the 800 pages of material that he is never going to read and then throw away? How many more trees will have to be cut down to satisfy this demand?
6.30 p.m.
As a result of the present Bill, there will be a huge amount of abortive costs. I probed the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, earlier, on whether he thought there would be such costs in the future. He backtracked a little from what I believe he said earlier, and said "We're not quite certain. We can't quantify it". I can tell him that there are a great many abortive costs in any housing market; even in the Scottish system, where they are going to have voluntary packs. If I put an offer in for a house in Scotland and it is accepted, that offer—in the vast majority of cases—becomes binding. Therefore, if, say, 20 people all want a house, there will be 20 surveys, only one of which will be part of an accepted bid. That means abortive costs for 19 other people. It does not matter which market we look at: New South Wales, Denmark, Germany or America. To proclaim that there will be no such costs, or that they will be any different from the alleged £350 million at present, is a misrepresentation of the true situation.
This amendment is designed to save abortive costs, and to allow the seller or the agent acting on behalf of the seller—to say "I've got a home information pack, but you can't have it. You come forward with your offer, and if it's accepted, I'll give you the pack". I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I think it is a very good idea, as the noble Earl has said, for home information packs to be provided on the web. It is not absolutely clear to me, from the way the Bill is worded, whether that would discharge the duty to make the pack available. If vendors did not wish their HIPs to be generally available to the public at large, they could make the information on the web password-protected, so anyone going to the estate agent and expressing an interest in a property would be given the necessary password, and would then have access to the pack. If the Bill allows information to be provided in that way, I warmly welcome it, because that would cut down unnecessary information and encourage estate agents to be more web-friendly than they are at the moment. I know most of them are already fully alive to the benefits of electronic marketing, but if it were made clear on the Bill, which at the moment it is not, that displaying the pack on the web would discharge the duty to provide the same, it would be extremely welcome.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I could remind your Lordships of what the Bill actually does, before I make my points on why we cannot accept this particular amendment. The Bill places two main duties on those responsible for marketing property. The first duty, in Clause 137, is to have a home information

1079
pack in their possession while the property is on the market. The second duty, in Clause 138, is to provide a copy of the pack to a potential buyer who asks for it. As most of your Lordships now probably understand, that is a qualified duty, and subsection (4) of Clause 138 sets out circumstances where no copy has to be provided. Essentially this is where there is no prospect of the property being sold to the person making the request.
The effect of the amendment would be, as the noble Earl accurately described it, to convince sellers, although they have a home information pack in their possession, to refuse to provide a copy of it, even to a genuine potential buyer. The noble Earl expressed it very well—in short, the colour of the person's money should be shown before he gets access to the HIP. We cannot accept that. It is, after all, the primary purpose of the pack to enable buyers to reach a well informed decision on the most significant purchase they will make. As far as we are concerned, this amendment would completely undermine that purpose, and for that reason I cannot accept it. I invite Members of the Committee to reject the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Could the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, answer my question, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? If somebody comes into my office and says that they wish to have a home information pack, can I refer them to the one on our website, instead of having to give them paper?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer is "yes", if the potential purchaser is happy to receive a copy in that form. I think that is provided for at subsection (10) of Clause 138.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful for that clarification. So, I do not have to give a home information pack to anybody—I can say that our pack is on the Web, and one can look at it there. I need one office copy, full stop.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I did not say that.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened very carefully to exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said. The noble Lord referred me to subsection (10) of Clause 138. I am fulfilling the duty to have a home information pack by having it in my office. If a purchaser comes in and wants to see it, I can now say to him, "Yes, you can see it. It's on the website". Is that correct?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It would certainly satisfy the requirement if the potential buyer is happy to receive it in that form. If he is not, I suggest that the agent would have to provide it in another form—that is, a hard copy.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for that clarification. I come back to the original point: this is going to lead to a lot of wasted time and bureaucracy. I know of potential purchasers in the market now who
1080
will happily spend their Saturdays visiting estate agents—most of whom do work on Saturdays, so theirs is at least a six-day week saying they want home information packs just for the fun of it. They already do just that with sets of particulars. That will add to the unnecessary cost and bureaucracy that this Bill will produce. The more we look at the Bill, the clearer it is that it is a mess, which will not help the housing market.
Lord Borrie: If the person who has asked for the report is not genuinely interested in buying the property, the agent does not have to give him a copy of the pack.
The Earl of Caithness: They will all say they are genuinely interested now. I will be able to say to them, "I remember Lord Borrie saying that I don't have to give it to you, because he said so in debate and it's in the Bill", and they will say "I'm going to take you to court. I am genuinely interested. You prove that I'm not". Therefore, in order to save all that kerfuffle, I will inevitably have to have lots of copies of the home condition report—which, in Denmark, would be 800 pages—ready and available. If the property is particularly attractive, we could attract a huge amount of interest: tens of inquiries in a day. That means producing a report for every potential person asking about the property, which is an added cost, extra bureaucracy, and a waste of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): If Amendment No. 188 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 188A for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 95, line 24, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: Here we continue with our recent debate. Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 138 are among the most curious in Bills currently going through Parliament. Subsection (4) places an onus on the agent to possess such extraordinary powers of wit and intelligence that, frankly, such people should not be estate agents but secret agents working for MI6.
We have already discussed at length the fact that estate agents do not at present have to fulfil any professional qualifications or requirements. Anyone can become an estate agent. However, this subsection calls for an estate agent who can estimate another person's wealth from the moment they step into the shop, who can tell a con man from any other member of the public, and—most bizarrely—can tell whether a potential buyer will not be approved by the seller.
I look forward to the Minister's response to this amendment because, as it stands, this is an example of over-legislation—an argument that could apply to many other points we have discussed today. Subsection (4)(a) seems to assume that an estate agent

1081
would have detailed knowledge of a person's means to buy property. I grant that certain customers may well be known to an estate agent as people who have difficulty in raising finance—a point just touched on by my noble friend Lord Caithness. It may be that their income is uncertain or that they have to self-certify their income if they are self-employed. However, it would be a mistake to legislate so that an estate agent is given discretion to pass up a sale simply because he suspects that a prospective buyer cannot afford a property. We all know what lenders are willing to underwrite in debt changes almost on a daily basis. To that end, it will be almost impossible for an estate agent to gauge whether a prospective buyer is solvent.
Subsection (4)(c) is even more anomalous. In Committee in another place the Minister was able to pluck out of thin air a hypothetical example to illustrate when this paragraph could be used. He suggested that if a seller has told his agent that he wants only prospective buyers who are keen gardeners to receive a home information pack, this paragraph would apply. We do not need to legislate for this. Surely once a vendor has met and shown a prospective buyer the property, if he feels that his herbaceous borders might fall into the wrong hands, he has no obligation to accept an offer made by such a non-green-fingered buyer. This is silly legislation and let us please get rid of it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We tabled Amendment No. 188A which is also in this group. It also seeks to persuade the Government to explain just how people to whom the seller is not likely to be keen to sell the property are to be identified. I am sure that the Government are satisfied that the provision does not provide the possibility of a get-out by leaving it wholly as a matter for the judgment of the vendor or the agent, but how will that be dealt with on an objective basis? How will it be enforced? The whole provision seems very curious.
Quite apart from that, how is the question of confidentiality in respect of the home condition report and other documents to be dealt with? I have been told by the Law Society that details, for example, of burglar alarm systems are normally provided before exchange. I assume that that is not the sort of thing that would have to be included, but perhaps the Government will take this opportunity to expand on both points.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: On this occasion I rise to speak in favour of the Government's position. Members on these Benches have said broadly that we are not happy with many aspects of the home information packs. The system is not flexible enough and we do not like the element of universal compulsion. However, this is an attempt on the part of the Government to provide some leeway. While I agree absolutely with the noble Lord who has moved the amendment and my noble friend that the language of subsection (4) is loose and rubbery, I am grateful for small mercies.
1082
I think that there will be occasions when someone seeks to buy a £1 million property, but the estate agent asks: "How are your finances? Are you dependent on a mortgage?". If the response is, "Yes, we will need a 100 per cent mortgage", and the buyer's occupation is that of a capstan lathe turner, the agent might reasonably deduce that the property was a little beyond the buyer's ambition.
Similarly, from time to time you can take a powerful dislike to someone else for reasons you think are good. They may be familial or business reasons. Alternatively you may think that someone is a crook and has done harm to your family. Given that, why on earth should you not be allowed to say, "Whoever else I sell my property to, it will not be John Smith"? As long as the decision is not unlawfully discriminatory, why should one not do that?
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response, but for my part I accept the provision because it makes a modest inroad into what is otherwise too compulsory, universal and inflexible a scheme.
Baroness Hamwee: I rise to respond briefly to my noble friend. As a careful lawyer, I am sure that he and I would both want to ensure that something which he and I think is right does not cause trouble. The paragraph must be drafted in a way that would achieve the end we both want to see.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I agree with that, but on the other hand my noble friend may agree with me that it is unlikely that a person would take someone to law on this paragraph unless it was plainly an "in-your-face" rejection made without any reasonable grounds. However, perhaps I am becoming too optimistic at this point in the debate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is always nice to be surprised when speaking at the Dispatch Box. The speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has been a very pleasant surprise indeed. It almost makes me wish that I had been old enough, back in 1970, to vote for him. I used to live in the area where the noble Lord stood for election. However, that is wishful thinking on my part.
What we are trying to do here is to enable potential buyers to be entitled to have a copy of the pack or part of the pack if they want it and are prepared to pay any reasonable fee for the copying costs, and Clause 138 provides for this. Potential buyers will often want to show a copy to their legal representative, for example, or look at the contents at their leisure. That is fair enough, but we can foresee situations in which the seller or his agent should be able to turn down such requests for copies without breaching the home information pack obligations. As I pointed out earlier, subsection (4) of this clause sets out the three possible circumstances when the duty to supply a pack may not apply.
The first of these circumstances is when the seller or his agent believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person could not afford the property in question. The agent might know the financial circumstances of the

1083
person in question, for example. The seller may also want to exclude people who could not demonstrate that they had arranged "in principle" a mortgage offer.
The second circumstance applies if it is believed that the person making the request is not really interested in buying the property or one like it. An example of this might be where a journalist poses as a buyer to gain access to the home information pack relating to a celebrity's home. Another example is that of a serial time-waster who is known to the estate agent.
The third reason allows someone not to provide a copy of the pack if they believe that the potential buyer is not a person to whom the seller would wish to sell the property. There could be all sorts of caveats which a seller might want to attach to the sale of the property. For example, a seller with a prize-winning garden has already been mentioned. He might instruct the agent not to market to anyone who was not a keen gardener and who might neglect the garden.
There are human rights implications here as regards the right to privacy. This subsection simply reflects the current position, where someone can simply refuse to sell his home to a particular person if he wishes to do so, and for no particularly good reason. Having said that, the provision does not affect anyone's rights under the legislation governing discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or disability. In no way can this provision be used to contravene that legislation.
Subsection (5) provides that subsection (4) does not apply if the responsible person knows or suspects that the person making the request is an officer of an enforcement authority. These provisions in our view strike a reasonable balance between the need, on the one hand, for genuine buyers to get copies of important documents and, on the other, for sellers or their agents to refuse this where they believe that there are good grounds to do so.
Amendment No. 188A would remove the right for a seller or their agent to refuse to supply a pack if they believe that the person asking for copies was not someone to whom the seller was prepared to sell the property. While we can understand the sentiment behind the amendment, I believe that the concerns which have been expressed about it are misplaced. The existing legal position is of course being preserved. A seller can choose to whom they wish to sell and to whom they do not. It would be unreasonable to put a seller under a duty to provide copies of the pack to people they know they will never sell to. For those reasons we cannot accept either of the amendments. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for setting out some very good arguments in support of our case.
Lord Hanningfield: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, gave the Government some little measure of comfort when speaking to these amendments. He also agreed that the wording of the clauses, which concerned us more than anything, can be very much misinterpreted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there might be some legal challenge to them.
1084
This is the problem with this section of the Bill. When looking for a new house most people want to look at about 50 houses. If I were looking I would want to look at between 50 and 100 houses. One would want information about 100 houses because one would want to visit in a wide area. Most of the people I know looking for a new house look at that number before buying. Because they go to an estate agent and ask for details of 20 houses over a period of two or three weeks does not mean that they are not seriously in the market. But as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, it means an enormous amount of paperwork in the future because one cannot just get the simple detail of a house and look at it and then dismiss it, because one has to have a pack.
Therefore, I believe that these clauses would mitigate against buyers who want to put a lot of effort and thought into the new home. It is about the freedom of the consumer. We have had several discussions about that today. People will finish up with a large number of packs when choosing a new home. I believe that although the clauses are protection fir some people, they are written in a way which can deter and work against the purchase. We shall have all these arguments again at Report, which will take another month at the rate we are progressing at the moment. I shall not pursue this amendment any further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188A not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 188B:
Page 95, line 36, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"(6) That duty does not apply where the responsible person is the seller if, when the request is made, the duty under section 137 does not (by virtue of subsection (2) of that section) apply to him.
(6A) But where the duty under this section is excluded by subsection (6), it is the duty of the seller to take reasonable steps to inform the potential buyer that the request should be made to the other person."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 96, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) All documents and information contained in the home information pack shall be confidential to—

(a) the seller,

(b) the person acting on his behalf as an estate agent,

(c) a person acting on his behalf as a solicitor or conveyancer, and

(d) any bona fide buyer or potential buyer."

The noble Baroness said: We had quite a lot of discussion about Internet packs, but we have not discussed how confidential information packs should be and to whom, particularly to those who are on the net. It is very easy to publicise on the net. This amendment is designed particularly to ensure that a degree of privacy is maintained between the various parties in a property transaction.
Clearly, confidentiality is easy to administer when dealing with paper-based documentation, and I shall come back to that. By and large, people respect the

1085
word "Confidential" written across the top of a page. But without getting too bogged down in the intricacies and complexities of Internet protocols and security, if a home information pack were to be sent via an e-mail, by and large it would be secure. It will meet the recipient without falling into the public domain.
However, if a home information pack were to be posted on an estate agent's website, it would be publicly accessible and it could be misused. Will these information packs be confidential to those who are given them? It goes back to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, raised a minute ago about the number of packs which people are likely to obtain.
Unusually, in these packs there is a home condition report and, unusually, therefore, there is going to a large amount of information about a particular property if the pack is done properly. Potentially, a great number of people are going to have access to that information and pass it from hand to hand, if that is what they want to do. I suspect that if someone receives a home information pack and then decides not to proceed they will pass it to someone else. There will come a moment when an estate agent will not know who has its information pack.
We need to look at the extent of the role of the information pack and whether there is to be any privacy, particularly on the Internet, to which I have directed the amendment. It is wide enough to encompass the information packs in general. As I say, I believe that there is a potential problem here where there will be a great deal of information available about a property to people who may not have interests which are wholly worthy. I wonder whether we can do something about that. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In our view this is a valuable amendment because it raises the important issue of confidentiality. We certainly recognise that there are circumstances where a seller would not want information about their property disclosed to people outside the home buying and selling process. I gave one example earlier of the celebrity who might simply see it as a ruse by a journalist to find out more about the home and its contents.
Generally speaking, there is unlikely to be anything in the home information pack which could cause problems if disclosed to parties other than those directly involved in the transaction. That is a generality.
Clause 144 restricts the contents of the pack to information about the property. Information of a personal nature about the seller could not be prescribed for inclusion in the pack. Also, the information contained in the home condition report will relate specifically to the condition of the property and its energy efficiency. It will not contain sensitive or personal information, for example, about security arrangements or even about the way the property is furnished or decorated.
1086
Even so, there could be cases where information in the pack might be obtained and used for purposes that have nothing to do with the sale or purchase of the property and circumstances where the information might be used in a way which offends the seller. Two examples which spring to mind are those where a double glazing salesman obtains home condition reports for the purposes of identifying potential business opportunities and then bombards those properties with sales literature. Even more intrusive would be the example of the public figure I gave earlier.
These are serious issues and we need to ensure that the Bill addresses them and complies with human rights legislation. I believe that the Bill does that. Clause 139 enables any person who has any concern about the use to which any information would be put to impose certain conditions. If they wanted to restrict the category of person to whom the information could be disclosed to those set out in the amendment they could do so.
As I said earlier, Clause 138(4) ensures that sellers and their agents do not have to give copies of the pack, or any document in it, to someone who is not genuinely interested in buying the property or someone to whom the seller would not be prepared to sell the property.
It is worth mentioning in passing that the seller or agent would always have up to 14 days to provide a copy of the pack. In circumstances where there was suspicion it would provide scope for some form of investigation as to whether the buyer is genuine. I am sure that most agents will use that time valuably.
The noble Baroness is right to focus on this serious issue. We believe that we have covered it in the way in which we have framed the legislation. It will be the subject of further discussion as we come closer to the implementation date. No doubt, where there are genuine and real concerns, matters can be further hammered out.
7 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Would it be possible for the person selling the house to provide that a copy of the home information pack should be issued only on loan and that once someone has decided not to proceed with a purchase, it should be returned? It seems to me that that is one way in which a person, who is worried about the dissemination of information about his house to third parties, could protect himself. He would know that anyone walking into an estate agency and obtaining a copy of the pack would have possession of it only for as long as he was seriously interested in the house and that he would have to return it at the end of that process, whether or not he proceeded with the purchase.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord asks a good question. I was going to reflect on it, but I am advised that that may be a condition that could be

1087
placed on the release of the pack. That appears to be a reasonable condition. I hope that helps the noble Lord.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for that. However, he did not address the issue of the Internet. I freely admit that I am not very clever about the Internet, but, listening to my noble friend Lord Caithness earlier, I understand that people can look at an estate agent's website. He asked whether it would be possible for an estate agent simply to say to someone, "The pack is on our website so you can look at it".
One problem about that is the security of that information and whether there is any basis for making that information private. I appreciate that these documents will never be totally private, but I believe that one must try to ensure that they do not get into the hands of the wrong people who will cause trouble for potential sellers.
There may come a time when a seller decides that he will not sell his house but many of the packs will still be roaming around. We then return to the issue of the double-glazing salesman and people ringing doorbells who should not be. We cannot ignore the point. I know that the Minister is briefing the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as we go along, for which I am grateful, so I shall be quiet and then perhaps the noble Lord can tell me what the Minister is saying.
Lord Avebury: When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised this point about the home information packs being on the Internet, I suggested that to maintain confidentiality, the site could be password-protected or a particular page could be password-protected. When someone applies for a home information pack he would be given the password and the information would be deleted from the site as soon as the sale had been made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker has helpfully told me that that is standard practice now. I am thinking hard. I have one or two friends who are estate agents and they have a similar system with password-access only. That is probably the key to the point raised by the noble Baroness, that an access provision will be provided. No doubt sellers will want that because they will not want miscellaneous information bouncing around and available to all and sundry. If a seller decides to take his house off the market, he would not want the information left on the estate agent's website. It may be that conditions are applied that ensure that the information is protected. That does not appear to be at all unreasonable.
Baroness Hanham: I am not sure why the Minister does not accept my amendment. In fact, he has done everything but accept it. I offer him the chance to accept the amendment before withdrawing it, with the possibility of returning to the matter again.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not accept the amendment. I have explained clearly why that is so. In
1088
essence, we believe that the concerns of the noble Baroness are quite right, but that the legislation provides the protection that is required.
Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I understand that Amendment No. 189A has been degrouped from Amendment No. 185D.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 96, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) At completion of the purchase, the buyer of a residential property shall reimburse to the seller or other responsible person who originally paid for the preparation of the pack the cost of the home information pack provided to them.
( ) The total cost exclusive of VAT or other statutory taxes is not to exceed 0.25% of the sale price of the subject property excluding any apportionment for fixtures and fittings."
The noble Earl said: This is a simple amendment. At the moment, Prescott's penalty weighs heavily on every vendor. Every seller will be faced with considerable extra costs. In a good housing market a seller may sell his property quite quickly and the costs may not be too onerous, but in a slack housing market—as when I first set up an estate agency and it took a long time for properties to move—there will come a time when the agent, the home condition surveyor or inspector—he would not be a qualified surveyor and the solicitors will say, "Money please", to the vendor and the vendor, whether or not he has sold his property, will have to pay a large sum of money.
It seems to me that to balance Prescott's penalty, the purchaser should reimburse the vendor, on completion, with the vendor's costs, which are limited by subsection (2). That would make the sellers keen to proceed, as they will want to conclude a sale as quickly as possible and the purchaser will appreciate the commitment into which he has entered. I believe it is a fair and reasonable amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl has been very astute in seeing that the Bill is silent on the issue of how the costs of the pack will be met. That is deliberate on our part. It is clear to us from discussions with the industry that sellers will be able to choose from a wide range of options; for example, some mortgage lenders are likely to provide a free pack as an incentive to sellers to stay with them on to the next purchase. Some voluntary home information pack schemes currently run by estate agents provide a pack without an upfront charge. In some cases the cost is recouped via a commission fee, as one may expect. Alternatively, of course, sellers may choose to pay for packs themselves and seek to reflect the cost in the purchase price.

1089
Our view is that the market will provide consumers with many choices and the imposition of a statutory straitjacket, in our view, would be very unhelpful. That is not what we want. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips—if I may remind the Committee of his earlier argument—said that in certain circumstances it is desirable to have flexibility. We have provided for that. We believe that it would be wrong to impose that as an obligation on the buyer. We do not want to see the cost forced on to buyers. We believe that the market will sort this out. In those circumstances, how the cost of the pack will be met is open.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord is right about fees. The evidence in Denmark is exactly as he has said. In Denmark, since the introduction of the home information packs, the fees charged by agents have risen; they will also rise in this country. The amendment mitigates that fact by putting the onus on the purchaser. The whole of the onus at the moment is on the vendor. The vendor has to commission all the work upfront and it has to be paid for. No solicitor, no estate agent, no home condition inspector will do that for free. That is not the world in which we live.
It would be wrong of me to say that I shall withdraw the amendment and return to it at another stage. I am taking enough on to another stage and it is time to test the opinion of the Committee.
7.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 189A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Kingsland, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.[Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow.L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Noakes, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L. [Teller]

Norton of Louth, L.

Dundee,E.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Higgins, L.

Ullswater,V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Waddington, L.

Hogg, B.

Walpole, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kimball, L.

Windlesham, L.

1090

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lipsey, L.

Alli, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Lockwood, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Andrews, B.

McDonagh, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Avebury, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Barker, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Barnett, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Billingham, B.

McNally, L.

Borrie, L.

Maddock, B.

Brennan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Burlison, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Maxton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Neuberger, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Desai, L.

Parekh, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel, L.

Drayson, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rogan, L.

Filkin, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Roper, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goodhart, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Brookwood, L.

Sewel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Snape, L.

Haworth, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henig, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Triesman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Truscott, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Jacobs, L.

Walmsley, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Warner, L.

Jones, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Whitaker, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Layard, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.20 p.m.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Section 138: imposition of conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 191A not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 191B:
Page 96, line 24, leave out "Such"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 140 [Duty to ensure authenticity of documents in other situations]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B:
Page 96, line 42, after "be" insert "—
(a)"
Page 96, line 43, after first "or" insert—"
"(b) a copy of"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 96, line 44, after "duty" insert "to take all reasonable care"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment looks minor, but is intended to tighten up the language used in the clause. "Duty to ensure" is a particularly onerous duty to have, and a fairly unforgiving one. An estate agent can only reasonably be expected to rely on information and documentation given to him by other parties when putting together a pack, if indeed it is the estate agent who puts together the pack. An agent is under an obligation to do all that he can to get all the documentation correct, but he cannot be held responsible for errors that other professionals make.
We therefore propose that the insertion of,
"to take all reasonable care",
would adjust the clause so that its meaning was clear. An agent has to do all that he can, but ultimately errors in documents forming part of a pack have to be the responsibility of the original authors and originators of the information for the document itself. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is absolutely right. My Amendments Nos. 195ZA and 195ZB are rightly grouped with Amendment No. 193. It would be quite unwarranted for an agent or a seller—a private individual, should he be responsible for preparing the pack—to be liable for information that he has not compiled himself.
The home information pack will now be a weighty tome. As I said, in Denmark it is now 800 pages, and only a fraction of that relates to the work of the estate agent. Surely the estate agent is responsible under the Property Misdescriptions Act for the work that is properly that of an estate agent, but where the home information pack includes searches, the home condition report and items from the solicitor, there is no way that he can verify whether those are true. The estate agent should therefore not be the person at risk. I support my noble friend in her amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I can only add, in agreement with what has been said, a fact that may not be abundantly clear to everyone who looks at the clause. It will be in the gift of the seller how many agents he or she employs. The innocent agent, if I can call the person that—the agent who did not, for example, prepare the survey report—will have
1092
absolutely no say over the agent who did. It seems unfair that they will therefore be lumbered with the bad work of someone whom they had no choice in selecting and of which they were not aware because they did not do the survey.
Lord Rooker: Before I reply in detail, I want to take up a point that the noble Earl just made, because he again repeated something that he has said at least three or four times today. We had lots of correspondence following Second Reading—I accept that it was delayed—in the course of which I gave him information based on information from the chief executive of the Danish equivalent of the National Association of Estate Agents. It was that, in recent years, the home information pack in Denmark had grown to 210 pages. Why the noble Earl keeps multiplying that by four, I do not know.
The figure is not 800 pages, but the noble Earl has given that figure three or four times, notwithstanding the fact that our own consultation paper published 15 months ago gave an example of the home information pack that ran to about 100 pages, 20 of which would be the home condition report. We are not even at the Danish levels, which are a quarter of what the noble Earl has said.
The Earl of Caithness: As I said earlier, the figures that I am using are in direct quotation from the OFT's report on estate agents, in the international comparison section.
Lord Rooker: Okay—I am correcting the OFT then. I gave the noble Earl the figure of 210 pages, in writing. He did not have to use the OFT's information; he could have used that of the chief executive of the Danish estate agents. He has chosen to use a figure that is greater, from this country rather than from the Danes. I assume that the Danes probably know more accurately than the OFT the level of their pack.
We can come back to the issue. As I said, the British equivalent in our consultation paper runs to about 100 sheets—I have not counted exactly—including the 20 pages of the home condition report. They are all there for anyone to see. It was published in March last year, so there should be no surprise about that for anyone outside the House or inside it. I do not have to accept whether Denmark's figure is 800 pages or 200; ours will not be like that. In any case, however great the pack is, everything in it already takes place. All that we are doing is bringing the information upfront. It does not matter whether the figure is 100 pages or 500; the information comes from what takes place now, with the sole addition of the home condition report, which will run to about 20 pages.
I shall return to Amendment No. 193. I thank the noble Baroness for it, because I hope that it enables me to give a satisfactory explanation. In order for the packs to have any value, the information has to be authentic and accurate. However, it is not necessary to import the additional words into the clause. The trading standards officer would not serve a penalty charge notice on someone who had taken care to

1093
ensure the authenticity of the content of the pack; it would certainly be most unreasonable to do so. We can put that on record now.
The Bill is long and I do not expect Opposition Members to have read every detail of it; I have not done so myself, which is why I take advice. In fact, there is already a provision in the Bill that makes what I have said clear. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 7, which is on page 207, provides that there are grounds of appeal against the service of a penalty charge if,
"in the circumstances of the case it was inappropriate for a … notice to be given to the recipient".
That could usefully be covered in guidance to trading standards officers on enforcing home information pack duties. We will raise the matter with the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services.
In respect of Amendment No. 195ZA, it is unnecessary to put those words into the Bill. The trading standards officer would not serve a penalty charge notice on someone who has taken that care.
Amendment No. 195ZB would absolve an estate agent from any responsibility for ensuring the authenticity of the documents in the pack where these have been provided by the seller or a separate company not associated with the estate agent's own business. Acceptance of the amendment would undermine one of the principles of the Bill. Under this, the responsible person—whether that is the seller himself or the estate agent employed by him—is responsible for ensuring that a pack is in place when marketing begins and that that pack meets the requirements of the legislation. If the amendment were accepted, an estate agent who knew for certain that a particular document was not authentic would nevertheless be quite free to hand it over to potential buyers. I do not believe that anyone—the noble Earl or anyone else—would accept that as being right.
We are happy to put on the record that we would regard it as most unlikely that an estate agent who relies on the authenticity of documents supplied from a reliable source will be in breach of any duty to ensure authenticity. I ask the Committee to remember that an estate agent is not taking on legal liability for the documents in the pack. I repeat that the estate agent does not take on legal liability for any of the documents in the pack.
The home inspector is responsible for the home condition report. The local authority is responsible for any local searches. Any redress sought by anyone for problems with documents within the pack is against the person who produced the document. The responsible person needs to be careful that the documents are genuine. I hope that that answers the questions. Some detail is buried deep in the schedules, but that meets the point of the main amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is helpful and it takes us forward.
Baroness Hanham: I, too, thank the Minister for that explanation. It was extremely helpful and it is good to have it on the record. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 193ZA:
Page 97, line 10, leave out "in response to a request" and insert "in pursuance of the duty"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the House be again in Committee not before 8.32 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Mineworkers' Compensation
7.32 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to speed up payment of compensation for mineworkers and former mineworkers who suffer from bronchitis and emphysema and to control the legal fees associated with such claims.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lady Morgan of Drefelin has chosen this debate for her maiden speech. Indeed, I am indebted to her and I know that many miners will be, too.
It is over nine years since the British Coal disease legislation came under the control of a High Court judge and nearly six years since the miners won their case in the High Court. However, it is clear that this was a pyrrhic victory since thousands of elderly miners and widows continue to die without receiving their compensation. It is now time to take stock and to ask one question: is the High Court scheme being run for the benefit of the miners or the lawyers?
According to the Department of Trade and Industry, there are a total of 569,000 claims under the chest disease scheme. Of those claims, 320,000 now relate to deceased miners. Over the past six years, only 152,000 claims have been settled. I was appalled to learn that 417,000 claims are still outstanding and that they will take another 10 years or more to resolve. How many miners will still be alive by the time this shambolic process is finally concluded?
I well remember the suffering in the countryside as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. However, are there any farmers still waiting for their compensation from Her Majesty's Government? I would think not. The fact is that compensation in that case was prioritised and delivered with great speed. Why, therefore, must miners whose lungs have been destroyed through toil in the mines face another decade of waiting?
The commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the miners and widows has been honoured by the provision of more than £4 billion funding, without

1095
capping. I make no direct criticism today against Her Majesty's Government. When Mr Justice Turner first made the award, the Government immediately made £2 billion available and since they have doubled that. There is no direct criticism of them—it is levelled against the administration of the scheme and not least against the lawyers. Why is the compensation being paid out at a snail's pace?
That brings me to the lawyers. In the miners' litigation, fortunes have been made. However, that has not been good enough for some lawyers. Let me tell your Lordships about Mrs Gladys Leadbeater, an 80 year-old widow of the late Albert Leadbeater, a Yorkshire miner. Mrs Leadbeater's claim was dealt with and compensation and a couple of thousand pounds in legal fees were paid by the Department of Trade and Industry. However, lawyers promptly took £9,000 from Mrs Leadbeater calling it "success fees".
I have before me a letter to the Law Society from their son, Dr Gary Leadbeater. Dr Leadbeater pointed out that if he had acted like these lawyers, he would have been charged with professional misconduct and lost his professional registration, his job and his reputation. Dr Leadbeater recognised that the £9,000 has been repaid to his mother and that the Law Society has taken belated measures to secure compliance of solicitors. However, neither Dr Leadbeater nor I will allow this matter to rest. It should not be left to elderly miners' widows to ask lawyers to make repayments. The duty to pay the money back, together with interest, should rest upon the lawyers, with the Law Society undertaking compliance of this. Every lawyer in the UK who has taken money off miners and widows must be forced by the Law Society to repay their clients without further delay.
For my part, I cannot surpass Dr Leadbeater's eloquence in putting forward the case for the miners and their families. In the circumstance, I trust that noble Lords will bear with me while I read a short extract from his letter, in which he said:
"My father was an honourable and highly principled person whose sole aim was to ensure the happiness and welfare of his family. He, along with my mother and sister, was and are the most courageous and decent people I know, and as a family we strongly believe in being treated with decency and respect by others. That is perhaps why we feel so aggrieved about being deceived, and angry at knowing that many others in similar circumstances have been cheated by people ostensibly in positions of trust".
Dr Leadbeater goes on:
"Let us not forget what the Coalhealth Compensation Awards are all about. They are intended to bring some comfort and restitution to sick Coal Miners and their families, recognising their past suffering and their need to move on with their lives. The money was never intended to line the pockets and boost the bank balances of a small number of Solicitors Firms with questionable ethics and corrupt practices. These people have already been remunerated for their work, so why do they see fit to take more from the deserving? And why do they get away with it?"
The lawyers have had six years to deliver compensation provided by the Government to the miners and their widows. I ask this Chamber to send them a resounding message that we shall not stand by and allow this interminable process to continue for a further 10 years.
Is it not correct that at present Mr Justice Turner is forcefully expressing concern about the unacceptable delay in this process? And is it not correct that, in fact, miners and their widows and families are suffering because of the delay? I call upon this House to request the Government to set up a public inquiry into the inordinate delays and exorbitant legal costs and to report back to this Chamber with great urgency.
This is not a situation in which, if people do not speak up, the problem might go away. If all those hundreds and thousands of people—miners and their widows—have to wait 10 years before a settlement, can anyone honestly say how many of them will be alive? I suggest that the answer will be: very few. I hope that this House will take note tonight and advise the Government and whoever is responsible for the delays that the situation is unacceptable and that something must be done to stop it.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I address your Lordships' House for the first time. I would like to begin by offering my thanks to the staff of the House of Lords for their help and kindness since my introduction. With the large number of new Peers coming in, I know that I am one of many maiden speakers to offer my thanks, but I hope that that will not diminish the sincerity of my words incl my expression of gratitude for the enormous support and courtesy that I have received.
I learnt today that I am the youngest Baroness in your Lordships' House, and I feel particularly aware of the wealth of experience and wisdom around me. This engenders a great sense of humility in me as I stand here. But, since my introduction, I have been overwhelmed by the generosity and warmth of welcome from everyone and now, rather than feeling overawed, I am thoroughly proud and looking forward to making a strong and purposeful contribution to the work of your Lordships' House.
In preparing for my maiden speech, I have obviously taken a great deal of advice from my fellow Peers, and so it will come as no surprise that I plan to be brief. I aim to share with your Lordships a little more about my background and why I have chosen to contribute to this very important debate tonight.
I am the great-granddaughter of a south Wales miner. I have devoted much of my working life to the pursuance of social justice through the work of the voluntary sector and also the Labour Party, first campaigning for tenants' rights at Shelter, then for a national childcare strategy and then, throughout the 1990s, concentrating on health and patient advocacy. I spent some years at the National Asthma Campaign, where I had first-hand experience of the devastating impact of occupational lung disease.
For the past nine years. I have been chief executive of the breast cancer charity Breakthrough, which established the UK's first dedicated breast cancer research centre. Only last week, it launched a world-leading study into the genetics, environmental and

1097
lifestyle factors of breast cancer, which we hope will lead to the prevention of possibly in excess of 20,000 cases of breast cancer every year.
I have chosen to contribute to this debate for a number of reasons—most importantly because of my concern for the 17 million people living in the UK with chronic illness, the qualify oflife of a large proportion of whom can be deeply undermined with no prospect of cure and who are cared for by an NHS that many would agree is designed to support acute rather than chronic illness.
Most often, the causes of chronic disease are poorly understood and prevention is merely an aspiration. But that is not so in the case of occupational disease. So it is absolutely right and a matter of great importance that those of us in our community whose early death or suffering could have been prevented by the actions of their employer should be fairly and fully compensated. But that is no easy matter. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place said only last week:
"Nothing can bring back a sick miner's health or restore years lost to ill health, and no sum can be traded for the loss of good health".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/04; col. 958.]
I am concerned not to stray into the realms of controversy or, indeed, to overrun my time, and therefore I shall confine my remarks to a few more general points. I congratulate the Government on establishing the largest compensation scheme of its kind in the world. It is a courageous effort and one which I hope will benefit literally hundreds of thousands of families throughout the UK. Such a multi-billion pound scheme, paying out more than £1 million a day for respiratory illness alone, will inevitably have problems, and I am encouraged by the open and constructive approach that appears to have been adopted by the parties involved in trying to identify solutions for the benefit of the miners and their families.
Whether regarding the difficulties for miners exposed to surface-level dust, which is not currently covered by the scheme, or with regard to those who receive offers that amount to less than their solicitor's fee, or with regard to, say, the uncertainty about the treatment of miners with occupational asthma, much needs to be resolved.
But, most importantly, I believe that the overwhelming message from this debate should be that there is no time to waste in addressing these claims. Living with emphysema or chronic bronchitis can be a nightmare. In the daytime, your world can be the size of an armchair and your sleepless nights a time of breathless fear and isolation. A protracted compensation claim will do nothing to lend dignity and reassurance in such a situation. So I urge that everything should be done to reach a speedy resolution to the huge number of outstanding claims and prove wrong the worrying newspaper assertions that miners and their families will have to wait many years for this vital compensation. I thank noble Lords for their kind attention.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract on again securing a debate on this important issue. This is the third such debate he has secured since he came to this House in 1997. He first raised the issue with a Ten-Minute Rule Bill way back in 1982 to get chronic bronchitis and emphysema prescribed as an industrial disease. He went on to present another four Bills on this subject.
He raised the matter when he was a Member of the House of Commons Select Committee on energy way back in the eighties and has raised many Questions and led many deputations to see various Ministers over the past 20 years in both Houses of Parliament. He has also written and given oral evidence to the Industrial Injuries Tribunal. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan of Drefelin—I have a job pronouncing English words, let alone Welsh words. She gave a splendid and informative maiden speech and chose a very important subject on which to make it.
I want to emphasise that compensation for bronchitis and emphysema is not a benefit, gratuity or charity given out by the Government, but payment for an industrial injury which has been proved under common law. Miners suffer from this terrible disease mainly because they have inhaled coal dust through their working lives.
I agree with many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse about the delays and some of the points made about those who exploit some of the miners. My honourable friend Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for Durham North, highlighted a few of the cases which happened in the north-east in a debate which took place in Westminster Hall on 3 March this year.
This evening I want to raise a few points with the Minister that have been put to me by miners and their representatives I know personally. The first is the continued unreasonable delay where a revised offer is requested from the DTI when a mistake or an issue is questioned on the original offer. Miners have to wait for a long time for the first offer but there appears to be no clear or definite timescale for the DTI to consider a request from a miner's solicitor or even to respond to it. Sometimes many months or years elapse before a response is received to a revised offer. The result is that everyone is left wondering what has happened with the claim.
I accept that reasons vary in certain cases. For example, there could be a dispute on loss of earnings or a history of smoking. Mostly, this is on crossover claims which occur when a miner has claims under the vibration white finger and the chronic bronchitis and emphysema schemes in regard to the service element. The service element is when the miner can no longer carry out certain household tasks such as do-it-yourself, decoration, window cleaning, washing and maintenance of their cars and gardening jobs.
However, the calculation differs between the two schemes. Under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema scheme, anyone with a disability of 30 per cent or more qualifies for a services entitlement. Under the vibration

1099
white finger scheme, the services element is dependent on a number of factors, including the severity of the miner's condition identified by examining doctors under a second medical examination called MAP2.
These requests for revised offers are causing a lot of concern. I shall give a couple of examples. A claim was made on 25 February 1998. The MAP examination took place on 8 March 2001. An offer was made on 7 January 2003. A request for a revised offer was made on 5 February 2003. The reason for revision was a loss of earnings/smoking history. Still no reply has been given to those representatives of the miner. They waited a long time for the original offer. They requested a revised offer and it just seems to be hanging in the air.
I shall put a couple of points to the Minister. First, does my noble friend accept that where a revised offer is requested, it should be made within 14 days? If for some reason the DTI cannot respond to that particular request because it has to make examinations of the history, and so forth, it should reply in writing within 14 days giving a clear reason why it cannot make a revised offer instead of leaving the matter hanging in the air with no one knowing what is happening.
The second point I wish to raise is an issue I referred to in a previous debate, which concerns surface workers. The only surface workers who qualify under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema scheme are those who have worked for five years underground since 1954. I consider that if you are working on the surface at the pit you are just as likely to get dust in your lungs as miners who are working underground. It is like saying that people who smoke are the only ones who suffer from lung cancer. People who suffer from lung cancer often do so as a result of passive smoking.
The third point I want to raise briefly concerns the vibration white finger scheme. There are three groups who qualify. Under group one, if you have used pneumatic tools after 1975 for 12 months in certain categories laid out under the agreement you qualify for a payment. Under group two, if you have used pneumatic tools in certain categories laid out under the agreement for 24 months, you qualify for a payment. However, those in group three who do not fall within those categories, and have not used pneumatic tools for 12 or 24 months, get nothing. There is no doubt that in the mining industry, most miners have to use pneumatic tools at some given time. Unlike the shipyards where I spent 35 years, there is no strict demarcation. In the shipyards, only the riveters and caulkers use pneumatic tools. In the mines, most miners are requested at times by their employers to use them.
I hope that my noble friend will take these points into consideration in his reply.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, it is a real honour to take part in today's debate. We have already heard three speeches of superb quality setting out with great eloquence the issues behind a subject which is easy to forget if one lives in certain parts of the country.
I start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, for her informed and moving speech. I remember the time when I was the youngest
1100
Baroness in the House. My maiden speech was precisely three minutes long. On refection, that was two-and-a-half minutes longer than I needed to say what I knew about the subject. Clearly, the noble Baroness is under no such difficulty. I very much look forward to her taking part in debates in this House, particularly those on health, which will be all the better for her contributions.
I am also delighted to take part in a debate that has been initiated so passionately by the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse. His reputation on this issue—I believe he has campaigned on it for the past 22 years—is second to none. I have a couple of other reasons for being indebted to him. I was born within sight of Lofthouse Pit. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I come from a family of miners and steelworkers. I discovered earlier this year, for reasons I shall come to, that my grandfather died of pneumoconiosis. I did not know that until recently.
I grew up in coalmining areas, and when I went to school, sliding down the pit bings was something school kids did. We knew people's dads who had what we called "the black lung" and what is now called chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I know how debilitating that can be.
The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, set out quite starkly the numbers of people who have come within the ambit of this scheme in the past nine years. He quite rightly pointed out that the flaws in the scheme are not in the generosity of the provision on the part of the Government. The problem is in the delivery of the scheme to those who need it. It is important that we in this House raise this matter continually. The way in which this compensation scheme operates has to be revised. Lessons have to be learnt as we go along, for the benefit not only of the miners but of other groups of workers also.
Only last week, Jeff Ennis MP noted in another place that, despite the large scale of the compensation scheme—and it is a huge scheme—solicitors handling claims currently receive an average fee of £2,413 per case, while fewer than half of the miners so far compensated have received final settlements of less than half that amount. Furthermore, more than 3,000 miners have received settlements of less than £200. That cannot be right.
I do not know whether I would use the words "snail's pace", as the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, did, but the fact is that, in six years, only 209,000 out of 569,000 claims have been completed, and only 5,000 claims are settled each month. With the available resources—not just the money for compensation, but also the resources put into the clinics and testing centre—that is very slow.
There is also a difference between the offers and the settlements. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, drew that issue to your Lordships' attention with great clarity. At the end of 2003, there were more than 23,000 outstanding offers, of which nearly 4,000 had been with solicitors for over a year. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, is right to question the involvement of some solicitors—not all, but some—in the scheme.

1101
The British Coal respiratory disease litigation solicitors group has been in discussions with the DTI about ways in which settlements could be speeded up. I believe that it put forward a scheme whereby there could be a top-up fee to miners from the solicitors' own payments—which, incidentally, are uprated annually by inflation—in an effort to settle cases more quickly. It is remarkable when solicitors are prepared to forgo part of their fee. If they are so prepared, why are the Government so reluctant to go down the route of having a minimum compensation fee that can be fast-tracked? Anything that would reduce the transaction costs in this scheme must be of great value.
I am sure that the Minister will mention the High Court judgment of Mr Justice Turner in which he talked about the different contributory factors that have an effect on individuals. However, there seems to be something wrong when over-elaboration of a system leads to such long delay, as the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, pointed out.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, that the exclusion of surface workers from the case handling arrangements is wrong. Surface workers have eloquently put forward a description of the conditions in which they worked. Miners who worked on screens where coal was washed and graded had to put up with just as much coal dust—albeit not within a confined area—as those who worked underground.
It seems odd that when the medical assessment process—which is so detailed in this scheme—works so well, it is not possible to determine the extent to which those engaged in surface jobs contracted their condition as a result of their place of work. To put it another way, in my layperson's language, if someone who worked all their days at the pithead has the same condition as those who worked underground, surely there has to be a link in the causal factors. I am no medic, but that seems to be obvious.
I return to the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, identified as the most contentious part of the matter—the variation in the charges made by solicitors. In April 2004, in another place, the Minister reported that he had written to solicitors who had charged clients, asking them to repay their fees. Those who failed have been removed from the DTI's list of solicitors. He also reported that the Law Society had agreed that such client charging breached its code of practice. What further action are the Government going to take in conjunction with the Law Society, which is the regulatory body for solicitors, to ensure that such unscrupulous practices are not allowed to continue unfettered?
I have one more question. Claims under the respiratory disease scheme closed at the end of March. To the best of my knowledge, the latest available advice on the DTI website suggests that, after July 2004, a way will be found to facilitate the processing of claims started after the scheme was closed—that is, claims that can be brought only under common law. What progress has been made on finding a way of satisfying those late claims?
1102
I cannot match the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, in his description of those within the scheme who are supposed to benefit from it and who are waiting for help. I simply say that there is a similar condition, asbestosis, the prevalence of which is set to rise within the population over the next 30 years. It will be far more difficult to relate cause and effect in that condition. If we can use what has been learned from this scheme to fast-track those who suffer from related diseases, we will be doing a great favour to others with industrial diseases.
8.6 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, for once again bringing this most important matter before Parliament. He is certainly persistent and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, "No one can match his words".
I have still mercifully not yet met a victim of these diseases. I have been down a colliery two or three times and I can understand how these problems have arisen. On checking the index to Hansard, I see that we debated the matter on 16 November 1998. One of the perils for a long-serving Minister is that failure to conclude a difficult matter after six years can come back to bite you.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has been at the DTI all this time. I of course have gone full circle and come back to the DTI portfolio. The speakers' list suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, would be responding tonight. In fact, we shall be hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who will speak with equal authority.
It seems to me that the performance of the Government's machinery is inversely proportional to the number of staff and computers within it. I hope that the same rule does not apply to the DTI's management of this problem. The greatest concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, is delay. Six years is unacceptable. But, to be fair to the Minister, not all of the blame can be safely laid at his door.
The noble Lord is also not happy with the progress made by the lawyers. That was a universal complaint and I agree with it. The noble Lord made disturbing revelations about some of the legal practioners—I stress "some". But only yesterday, at Question Time, your Lordships discussed the difference between the ethical codes of the General Medical Council and the Law Society. What is the Minister going to do to help claimants to reclaim illegal deductions when they are ill equipped to do so themselves?
In her excellent maiden speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, said that she is the youngest Baroness in the House. She should not worry: I think that I am about the third youngest Member on these Benches. If she carries on as she has started, she will be making a major contribution to our debates over many years to come and I look forward to debating with her in full at a later time.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, illustrated some of the difficulties faced by claimants, not just those with miners' respiratory illnesses but also those with vibration injuries. The Minister will say that the

1103
availability of funds is not a problem, but what financial provision has been made for the DTI for these claims this year and next year?
During the 1998 debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon identified differences between the Scottish and English legal systems. How are Scottish miners' COPD claims being dealt with and what progress is being made there? Does the Minister have any responsibility or is that the responsibility of the Scottish Executive?
During the 1998 debate, there was much talk of the lack of capacity to undertake the medical assessments and we talked about it a little tonight as well. Where are we with this process and how many claimants are yet to be assessed?
I cannot help but conclude that a lot of people have been earning their living, or at least part of it, from these claims. First, we have the lawyers and, of course, the longer a case runs, the more chargeable events are likely to occur. Your Lordships know how much a solicitor's letter costs. On top of the official plaintiffs' solicitors groups there are others seeking to advise claimants.
Secondly, is there any incentive for DTI officials and the IRISC to conclude this matter? Can the Minister say how many officials at the DTI and IRISC are working on these problems? What incentives are there for individuals at all levels in the department to conclude this matter? This is a sorry tale and one to which I did not expect to have to return six years later.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her excellent maiden speech. She has a remarkable record in charity work, especially in health. It is a record that makes her so effective an advocate for those with chronic and acute conditions. After hearing her excellent maiden speech today, nobody can doubt that she will contribute a great deal of knowledge and judgment to debates in your Lordships' House. I congratulate her again.
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, it is a particular pleasure for me, for a number of reasons, to reply to this short debate on behalf of the Government. My father was born in a mining village in South Wales and wrote extensively about the plight of miners. Just before I arrived in your Lordships' House, I chaired a quango that advised government on museums. One of my favourite museums was, and is, the National Coal Mining Museum in Wakefield where the oral history of miners and their families vividly illustrates the harshness and ill health that was the miner's lot. Also, by coincidence, last year I read the excellent autobiography of my noble friend Lord Lofthouse, A Very Miner MP. That is a terrible pun but it is a very good book that I commend to any noble Lord interested in the mining industry.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lofthouse for securing this debate and for continuing to keep in the public eye this issue of great human importance. As a general comment, I have heard nothing this evening with which anybody in the Government would disagree. There are
1104
huge administrative problems to be solved but I hope that, in the course of the next few minutes, I shall be able to give noble Lords reassurance that we are tackling these important problems.
When the Government assumed responsibility for the former British Coal's health liabilities in January 1998, they acquired not only a legal but also a moral commitment to ensure that former miners and their families receive 100 per cent of their rightful compensation as speedily as is humanly possible. That is the intention.
As my noble friend is aware, there are two schemes, which cover respiratory and vibration-related diseases respectively. The vibration scheme closed for live claimants in October 2002 and in January 2003 for deceased claimants. The respiratory scheme closed at the end of March this year. The Government and solicitors carried out two highly successful advertising campaigns between 2002 and 2004, prior to the closing dates, which resulted in almost 570,000 claims having been fully registered under the respiratory disease scheme, with some 316,000 claims being received in the last six months of the scheme alone. That is a first clue to the administrative problems that we are facing. In addition, some 170,000 claims were registered under the vibration scheme before it was closed last year. They form the largest personal injury schemes ever in the UK, and possibly in the world, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Morgan, with more than 413,000 individual payments amounting to more than £2.2 billion made to date across both schemes to former miners, their widows and families.
Following the closure of the schemes, claims are still being accepted but these will not be able to go through the schemes. Instead, claims will be processed, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, through the personal injury courts. Both High Court judges who oversee the schemes have agreed that that is the appropriate procedure for handling claims that were not registered prior to the extensively advertised scheme closures. Since the closure of the respiratory disease scheme, fewer than 200 claims have been received.
The question that is most asked in the former coalfield areas, and in your Lordships' House today, is: when will the last claim be settled? I am aware that at the current rate it could take more than seven years—my noble friend Lord Lofthouse says 10 years—to process all the claims registered under the scheme. The Government do not believe that that is acceptable, which is a view that has strongly come through from noble Lords today.
In order to reduce that timescale, the DTI is working with the claimants' solicitors to try to streamline the process. Using information gathered from claims processed to date, the parties are looking at whether a way can be found to simplify the processing of claims and to give claimants the opportunity to exit the scheme at an early stage with a fair settlement.
If successful, that approach would have the potential to shorten the scheme by several years. Currently, the DTI and the claimants' solicitors are holding detailed

1105
discussions on this issue and plan to report, as we have heard, to Sir Michael Turner, the judge who oversees the respiratory scheme, later this month when he visits the DTI's claims' handlers. The department is already taking steps to shorten dramatically the timescale of the scheme. In our view, the public inquiry asked for by noble Lords would simply divert resources and delay things further. The scheme is not overseen by only Mr Justice Turner, but by a ministerial monitoring group that was set up in 1999 by Helen Liddell, the then Energy Minister. The group is made up of mining union officials and Members of Parliament.
The Government are aware of the huge responsibility that the liabilities are, and the DTI continues to review the levels of resources employed on the schemes. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about resources within the DTI. There follows a few figures: IRISC, the DTI's claims' handler, has increased its staffing levels from 300 in 2000 to more than 1,300 now. In addition, the DTI, through its medical service provider, is employing around a third of the respiratory specialists in the country on the scheme. The Government are aware that many solicitors are also reviewing their level of resources to ensure that claims are settled quickly.
There have been some discussions between the parties in relation to a minimum payment for claimants. As my noble friend is aware, those low-value offers reflect the original 1998 High Court judgment, which discounts for issues such as smoking. Noble Lords may wish to know that at a recent meeting a member of the solicitors' group stated that it was appreciated from the onset of the scheme that very low offers would be produced and it would be a natural consequence of a scheme that could compensate for only one-day underground. The DTI has therefore rejected calls for it to fund a minimum payment because most low-value offers are accepted and most outstanding offers were for chronic bronchitis, which attracts less compensation because—to be brutal—it is non-disabling. I am also informed that it would divert resources away from making and settling new offers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned that the claimants' solicitors have put forward a proposal whereby claimant representatives would fund a minimum payment from their fees to the value of £500. The DTI is in discussion with the solicitors with regard to that proposal, in particular to establish that there will be the necessary full take-up of any minimum payment by all claimant representatives. It would clearly be unacceptable for there to be inequitable treatment between different claimants depending on the solicitor handling their claim.
To date we have paid solicitors over £300 million to process claims under the coal health schemes. The majority of those firms have taken the tariffed costs paid by the Government. However, as we have heard, a minority are unethically and immorally taking a percentage of a claimant's compensation in addition to that paid under the agreements, a point powerfully made by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse's example.
1106
Nigel Griffiths wrote to over 700 firms of solicitors handling claims under the coal health schemes asking them to confirm that they were not taking a cut from claimants' compensation and, where they were, that they would immediately confirm that they would repay any such deductions. Over 500 firms responded. The Minister also wrote to the Law Society of England and Wales asking it to ensure that those firms that are charging not only make repayments to clients who contact them, but that they proactively review all their files and repay every individual from whom they have made a deduction. The Minister also passed the names of all the firms yet to respond to the Law Society asking it to take urgent action to ensure that the firms comply with the request.
I should also say that the Law Society wrote to all firms that have handled claims for compensation under the DTI's scheme advising them of the society's policy and reminding them to review all the cases they have handled and to repay any money that was inappropriately withheld from miners who have won compensation. Two hundred and sixty complaints have been received by the Law Society, of which 123 are from MPs on behalf of constituents. To date the Law Society has closed 182 matters, which leaves 78 outstanding. Of the 78 outstanding, 53 are complaints received from MPs.
Of the 182 closed matters, the Law Society has been able to conciliate 84. The other 98 have been closed for a variety of reasons: because the claim is still on-going; the complaint has been withdrawn; the complainant did not wish to take any further action; the matter was resolved without assistance; the solicitor's explanation was accepted by the complainant; or no deductions were in fact made.
A total of £69,726 has been recovered for complainants. However, the actual figure is likely to be more because the society has been able to conciliate complaints through obtaining a refund of fees where it has not always known how much was involved. The amounts recovered have ranged from £11 to approximately £9,000. About half the refunds involved amounts below £1,000, but there have been 16 instances where sums of over £2,000 have been involved.
Those miners who worked purely on the surface were not covered by the High Court judgment. The DTI's expert medical advice is that respirable dust levels on the surface of coal mines were insufficient to cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—COPD—in the majority of cases. My noble friend Lord Dixon disagrees with that view, which is something that we will consider. Surface workers' claims for COPD cannot therefore be paid on a schemed basis under the claims handling agreement for respiratory disease. However, Nigel Griffiths permitted the miners' solicitors to have access to British Coal archives in order to assist them in finding evidence to support their case. Following the latest court hearing on 13 July the solicitors have been ordered to identify lead cases and to present them to the judge in advance of the next respiratory disease court hearing on 4 and 5 October 2004.

1107
Claimants can of course pursue a claim for compensation in relation to surface employment under common law if they wish.
Some miners worked for a group of smaller mines and I know that negotiations on this issue have been difficult and protracted. However, following mediation and negotiation, the claimants' solicitors and the small mines' representatives have been able to resolve their remaining differences. As a result, the small mines will now be included within the terms of the claims handling agreement. The DTI is currently working with the other parties and with its claims handlers, IRISC, to put the settlement reached into operation. As a result of this settlement, small mines' claimants should be able to move from interim payment to full and final settlements.
As to those claimants who worked for UK Coal, the DTI has previously agreed to UK Coal's terms for signing up to the claims handling agreement. However, the claimants' solicitors and UK Coal continued to have issues on which they could not agree. The judge allowed them until the hearing on 12 and 13 July to continue negotiations, after which time, had they still not agreed, he would give directions for litigation.
The parties announced at the July hearing that they had reached an agreement in principle. This is yet to be ratified and the DTI's legal advisers are currently examining the details to ensure that the agreement does not change the DTI position. When all parties are satisfied, then the operational work can begin to produce full and final offers for claimants in this group. In the mean time the DTI cannot calculate either the overall amount of recoverable compensation or how that is to be divided between the DTI and UK Coal, and so cannot pay out its own share of the liability independently.
The Government are of course aware of the concerns that this whole process has caused. Many have been referred to today. A lot of stories have been circulated which have misled ex-miners and their families, such as there being a cap on the liabilities and that the Government are waiting for claimants to die in order to reduce the levels of compensation paid.
We see it as one of the Government's main responsibilities to ensure that we meet our commitments as speedily as possible and that we limit to an absolute minimum the distress caused to those who are entitled to compensation. With the assistance and the co-operation of all the parties involved, this can be and will be achieved.
In the two or three minutes remaining, let me answer some of the points raised in the debate. It may be that I shall have to write to noble Lords.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on an excellent maiden speech. I have today felt somewhat sad during the debate because some of our colleagues who have always taken part in these debates have unfortunately passed away—notably, Peter Hardy. We miss them very much.
1108
Let me make a couple of points in the time available. First, how does the £300 million already paid to solicitors compare with what has been paid to the miners? Secondly, and I shall finish on this point, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that he had not seen victims of this disease. I occupy the chairmanship of the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. If the noble Earl is in my area at any time, I will gladly take him and show him some of these victims fighting for life in hospital: you cannot live without oxygen.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, raised a point about the fact that most miners use vibrating tools and that the VWF scheme does not take account of this. I understand that this is a highly emotive issue. The VWF scheme has an occupational group procedure so that those claimants who were not obviously exposed to vibration on the basis of their occupation can establish a case for compensation by gaining the support of witnesses to show that they were exposed. This is a very difficult and contentious area, but it is important that the Government ensure that compensation goes to those who are entitled to it. Although these claims are difficult to assess, they make up less than 10 per cent of all the remaining claims.
My noble friend Lord Dixon made a point also about revised offers. Revised offers are dealt with as efficiently and speedily as possible. A number of issues are still under discussion and are delaying full and final settlement. Issues such as crossover are close to resolution. Wherever possible, the interim payment is made. Solicitors are kept informed of all progress on outstanding issues. To respond to a large number of queries about individual claims would cause further delay.
Given the time, I shall arrange to write to my noble friend Lady Morgan, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about the interesting points that they raised.

Housing Bill
8.32 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 141 [Other duties of person acting as estate agent]:
[Amendments Nos. 193A to 194 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 194ZA:
Page 97, line 23, leave out "a view to" and insert "the intention of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 97, line 26, leave out "or may become available"
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 194B. This is a small but important amendment which would allow estate agents to mention to potential buyers properties which may become available for sale, but which are not yet on

1109
the market. We touched briefly on the matter yesterday, but it needs to be looked at again in a little more detail, because it is still unclear at what point a property is deemed to be on the market and a home information pack necessary. We discussed various scenarios that are not classified as marketing; for example, if one was at a dinner party with friends or if one happened to say that a property might become available. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked what would happen if someone indicated that a property might become available at an auction.
The amendment would make it clear that an agent can mention to potential purchasers that a property may become available in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The noble Earl is right to raise the matter again so as to clear up any doubts about it. Clause 141 imposes a duty which affects only estate agents and which applies where some kind of marketing activity takes place that is too limited to trigger the duties imposed by Clauses 137, 138 and 140. That duty is to have a home information pack available when a qualifying action is taken. A "qualifying action" is defined as an action taken with a view to marketing, or, following your Lordships' acceptance of Amendment 194ZA, with the intention of marketing. Such an action communicates the fact that a property is, or is about to become, available for sale, but does not put it on the market or make public the fact that the property is on the market.
It may help if I give a practical example of the sort of situation this clause is intended to deal with. An estate agent is instructed to sell a property. Before marketing starts properly—that is, before the "For Sale" board is put up and adverts are placed in newspapers—the estate agent tells a potential buyer on his list that a property he, the buyer, is likely to be interested in is about to go on the market, and invites him to make an early appointment to view. In this example, the property may not be on the market as defined by Clause 131. That definition provides that a fact is made public when it is communicated with the intention of marketing to the public or to a section of the public. In the example I have mentioned a communication with one individual may not be with a section of the public, but would clearly be an action aimed at marketing that ought to trigger the home information pack duties.
Without the provision, estate agents would be free to engage in pre-marketing activities that would amount to marketing in all but name. By deleting the words "or may become available for sale", Amendment 194A would have the effect of allowing an estate agent to tell a potential buyer that a property was about to come on the market, with a clear view to marketing it but without triggering the associated duty to have a pack.
It is important for me to stress that those duties are only triggered when any communications are part of a direct attempt to market the property in question. An estate agent is not in breach of the duty if, for example, he or she remarks to a spouse or a colleague that a particular property is going on the market. This would
1110
not be a "qualifying action" within the meaning of Clause 141, provided the communication was not aimed at marketing the property.
I give another example. An estate agent is seen at a property that is not yet on the market, and is asked whether it is up for sale. If he were to answer truthfully and say, "Not yet, but it will be as soon as the home information pack is ready", that would not be a qualifying action either. There is a difference between knowing information and actually marketing to the public. It is self-evident.
Amendment No. 194B would delete subsection (3)(b) of Clause 141, which provides that a qualifying action for the purpose of this clause is an action that falls short of putting the property on the market. I have already explained that the whole purpose of Clause 141 is to capture an activity that, while amounting to it, does not meet the definition of "marketing" set out elsewhere in the Bill. I hope it is clear to the noble Earl, as a professional in the property field, that it is quite obvious whether one is making a communication with a view to marketing the property for sale, or just having a chat about it in the office or at home. The two things are quite different, and hopefully professionals will be able to tell the difference between the two.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for the time and trouble he has gone to in responding to my amendment, and I will read what he says with care. However, I am sure he would agree with me that the tighter one legislates in this area, the more difficulties will be created, and the more the unscrupulous will twist and bend the rules for their own potential profit.
Defining it in the way explained by the Minister creates a huge grey area over when a property is on the market. A potential vendor seeking to put his house on the market in due course invites four different estate agents to look at his property. I do not know whether I will get instructions, but I do know that the property is going to come on to the market. I know also that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is on my client list and might be on the list of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as well. But given that the noble Lord is a good mate of mine, I shall ring him and tell him about the property. I say that I do not know whether I will be instructed, but I know that the noble Lord is looking for a property and has made an offer on a house that is his second choice. In such an area one is not quite certain whether or not one is marketing a property if, five minutes after I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the vendor rings me to give me instructions.
As I understand the legislation, I would have got away with telling the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about that property. Five minutes later, however, I could not have done so. That kind of situation represents a grey area that will result in endless disputes. It is something we must come back to because it is not right. It is not helpful to the profession, to vendors or to purchasers.
We have passed the stage of trying to get around the home information pack. If one accepts that we are to have home information packs, it is then the ability to get out there and tell someone that something is going to

1111
happen which is still uncertain. People are very keen to buy at the moment. They might not be so keen to buy in three months' time and that will be a different market. However, this is an area where there is a potential for conflict and potential grounds for court actions. That is not helpful to the smooth running of the market.
The Minister has given a full reply, but I think that he understands my point.
Lord Rooker: The noble Earl has given an interesting and wholly practical example, and I shall be more than happy to take advice. He would be in trouble only if he had rung me after receiving the phone call to take instructions. Once he had taken instructions, that was it: he would then have been responsible for the marketing of the property. Tipping me off beforehand is not marketing because he had not been told by the vendor that he was the estate agent and I would not know anything about the vendor.
However, situations will arise where three or four estate agents could be seen in the street taking photographs of the same house and walking in and out. It would be obvious to the neighbours that something was afoot. I have said that we want to cover this 100 per cent, but the world is such that you do not cover 100 per cent for the very reasons given by the noble Earl. However, he has asked an interesting question that in due course will receive an answer.
The Earl of Caithness: I am again grateful to the noble Lord for his further full response. This is certainly one of the areas that we will come back to on Report. We considered it yesterday and have done so again today, so I know that it is a matter of concern to many noble Lords. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194B to 195ZB not moved.]
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 142 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 195A:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
"INCOMPLETE PACKS
A property may be marketed with an incomplete pack in circumstances where reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the missing information."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment provides that a property can be marketed with a pack that is not complete where reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the missing information that would make it complete. By and large, we have not moved again from these Benches amendments that are identical to those moved by our colleagues in another place. This amendment is a duplication, and we have tabled it because the Minister stated in another place that he fully
1112
appreciated the sentiments behind the amendment and that it would be unreasonable not to take them into account. He ended by saying:
"We will now consider"—
the matter—
"further, in consultation with industry and consumer stakeholders".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E; 10/2/04; col. 573.]
We are moving the amendment in order to hear the results of the Government's consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 195A would provide that marketing could go ahead with an incomplete pack in cases where reasonable efforts had been made to obtain the information. We share the noble Baroness's concern on the issue. I can assure her that regulations to be made under Clause 144(9)(a) will achieve this effect without further amendment to the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. When we see the draft regulations such amendments will not be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1958:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
"Residential properties in disadvantaged areas
The duties under sections 137 to 140 do not apply in relation to residential property in disadvantaged areas."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment excludes from the duties under Sections 137 to 140 residential property in disadvantaged areas. It is commended to us by the Law Society, which says that the term "disadvantaged areas" is found elsewhere in legislation. It has been defined for the purposes of special stamp duty exemption. Noble Lords who live in certain areas south of the river but close to Westminster will be aware of the special stamp duty exemptions.
The Secretary of State may seek to make regulations in respect of low value properties in areas of low demand where the cost of the pack preparation is a disproportionately high value of the property. At the other end of the scale it is suggested that standard home information packs will be wholly inadequate for large or unusual properties. In this case I am seeking to draw the Minister's attention to the lack of proportionality where the property is of low value. Rather than pointing to the individual property, this is a similar blanket exemption drawing on the analogy of the stamp duty provision. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I understand the reasons why the amendment has been moved. I cannot accept it, but I believe that I have a reasonably positive answer. If it is considered necessary, it has always been our intention to make special arrangements for sales of low value properties in low demand areas in regulation and not on the face of the Bill. This could be done under

1113
regulations made under Clause 143, which enables the Secretary of State to provide for other exceptions from the home information pack duties.
Alternatively, we believe that the regulation-making power in Clause 144 enables the Secretary of State to tailor the contents of the home information pack. This power could be used to make different provisions for different areas and different descriptions of property. The noble Baroness spoke very briefly, but it is important to put this on the record.
The amendment concerns the effect that home information packs could have on the sale of low-value properties, particularly properties suffering from low demand. People based in the south-east, the London-centric people, have difficulty getting to grips with the idea of low demand and falling prices. I can assure them that in parts of the north-east and north-west that is indeed the situation. It was a matter of some concern in the Homes Bill, which was before Parliament before the last general election. We promised to consult further on that important issue.
Since then, we have commissioned further and more detailed research and consulted on a range of options for addressing any problems that these proposals might cause for sellers in low-value, low-demand areas. The consultation paper and an independent report on the outcome of that consultation have been made available to the Committee.
This is a difficult issue. I know I shall be asked on what date and when it was deposited, but no doubt I shall find out before I sit down. I can assure the Committee that it is not a secret document. We need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, any disproportionate effect of introducing compulsory home information packs for very low-value properties I am talking about properties that are sometimes bought and sold in pubs for less than £5,000 in the north-east—and, on the other hand, the need to avoid stigmatising the properties or the area even more than they are now. We also want to avoid creating anomalies and denying the benefits of the pack to buyers who may be particularly vulnerable in the absence of good information about the home that they are buying.
It was certainly the view of the researchers that the Government should not make special arrangements for sales of low-value properties. That was also the view of the majority of those who responded to the consultation exercise. If the Government were to intervene, the best option was felt to be a cash limit, so that those sales below a prescribed amount would be exempted from some or all of the home information duties.
Interestingly enough, the option that found no favour whatever was one that would have attempted to define areas in which different arrangements for low-value sales would apply. That would rule out, for example, the housing market in all Pathfinder areas, the nine areas of the country that are well defined on maps. People who live in those areas know that not all
1114
properties are low-value and low-demand properties, but they are the most difficult places in the country. If anyone thought of doing that it would be ruled out.
In view of the outcome of our research and consultations it would not be appropriate to put an exclusion on the face of the Bill. We want to do the right thing for those who live in areas where the housing market is not functioning properly. We shall consider all views before deciding whether it is appropriate to make special arrangements in regulations for those properties.
We have heard the speech of the noble Baroness—I do not criticise it but she did not address some of these issues. The next sentence in my brief, which I am almost reluctant to read out bearing in mind the constraints that we are under, says that I shall report back to my right honourable friend the views expressed in the debate on this amendment. It is no good if the noble Baroness expresses no views and I am the only one to do so. In other words, we have addressed the issue.
There has been some research and consultation on the matter which has steered us away from what would be a seductive solution for people with whom we do not want to be disproportionate and heavy-handed, but we do not want to make matters worse than they already are by stigmatising a particular area. If we come to some arrangements, there is capacity in the Bill to do that in regulations. The probable way through would be to put a cash limit on it, so that homes marketed at less than a certain value would have a different set of rules.
This is a very difficult issue. We are talking about people's homes. People do not like being told that they live in low-value, low-demand areas, but they know when they do. When there is large-scale abandonment of properties, street by street, it is a very serious situation. The Pathfinder programme is beginning and, as I say, it really only started full operation this year. We have announced the early funds to eight of the nine areas—the final one will probably be settled before the end of the year. They were levering much more money than we are allowing them, but it is not a five-minute programme. It is not even a five-year programme in some cases. We have to deal with that. But people are buying and selling homes in these areas and we have to take account of that fact.
The unusual thing about the market renewal pathfinder programme is that it is the first time that I can recall any housing renewal programme having as a policy objective the aim of raising the value of properties in the area. Nor did that happen with any schemes that I dealt with for my former constituents—whether it was housing renewal areas, housing action areas or urban regeneration areas—although that may have been a spin-off of those schemes. But one of the avowed policy objectives of the housing market renewal programme is to raise values in the area, restoring the equity and giving people the confidence to invest in those areas and to recreate those communities.

1115
Obviously there is a massively complex programme of work to be undertaken. While that is happening, we do not want to cause any stigmatisation by putting a red line around those areas. Therefore we will look at this matter as it is a serious issue. As I said, I welcome any comments on the matter.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful. I will take up that offer. Seldom does one get an offer like that from the Minister and when one does one cannot resist it.
I raised the question of low-value homes on Second Reading of the Homes Bill on 28 March 2001, (col. 351 of Hansard). Could the Minister tell us more about what is in his mind with regard to regulations? He is going to create two tiers of market, anyway. If one has a different set of rules for a property below a certain capital value, one has a two-tier market and stigmatisation for that bottom tier. I agree with him that it is a very difficult problem to get right. The Government have set themselves on this course and they have to get themselves out of this hole.
When the Minister talks about a different set of rules, is he talking about not having a home condition report, or not having a home information pack? Will it be entirely voluntary? Will it be a partial home information pack, or a partial home condition report? We have to look at the situation of not just the low-value home but of a bad market. If it will be difficult to sell a house in good condition in that market, it will be even harder to sell a house of low value that is not in good condition. If that house is not in good condition and there is not a home condition report on it, the problem that the Government are creating gets more intensified and magnified.
I ask the Minister to tell us a little more about this matter as it is an area that we ought to be able to debate. It is fine for the Government to say that they are thinking about the matter and that they will produce regulations, but for people in such a house there is probably another problem: they may be living on very low incomes. If they had a better income they could move. There could be horrendous problems—low capital value, low income, a bad market and a whole lot of costs imposed on them by the Government before they try to sell their house. If the house does not sell, how can they afford to move? There is no way that they can do so; if they could, they would be out of that house. Can the Minister tell us more about that situation?
Lord Greaves: Does the Minister want to answer?
Lord Rooker: No, because I have not got an answer. I invited the thoughts of noble Lords. Some of the issues raised by the noble Earl are the very matters that we will have to consider. We are in listening mode having done some research and consultation. First, we have not said that we will proceed. I said that if we choose to proceed we would probably go for the monetary value rather than a geographical designation because of not wanting to black list an area.
1116
Secondly, we would come up with some other form, which could be a variation on the home information packs. One can think of several variations, some of which the noble Earl touched on, to lessen the burden so that it is proportionate to the issue relating to someone who has a low-value property to sell.
9 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I congratulate my noble friend on raising the issue as it is important, although I am not sure that the amendment is the way to deal with it. Nor am I sure how far areas of disadvantage—I am not certain what they are—coincide with the market renewal Pathfinder areas. There must be some areas of disadvantage and very low house values that have not been designated as part of the Pathfinder areas, That is bound to be the case; it may be pockets here and there, or may be larger areas. If something is to be done, it is important that it not be available only to the Pathfinder areas.
As I said yesterday, I look at the matter from the point of view of the east Lancashire Pathfinder area in particular, which I know quite well. I do not live in it, but I live almost within spitting distance of its boundary. As the Minister said, it is a very important project. Such areas will sink or swim by its success, at least for the next 20 years.
I am not too concerned about stigmatising areas that have already been defined as having a problem of low demand and low prices. An example would be someone who lives in an area such as Burnley Wood in Burnley. I do not know whether the Minister has been there, but some of his colleagues certainly have, and they were all astonished to learn that they could buy whole long streets for five-figure sums—every house in the street. People would have grabbed their hands and said, "Thank you very much", because no one else will pay a penny for them. Such areas are extreme examples of a problem, and extreme within an area such as east Lancashire.
It is clear that, in such areas, the cost of producing the housing information packs could be a bar to even selling a house at all, because it would be a relatively high proportion of the total cost. The matter needs to be looked at. However, particularly in Pathfinder areas throughout the country, if there are to be different rules for cheaper houses, it is important that they be made in a way that is seen as part of the overall package of what is being done in those areas.
By that, I do not only mean the overall programme to stimulate the housing market there; in some of them it is being stimulated already, simply by the fact that they have been declared Pathfinder areas. In some of them at least, including parts of east Lancashire, house prices are going up at an astonishing rate, which appears to be at least in part a response to the fact that they will be such an area. We say that we are going to stimulate a market and—markets are funny things—sometimes that in itself results in the market being stimulated. However, there are still lots of housing problems there, such as the empty and run-down houses and the areas that need refurbishment, into which we hope that the investment will go.

1117
There would be no harm in tailoring what is done in Pathfinder areas at least as part of the package. I do not know whether we could have different rules for different parts of the country but that might be a good idea in the Pathfinder areas, which are being targeted specifically.
I want to echo what the noble Earl said—people are buying the properties. Perhaps he did not say that; perhaps the Minister did. It is important that those people have the same protection as people in other places. They may buy properties as owner-occupiers, or may take advantage of a new generation of housing grants being made available in some of the areas to revive them. If people are doing that, there will be a lot of investment in those houses. They should be thought of as being potentially higher-value houses, although they might still then be sold for between £40,000 and £70,000. People in London might still think that incredibly cheap, but those of us who know the areas well and see some such prices being achieved think the way that they are going up extraordinary. In order to help the sellers, we should not be forgetting the buyers.
In other cases, where the houses are now being scheduled for demolition, it is important that people from other areas—perhaps from the south of England who think they are dirt cheap—should not be buying them on the Internet or in any other way and ending up with houses which will then be taken off them to be knocked down. Again, it is important to think that the full information is provided as in other areas.
The Minister's comments in relation to this were interesting. They and the Government's approach seemed to me to consist of a great deal of common sense
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He is right that the mere announcement of a board, the publication of prospectuses and the plans, the injection of the seed-corn or start-up money and the gearing of other moneys has already had an effect. Even people who have speculated would, in the normal course of events, be annoyed. However, it is recreating what disappeared—a functioning housing market.
If one is London or south-east centric, it is difficult to grasp the scale of what is happening—and not only in the Pathfinder areas. Not all the Pathfinder areas are incredibly low-demand and abandoned—there is one in which that is not the case—and the geographical approach would not be the right way forward, for reasons I have given.
I will make a final point. The whole Bill is a consumer protection measure. If we made special reasons or regulations which exempted some or part of the home information pack system, we would not want to reduce the protection for the buyers and the sellers. That would be against the grain and quite unfair. People might be buying a low-value property, but they would be entitled to have the consumer protection back-up in so far as we can provide it so they are not
1118
materially disadvantaged. That is a point we will take on board and I am grateful for what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Hamwee: I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for his thoughtful contribution. At the beginning of my comments, I mentioned London to see whether I might spark a little recognition from some people. I know they live in the areas that are, as the Minister put it, red-lined for the purposes of stamp duty exemption. We have red-lining and designations for that, for selected licensing—when that is enacted—and for the market renewal Pathfinder barriers.
Not long ago, I, as executor, sold a flat which had belonged to my uncle in Salford. It eventually sold for something like £25,000, but it took about three years. I wonder what I would have done if I had had to produce the home condition survey and so forth and then keep on renewing it. It was enough putting in new carpets, a new kitchen and so forth to make it look more attractive. Commonsense issues are involved.
I might have taken the flat off the market and let it sit empty. But I probably would not have because I would have felt desperately uncomfortable about it. It goes against all my instincts about using property. I am sure that the Minister understands.
When the Minister was talking about the Pathfinder areas, my noble friend Lady Maddock asked whether the Government had considered using Pathfinder money to pay the cost of these packs. That is another comment that the Minister can take back to his right honourable friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Contents of home information packs]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 98, line 19, at end insert "; and
( ) the core elements of the pack which must be made available before any marketing of a residential property may take place"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to make regulations relating to the key parts of the pack that must be made available prior to, or at, any marketing of the property. Again, it is made against the background that we do not think that the packs should necessarily be available on day one. However, it is a situation that might arise.
The amendment should be taken in the context of the other amendments. To touch briefly on the marketing aspects of this matter, it may be the case that the property is marketed in one way or another some time prior to the detailed negotiations commencing. Of course, marketing a property does not mean that the property will necessarily be sold.
It is also vital that a person who wants to market his property is able to do so as speedily as possible. It should be the case—the Minister, who has temporarily left his place, has said that he would expect it to be so—that many of the packs will be available within four or

1119
five days. I think that most of us consider that that will be a triumph of hope over what will become experience, but it should be possible to organise a pack within two weeks. That will happen only if information is held by local authorities and made available on-line and if the home condition report can be carried out in the shortest possible time, which will possibly not be the situation to begin with. Therefore, if someone is to be able to market a property without a pack, there needs to be a sharper definition of what constitutes marketing.
There may be a legitimate reason why a piece of information for the pack cannot be readily obtained, and it seems to us wrong to hold up the marketing of a property in such cases. However, it would seem sensible that a set of core information should be included in the pack before any property can be marketed—for example, applications for searches, terms of sale and the seller's property information, all of which will probably be available quite quickly, as it certainly should be under e-technology. But other aspects may not be quite so easily obtainable.
I think that this is an area which is worth discussing and considering in the light of the marketing aspect. For most people, the marketing will be delayed in any case by the necessity to get information into the packs, and that has the potential to hold up a sale substantially if a property cannot be marketed without all the elements of the pack being available. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support everything that my noble friend has said but would add one thing, which I mentioned yesterday. I refer to the case of leasehold properties—flats—and the difficulty of obtaining information from managing agents. I re-read what was said yesterday and I think that we still need to address this problem.
The unavailability of such information is often one of the factors that delays the sale of a flat. If one does not obtain it from a managing agent for whatever reason, the property must still be allowed to be marketed. It penalises the occupier or tenant of that flat unreasonably if he has to wait for all the final details. He may obtain some information from the managing agent. The managing agent may be able to tell him what repairs were done last year but he may not be able to say what repairs were done the year before or the year before that. He may not be able to tell him about the sinking fund. There may be information that he cannot give readily about the future expenditure plans, other than normal repairs and maintenance, but he may not be professional enough to have the whole schedule readily at his fingertips or, indeed, he may not have obtained that information from the owners of the property or the tenants' association. Therefore, many areas are involved in what my noble friend says and there must be a time at which one can get on and begin the marketing process without the full information being available.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: Clause 144 is important and entitles the Minister to make regulations specifying what documents and what information should be in the home information pack, which we have now been discussing in one form or another for some time. It is obviously a vital provision of this part of the Bill.
We all know that regulations can be changed from time to time. If, following certain trends of thought from those who have spoken so far, the Government were too ambitious in their requirements in regulations as to what should be in the home information pack, that could be altered. However, it seems to me that if one introduces this core element, which is the phrase used in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, that is a subtlety too far. I notice that Opposition Members through this Committee stage have been talking about the dangers of over bureaucratising the Bill and the provisions and therefore getting into legal and perhaps litigious arguments as to what is meant. We are introducing, it is suggested, the phrase "core elements" when, as I say, the Government have every ability and opportunity under this clause to say what they want and what they do not want and, indeed, to alter that assertion from time to time if they feel that they have required too much or too little in the home information pack.
Either noble Lords are seeking too much subtlety or this is, I fear, yet another way of trying to reduce the number of things that should be given to enable the buyer to make a sensible decision as to whether to make an offer after the property is marketed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: This is obviously a hugely important practical matter and any conveyancer will say that it is. Could not the answer to this amendment—indeed, it is similar in intent to Amendment No. 195A moved by my noble friend—be for the Government to commit themselves to early consultation with the Law Society and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to ascertain from them the timing for the production of different documents in the pack, given that Clause 144(9)(a) already permits the Government to prescribe different times for the production of different documents.
I think that we are all batting on the same side here but I suspect that we want some reassurance that the Government are fully aware of how important this is, have early consultations and give early indications, therefore, as to just how they are going to deal with it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment seeks to place an obligation for core elements of the pack to be available when marketing first takes place. Similar powers are already contained in Clause 144(9). As we have explained in the policy notes, which we have made available to the Committee, our aim with pack contents is to try to strike a reasonable balance between comprehensiveness and cost. We propose to include in the pack only those documents that are relevant to the property and its sale and are likely to be of interest to potential buyers and help them to make informed decisions.

1121
The proposed contents set out in our consultation paper provide information which if not disclosed upfront could later threaten or delay the transaction. Our intention, therefore, is that all documents prescribed for inclusion in the pack will be core documents.
We have gone over this a fair bit, but I want to make one point which I hope will offer more reassurance in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips; that is, we are approaching this with goodwill. We are intending to consult very much with the property professionals so that we get this right and we are very sensitive and in listening mode. Although I can sense some of the difficulties from what has been said, particularly by the noble Earl, who is close to this from his own practical experience, I think it right that we try to tease this out in the consultative period that we shall have. That should enable us to be much more sensitive to market problems and pressures and so forth.
I thought that the point about getting information from managing agents was particularly valid. It is worth saying that if information required for the pack simply is not available because of some obstruction, whether intended or not—perhaps because the information simply does not exist; the noble Earl said that it may be hard to obtain certain information—our expectation in those circumstances would be that marketing could commence without it. But if the information exists and despite reasonable efforts it is not available within a reasonable timescale then we propose to provide by regulation that marketing can commence and that the missing information can be added when it practically becomes available.
So we shall be sensitive to that issue. On talking to friends who have difficulties with managing agents and learning of the difficulties that sometimes tenant or leaseholder groups have in teasing some of this information out, I can well appreciate the difficulty that the noble Earl refers to.
The Earl of Caithness: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may press him a little further on his words "reasonable timescale". How long is a "reasonable timescale"? I have asked the noble Lord as managing agent to give me the information, and I am still waiting. When can I go ahead and market the property of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that I want to be pressed on that; nor do I think that the noble Earl is right to press for a precise answer. I do not think that one could be that prescriptive in these circumstances. It would depend on the information being requested and what is reasonable in the circumstances. I think the noble Earl knows that.
I return to the point I made at the outset. We will listen to what we take to be sensible, practical professional views on this issue and make sure that we get it as right as we possibly can.
Baroness Hanham: If we had not put down this amendment, we would not have teased out some quite interesting answers from the Minister. I think the Minister admits that it is entirely possible that elements of the pack will not and cannot be made available immediately.
We have been talking about the speed with which people want to put their properties on the market. In fact, if they are going to have to provide the whole of the home information pack at the beginning, potentially there will be delay to that. It could be delayed even further by the fact that they could not get the information. If the Minister is agreeing that some of that information may not be available, but that it is perfectly possible for someone to market his property by saying that the information is going to come—the obvious moment by which the information has got to be available is by the time the purchaser is beginning to look interested in buying the property—the answer seems to me to be that it would be possible to start marketing the property without some of the information available.
The amendment was really seeking to find out whether there were particular documents which could and probably would be made available quite quickly—whether you could start with those and then pile in afterwards with the more difficult ones. As my noble friend Lord Caithness has rightly pointed out, there are many difficulties with these services. I can perceive difficulties with getting the home condition reports if the provision comes into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that regulations can always be changed. I do not know whether the Minister's heart sank at that, but mine certainly did because it seems to me that the evidence which would be required in order for regulations to be changed once they had been made would be quite startling and we would never get there.
However, I think that we have an admission from the Minister that the entire contents of the pack may not be available on day one on many occasions; that there will be leeway for people with a valid reason for not having it; and that they will be able to market their property without the information being there immediately.
If the Minister had accepted our earlier amendments which provided that the information did not have to be available in the first two weeks, we would have been home and dry and I would not have had to table these amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the noble Baroness back to the point that I made. What she seeks in effect is already there—in the provisions of Clause 144(9). I said very early on in my response that similar powers are already contained there. That is the key to the answer. We are, of course, going to be flexible in the way in which this is approached.
Baroness Hanham: Yes, it says that the regulations,
"may … provide for the time at which any document is to be included".

1123
My concern is that there are some documents that may not be able to be included, no matter how many regulations the Minister makes about the time at which they must be available. The problem is when they cannot be available within the time that the Minister says. We may come back to this but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 98, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) Before making regulations for the purposes described in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult with representatives of those bodies likely to have an interest in or be affected by the proposals.
( ) A statutory instrument under this Part is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: I have been wondering when the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is going to say, "Okay, I give in, the noble Lord can market my property". Maybe that will come before we conclude the Bill or perhaps the noble Earl should choose another—I was going to say "victim", but I do not mean that—potential client.
This amendment might more logically have been dealt with under Clause 213 but its substance comes quite neatly at this point. The amendment provides for consultation with representatives of appropriate bodies before regulations are made and that regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
We have heard a lot about what regulations can cover in order to deal with matters that your Lordships have raised by way of amendments to the Bill. We have been assured that a whole range of items can be dealt with, if necessary, through regulations. But this is such a wide ranging and fundamental change to the way the domestic property market will operate in the future that it must be right to give this House and the Commons the opportunity to debate the regulations before they are introduced. We are treading new ground—or new water, I am not sure which one does.
A noble Lord: It depends who you are.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not a very good sailor; I will tread ground.
I heard what the Minister said about the groups that have been consulted. In part, that is behind my earlier request to see what survey work has been done. Of course, I do not doubt his assurances about the research and consultation that has gone on, but it would be helpful to see it.
The Minister will probably say that the first part of the amendment is not necessary because the Secretary of State will do it anyway. The purpose of the second part of the amendment is to ensure that, if we do end up with a compulsory scheme, we, and the Commons, get the opportunity not just to express views but possibly even to contribute to a scheme that is slightly better at the end of the resolution procedure. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a bit of discussion on Clause 144. It sets out the provisions relating to the contents of the pack, as we have discussed, and it gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe, through regulation, the documents that are to be included in the pack, the formats in which they should included and the information to be included in them.
The regulations will also say who may provide the documents and who has a right to rely on them. They may also specify the time at which any document is to be included in—or removed from—the pack and make different provisions for different areas or different property types.
Amendment No. 196A would add a requirement that the Secretary of State must consult representatives of interested and affected bodies before making regulations under Clause 144. That is a very important point. As I have said many times, we need to ensure that we get the content of the pack right. For that reason, we are committed to having detailed consultations. We want to maximise the benefits for consumers and, at the same time, take full account of the needs of the property industry and the professionals who play a key role in the transaction process.
I am going to make a big admission, which is simply this. I would not want to claim at any stage that all the necessary expertise resides in central Government. That is why, from the outset, we have involved all the main professional and trade bodies, as well as consumer representatives, when researching and developing our proposals.
I think that it is accepted that we have consulted widely on the major issues. Stakeholders are involved in the new programme management structure and the various working groups that we have set up to advise on the detailed contents of the pack. At every stage, we have been very accepting and welcoming of their active participation and co-operation. I can assure Members of the Committee that we will continue that process until we get beyond the point of implementation. I cannot say that we will always agree: that would not be right and it would be dishonest of me to say that. We will of course take careful account of and review their views.
We do not have a problem with full and proper consultation. The intention behind the amendment is one that we share. However, the difficulty is that to consult is such a general duty. For that reason, it is a little unhelpful. It would leave the regulations open to challenge by any person or body that may have an interest, however remote, were they not consulted.
The noble Baroness will have heard me say before, on this and other legislation, that there is a problem with specifying on the face of legislation those bodies that should be consulted. Inevitably, over time, new bodies are set up and existing ones merge or cease to operate. Interestingly, in the property field that happened not so long ago with the Institute of Valuers and Auctioneers, which was originally represented on

1125
our home buying and selling steering group. As I understand it, it has now merged with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will it help if I remind him that the legislation under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 had an almost identical consultation provision in it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is quite likely that it did. But legislation and needs vary, do they not? Amendment No. 196A would also change the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers from a negative resolution procedure to an affirmative resolution procedure. I know that that is a popular change to make in legislation. Obviously, we have consulted with the Delegated Powers Committee. My understanding is that, currently, it is content with what has been set in train in the legislation. Of course, if it was to express a different view, we would have to take that into account when bringing changes forward later.
We feel that these issues are best dealt with through regulations rather than in the Bill. It is important to have flexibility to amend any regulations that are put in place in response to changes in the housing market. For example, changes in the market may make some items of the pack redundant or new sources of information may come to light. As presently drafted, the negative resolution procedure is right, should it prove to be necessary to make some changes.
For those reasons we resist the amendment, although, as I think I have probably expressed in my response, we certainly understand the thinking behind it. It is certainly our intention to consult extensively, in detail and as sensitively as possible. We know that so far, in bringing the legislation forward, we have benefited greatly from the wisdom of the various interest groups, property professionals and institutions that advise us.
The Earl of Caithness: The Minister speaks wonderful honeyed words. He has read out some beautiful bureaucracy. He has an excellent speechwriter—I will give him that—"We are listening; we are sympathetic; we are in listening mode." The Government might be in listening mode, but what have they done since we discussed the seller's pack? The only thing they have done is to change from criminal to civil penalties. They have done nothing. They have been in listening mode on the whole of Part 5, and what have we got? Nothing but a straight block.
My goodness, Geoffrey Boycott looks like one of the most engaging batsmen in the world compared to how the Government are defending this provision. They know that they have a duty to get it through, forget about what everyone is saying, soothe them down and give them some nice words. We could do with a bit more from the Government than just listening mode. If they are listening, the fact that so much solid good evidence and hard argument has been
1126
put forward from so many people in Committee and yet we have got nothing out of the Government is extraordinary.
Will the Minister confirm that by no means all those taking part in the discussions are in favour of what is going to happen? For instance, the National Association of Estate Agents, which has been heavily consulted, was very in favour of the seller's pack. That was because the chief executive at the time thought it was a good idea. When the members started to say, "Hang on, chief executive, this is not such a good idea after all", he eventually had to resign because he was totally out of touch with his membership.
He has gone on to help the Government in other ways, but the fact remains that the National Association of Estate Agents is not united in support of Part 5. Its members are against it. They might have to work with the Government, but we all have to work with the Government. Will the Minister confirm that many of the people with whom the Government are negotiating: the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the National Association of Estate Agents—many organisations—are trying to knock some sense into the Government because they are concerned about Part 5? Besides consulting and listening will they please take on board some of the advice being given to them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I said earlier that we did not always expect to agree with representations made by everyone. The noble Earl is aware of the balance of who is in favour and who is against. He has read the quotes and seen the articles in newspapers, but that does not deflect us at all from believing, understanding and approaching this set of propositions with confidence.
We accept that there will be difficulties in implementation. My noble friend Lord Rooker has made it clear that we will listen sensibly. We have given ourselves a lengthy lead-in period for implementation. We have made it plain that there will be a voluntary period running up to the implementation date, the setting of regulations, and so on.
Of course there will be differences, but that does not mean that we will not focus on practical issues that come up. We have made it clear from the outset that we will listen to those making a practical case on particular difficulties. The noble Earl is being too pessimistic. I am an optimist in these matters: I think that we can get the legislation right and that consumers of estate agents and buying and selling services generally will welcome it over time because they will see that it has improved the process, made the market much easier to understand and enabled them to be much more confident in buying the home that they want.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister commented on the first part of the amendment and suggested that one reason for not accepting it was the difficulty of knowing who had merged with whom at any given time. The amendment does not suggest continuous consultation but consultation for the purposes of the proposed regulations. I do not take that point.

1127
As to the issue of regulations by affirmative resolution, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who chairs the committee to which the Minister referred, has said to me on many occasions that he does not necessarily expect the House to follow the advice of that committee. It gives advice to the House, not a prescription. We happen not to agree with its approach to this matter.
These are very important regulations. They are almost of the status of the primary legislation in their importance. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 98, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) A responsible person shall not commit an offence if he excludes a relevant document from the home information pack, provided the document does not detract from the value of the property."
The noble Baroness said: Having listened to the previous comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am tempted to say that if the Government are so confident about these packs it might be a good idea to introduce them voluntarily rather than imposing them. They could then watch people jumping through hoops to get their packs because they will think that they are an overwhelmingly good idea.
That is not what my amendment is about. It is just a comment, which needs to be kept running through the debate, that a voluntary basis would be better than what the Government are trying to do.
As it stands, subsection (4) of Clause 144 is very broad. It states that "relevant information" means anything to do with a property or the sale of a property. We need to test where that ends. For example, a large number of residents living in the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire are currently in the process of fighting the proposed expansion of Stansted airport as they feel that any such development may have an adverse effect on the value and amenity of their property.
We will not know whether that is right unless or until the threatened expansion takes place. However, in the case of the residents to whom I have alluded, if they were going to sell their property and a search—if they did not know about it through publicity—threw up the possibility of an airport, would they need to have a copy of the Government's transport White Paper included in their home information pack so that prospective buyers could make an informed choice about whether they wanted to live near the biggest airport in the world?
The question is only slightly facetious because there will be many other examples where there is a specific problem in a specific area, such as wind farms. There are all kinds of things that may need to be included. It is a question of where the pack ends and whether we go from 200 pages to 800 pages. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I support my noble friend's amendment. The home information packs will be
1128
prescriptive and made by regulation. Subsection (5) contains the kind of information which the Secretary of State may consider to be relevant information. The Explanatory Notes almost mirror the smaller items in that subsection.
I should like to inquire about the Minister's views on the importance of including environmental reports in home information packs. I am advised that well over 50 per cent of all conveyancing transactions utilise an environmental report and that lenders are increasingly requesting them. They provide an assessment of the environmental risk, which has an effect on the value of the property. Many environmental factors are important also on health grounds. Perhaps an environmental report should be included in the home information packs.
The report should provide in particular a statement on whether a property's site could potentially be classed as contaminated land. That is crucial, because, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the homeowner is liable for remediation costs when the original polluter cannot be traced. I am sure the Minister will understand that remediation costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. I am thinking of old brownfield sites in city centres—for example, old gas works, old tannery business sites and old canal basins—filled with waste on which houses have subsequently been built.
The report should perhaps contain a clear summary of the environmental information that is easily understood by consumers with no previous experience of those issues, along with a clear explanation of where they should go for further help and of where liability lies if they have a dispute. Important considerations such as subsidence, radon gas and flooding should perhaps be covered as well.
If that kind of information is not included, it could result in two searches being carried out—the first for the home information pack and the second by the buyer's solicitor, which would be a completely different level of search. I believe that the Government expect the home information packs to obviate the need for the buyer to conduct his own search, but without that kind of information, the packs will not achieve what the Government set out to do.
The amendment states that a person would not commit an offence if such relevant documents were omitted. Will the Minister give his view on the kind of environmental information that I have discussed?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may add a few words to what the noble Viscount said about subsidence. In the part of London where I live, Camberwell, our insurance company suddenly imposed a very large increase in the premiums because it said its experience in the postcode in which we were living was of large claims having been made under buildings insurance policies for subsidence. That came completely out of the blue and I am happy to say that we were able to switch to another insurance company which had a different policy. That is a good example of the kind of

1129
information of which an unwary purchaser might not necessarily be aware if it was not included in the home information pack. Therefore, whatever information is available about the insurance experience of properties in a particular area should be included in the pack.
Some noble Lords mentioned flooding. As your Lordships will be aware, there have been some remarkable instances of serious flooding in low-lying areas where houses have been built on what is described as the flood plain. I hope that future expansion of housing in this country will take careful note of that phenomenon and ensure that new building is kept well away from such areas. Some large housing estates are already vulnerable to overflowing rivers. A purchaser would be entitled to know something about that.
I understand that the Prime Minister has today warned about the serious effects of global warming. That may have an effect on properties in certain areas; for example, on the coast of East Anglia, where, as your Lordships will be aware, there is a gradual tilting of the country, so that properties are more likely to be overwhelmed by high tides in the future than they have been in the past.
Those are all factors that people are entitled to know about, but with the scarce information about what will be contained in the home information packs there is no mention of any of those natural phenomena. It would be useful if the noble Lord could be a bit more specific about the nature of the information that will be required.
Lord Borrie: My noble friend the Minister will feel that the last two speakers, the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have been knocking at an open door. In addition to energy efficiency, which is specifically mentioned in this clause, it is desirable that other matters relating to the environment, flooding, subsidence, and so on, are all included in a home information pack.
Baroness Hamwee: My example is at the frivolous end of the spectrum. "Relevant information" in subsection (4), which the noble Baroness seeks to delete, is,
"information about any matter connected with the property … that would be of interest to potential buyers."
It might be of interest to a potential buyer that the unusual colour that the faÇade of the house has been painted is number whatever of a particular paint range. I said it was frivolous. If we had more detail, we would understand where the balance lies.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not think my noble friend's point is at all frivolous. I get a little anxious about just what a burden could be imposed on the whole process if the Secretary of State is in risk-averse mode. The Committee needs some help as to what is meant by those loose words,
"information … that would be of interest to potential buyers".
1130
I do not know if the Minister has anything in his brief about what those words mean. This amendment would strike out subsection (4) altogether, so we would all like to understand its meaning.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, and a lot of it was backed up by other noble Lords who spoke. If the information he refers to is included in the home information pack, first, it gets more difficult for the estate agent to assemble the pack; and secondly, the pack gets bigger. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took me to task for saying that the Danish pack was 800 pages long, and told me the figure was actually 210. I said that the quote came from the Office of Fair Trading.
I have some more information, taken from a speech given from Palle Ulstrup, the chief executive officer of the Danish Association of Chartered Estate Agents at a Property Forum dinner in 2002. That is the same person from whom the noble Lord received his information. In that speech, Mr. Ulstrup said:
"A Danish real estate expert told the study that the paperwork for an owner-occupied dwelling had increased from an already substantial 100 pages to a frequent 800-page set of documents. This increase in workload may have contributed to the rise in agency fees that has occurred in recent years, despite the already large increases in agency income caused by rising house prices since the mid-1990s".
That is going to happen here. I know the Minister has the pack at 100 pages, but it grows bigger every time we expand it and look for more information.
Some of that information is entirely valid. Subsidence does not follow postcodes. I had just such a problem with a house: when I bought it, there was no evidence at all of subsidence. The surveyor did not find anything; indeed, he could not have done so unless he had peeled the wallpaper and paint off one particular section of the house in the course of a full structural survey. I give way.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Of course, subsidence does not follow postcodes, but insurance companies think that it does.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, it does not follow postcodes. However, the problem with my house was not following shrinkage of the land, but had been caused as a result of a bomb from the Second World War. We discovered that only last year when the wall was renewed. An extension was built on to the house in the early 1990s and the weight of that extension had caused the house to crack. Proper foundations had not been laid because whoever built it had not realised that he was building over a bomb hole. It was all rather fun, given that it had to be dug out by hand. Machines could not do it, and the nice man who did the work was intrigued to find that the subsidence had been caused by a bomb hole.
What we are discussing is very important because it will influence the size of the pack and the duty of estate agents to put it together within a sensible time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again we have had a useful discussion about the contents of the home information pack. By now I am sure that all noble Lords will have read Clause 144 carefully. It gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe the documents to be included in the pack. Before prescribing a document for inclusion, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it contains information that is relevant.
Subsection (4) defines "relevant information" as information about any matter connected with the property, or the sale of the property, that would be of interest to potential buyers. The amendment seeks to delete this subsection, the effect of which would be to enable the Secretary of State to require the pack to include information that is completely unconnected with these matters and is of no interest whatsoever to a potential buyer. Where that would leave us, I am not sure, but it would be a chaotic state of affairs and one that we could not accept.
The amendment would substitute a new subsection (4). First, I would like to assure noble Lords that no one will ever be committing an "offence" by failing to comply with these duties as suggested by this amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has acknowledged, we have moved from criminal penalties to civil sanctions because we have accepted arguments on that issue.
The proposed new subsection (4) would provide that the responsible person could omit a prescribed document from the pack as long as it,
"does not detract from the value of the property".
That would require a subjective judgment by sellers, estate agents, potential buyers and enforcement officers on whether the omission of a particular document would affect the value of the property being sold. We would argue that that would cause great practical difficulties and the seller would already have had to commission all the relevant information in order to be sure that the documents did not reveal any flaws which might affect the value of the property.
The discussion has centred on what might be relevant and which documents ought to be included. I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, was right to question whether environmental reports would be included, and whether they would include information about contaminated land. Contaminated land is a category in the standard local authority search and we would expect it to be included in the pack. In fact, Clause 144(6) states:
"The regulations may require or authorise the home information pack to include—
(a) replies the seller proposes to give to prescribed pre-contract enquiries".
We would expect those matters to be included. As I recall, they are already included in CON.29. Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at our consultation document, to which I referred earlier, on the contents of the home information pack he will see that the various
1132
appendices to refer CON.29 and the issues covered in it. Page 18 of the document makes reference to Environment Agency searches and states at paragraph 5.29 that:
"Environmental issues are of significant interest to consumers and home buyers are no exception. The Environment Agency are working to implement Environment Agency property search reports as a standard part of the conveyancing process, alongside local authority, drainage and water searches".
We would expect all those things to be relevant information and for those to be provided as part of the home information pack.
I hope that has answered the various points raised about what might and might not be included. Obviously, it is very hard to be entirely prescriptive. But these things are very relevant, whether it is brown fields, contaminated land and whether water and drainage issues are of importance. All those things need to be covered. We have consulted very extensively on what should be included in the pack on other environmental information. Generally, we have had a favourable response to what we intend to do. It is worth reiterating the point that we shall want to discuss the issue further with those who wish to ensure that we get it right and that the information revealed is of value to a potential purchaser. Having heard that, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: One of the reasons why we are having to work so hard through these clauses is because there is remarkably little information about what is likely to be included in the information packs. The core, which has been referred to before, is quite obvious. Indeed, the explanatory notes set it out in some detail.
There are the wider issues. My example may have been a little extreme. There are areas in which demands could be made. The measures are to be contained in regulations which we do not have. We do not know what is to be included in the home pack. My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to 800 pages. We do not know whether there will be 800 pages or 500 pages. We do not know what is going to take the document to 100 pages.
One of the reasons why I raised this question was to see how wide the area of required information would be. I have not had an answer to my amendment. It may be that the noble Lord thought I was being frivolous. It is not a question of frivolity, but of basic information that we ought to be able to dig out from the Government as to what is required in the packs.
I shall withdraw the amendment today. I shall read carefully what has been said. There is no question but that we shall be returning to the contents of the packs in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 98, line 32, at end insert "but not the contract itself"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with our Amendment No. 200A and Amendments Nos. 198 and 201 tabled by the noble

1133
Baroness, Lady Hanham. There are almost one sentence introductions to our two amendments. The first is to ensure that it is not necessary to supply the contract itself as part of the pack—only the terms on which the property is to be sold. I would think that that is fairly clear. But the Law Society says that it may be a potential trap for buyers to be presented with a potentially binding contract, which they may sign because they believe that is what is needed, but without having professional advice.
The second of our two amendments is to provide an alternative to the normal replies to inquiries which seem to be suggested by the Bill. I understand that the current forms being used are not all conventional replies to inquiries. This amendment is intended to be all encompassing. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have a question to ask which I hope will help the Committee. Clause 144(5)(a), which is the part of the clause affected by the amendment, requires the information to be given about,
"the interest which is for sale and the terms on which it is proposed to sell it".
My question is twofold. First, what if all the terms on which it is proposed to sell are not included in the pack, whether through inadvertence or not? What remedy does the buyer have and what potential penalty, if any, is visited on the seller in default?
My second question refers to a commonplace problem. After one has marketed a property, one's circumstances may change or the market circumstances may change so that one needs, in turn, to change the terms on which one proposes to sell. Does the seller, who has issued the pack on one basis, have to inform all those to whom packs have been sent that he is changing the terms? What happens if he does not know where the packs have gone? He may well not know, as they may have been passed on.
This is a critical part of the mechanism, which is why the Law Society has latched on to it. I would be most grateful if the Minister can help the Committee with responses to those two questions.
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to answer the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I am grateful for his advance warning of the questions. At present, I cannot put my hands on the answer. Dealing with the amendments referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Amendment No. 197A would prevent the regulations from requiring the pack to include a contract. We recognise the concerns that lie behind the amendment.
In our consultation paper on the contents of the home information pack, in which there is a copy of a home information pack—all 100 pages of it—we drew attention to potential drawbacks of the pack containing a prescribed form of draft contract and to concerns about including even a specimen draft contract. We proposed that the pack should contain a summary of the terms on which a property is being offered for sale. Twenty-four of the 57 responses on
1134
the issue supported our proposal; and 29 disagreed with including a draft contract in the pack. We are now considering that further in the light of the responses received and the further consultation that we are undertaking, as we speak, with the professional and consumer bodies. The 57 responses were virtually split 50:50.
We do not propose to include in the pack a contract or even a document that is capable of becoming a contract when a buyer is found. I can be quite clear about that reassurance. As I mentioned earlier, any information prescribed for inclusion in a document in the pack must be "relevant information". Clause 144(4) defines "relevant information". It is information about any matter connected with the property or the sale of the property that, in the Secretary of State's opinion, would be of interest to potential buyers.
Clause 144(5)(c) provides that information which the Secretary of State may consider to be "relevant information" includes "anything relating to or affecting" the property that is contained in a statutory register or certain other records.
Clause 144(6)(a) provides that the pack may include the seller's replies to "prescribed pre-contract enquiries". Amendment No. 200A would extend that to cover specifically a seller's property information form. We proposed in the consultation paper that the pack should indeed include something along the lines of the Law Society's property information form, a standard form used by most conveyancers. Thirty-five of the 47 respondents on this issue support its inclusion. Again, we shall now consider this further with the key stakeholders. I can advise the Committee that Amendment No. 200A is not necessary to enable the pack to include a property information form. The form provides information on matters affecting the property which are likely to be important to potential buyers. That information is, therefore, very much "relevant information" within the meaning of Clause 144(4).
We are also satisfied that for the purpose of Clause 144(6), replies to pre-contract inquiries encompass replies to such inquiries made in the property information form. As we explained in the consultation paper, we do not intend that the home information pack should change the principle of caveat emptor—that is not our intention. I did not do Latin—that means "let the buyer beware".
We are not seeking to put sellers under a legal obligation to answer the questions in a property information form. No such obligation exists at present, though buyers have a right to rely on such information that is given. We expect that, as now, most sellers will take the view that it is in their interests to provide requested information where they are able to do so. As I said, the form is basically tick boxes. In some cases— for example, where a property has been inherited—the owner may have only limited information and might not be able to complete the form. The form is well designed to make it quite clear if one does not have the information.

1135
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised the issue of changing the terms on which the seller proposes to sell. The terms in the pack would be those proposed at the time the property is marketed. If the seller decides to change those terms, there is no requirement in the Bill to change the pack, although clearly it is in the seller's interest to ensure that any such changes are brought to the attention of a potential buyer.
That gives me an opportunity to answer an earlier question, which we were not then able to answer. That was the issue of the updating of the pack. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised this issue yesterday, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised it today. I want to make the position clear. It is not our intention to require the seller to update the pack. That is a misunderstanding. The information in the pack must not be more than three months old at the point that marketing commences. That does not mean it has to be updated every three months. I have heard that said, but we have never said that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does that mean that if circumstances change—for example, the seller becomes aware of a contamination or subsidence problem after he or she has marketed—that when after they have become aware of the change somebody asks them for a home information pack, they can supply the original pack without that key information updated?
Lord Rooker: Because of the other forms giving information that they will have signed, if they answer questions, they are legally responsible for the questions they have answered. In that respect it is still up to the other searches to identify other matters. It will depend on how old the pack is. They may be asked quite a legitimate question by the buyer's solicitor whether anything had changed since the pack was produced. The person is expected to give a positive answer, "No, there have been no material changes". The person is then legally liable for that information, because that would be like filling in the property information document, which one is not legally required to do, but if it is filled in the buyer is entitled to rely on it. That would be a reasonable answer. If one has not sold the property that has been marketed for three or four months, has anything changed in any of the answers given to the questions? That would raise such an issue. That would cover that. If I am wrong I will come back to the noble Lord. But I wanted to make that point because I had heard before about the need to update the pack. That is not the case. But it must not be more than three months old at the point at which it is marketed.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may return to the circumstances mentioned by my noble friend—that subsidence occurred at some point after the home information pack was first compiled. Let us say that the property has been on the market for six months and somebody walks into the estate agent's office and asks whether anything has changed in the answers given. The reply could well be no, because no question
1136
of subsidence would have arisen at the time that the pack was compiled. He could truthfully say no, and would not be liable for any comeback if it was subsequently discovered by the potential purchasers that the subsidence had occurred and that they had not been informed of it.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: We are getting to the nitty-gritty of an individual case; of course, the legislation needs to cover all the individual cases that we can think of, and those that we cannot. I shall have to take advice on that. I am answering as a reasonable person in the sense that I am saying, contrary to what people have alleged, that no one has to update and have another survey or home condition report done every three months. We never said that. Others have claimed that that is the case, but it is not. I am making that clear.
Nevertheless, people are entitled to rely on the information that they have been given. After a time, it would be quite legitimate for the solicitors rather than the estate agent to check with each other whether there has been any change in any of the answers that their clients gave, or whether any new information has come to light that would materially affect any of the answers given. It would be legitimate to ask that and demand a clear yes or no.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I can help the Minister further. It would be negligence on the part of the solicitor who did not make that the very first question that he asked. I am sure that everyone will be immensely relieved to hear what the Minister has just reiterated—that, in marketing a property, one is not on an endless escalator of updating, new searches and new surveys. That takes a lot of heat out of the matter.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I should have said it about 10 hours ago. No one asked. The noble Lord did yesterday, but we did not answer; I plead guilty.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Earlier today—it was a long time ago—I thought that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made a veiled invitation to the Minister, if he had nothing else to do, to join her firm as part of the property team. I would be interested, too, and could overtop any offer that she may be able to make. The Minister demonstrates the dexterity, resilience and optimism that are the marks of a good property man.
Lord Rooker: I have always been a nosy parker, which is why I thought that I was a moderately good constituency MP. I was nosy on behalf of my constituents. As for going into the legal profession, there will of course come a day when I do not continue to take the Blair shilling, and one may have to look for something else. I certainly had not thought about the legal profession.
Amendment No. 198 seeks to replace "relating to or affecting" with "relevant to". Having listened to what Members of the Committee have said, we are still not convinced that a change is necessary. We find it difficult to envisage any relevant information in the

1137
registers and records that does not relate to or affect the property. Even if there were any, that would not prevent the Secretary of State prescribing such information in the pack. Clause 144(5) does not affect the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 144(4) to prescribe for inclusion in the pack any information about a matter connected with the property or its sale that is of interest to buyers.
We are in the process of setting up a working group with the key stakeholders to advise on the nature of the searches to be included in the home information pack. All the key players are represented, including representatives of local authorities, search organisations, conveyancers and lenders. Whichever searches are chosen, I am confident that they will meet the "relating to or affecting" test.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked what the consequence was of all the contractual terms not being in the pack. There is an issue on that relating to the Law Society's opposition to including contracts, but I regret to say that I cannot put my hands on the relevant note at present.
Clause 144(5)(a) states that the regulations may be made on the property for sale and the terms on which it is to be sold. In our opinion, it would be better if all or none of the terms were included rather than for the contractual terms to be withheld. It may be that those terms are material or of particular importance to the buyer and that they would have affected his decision to buy. Withholding some of them may affect the meaning of some that remain.
Clause 150 confers the right of private action in respect of failing to comply with a request to produce a pack. Ultimately, that must be a matter for the buyer and the seller to resolve. We do not think—this may be the noble Lord's concern—that the pack would affect the validity of the sale. Either the property has passed from person A to person B or it has not, but that matter relates to the legal contract and the exchange. The contents of the pack would not affect that part of the sale. I am not sure whether that answers the noble Lord's specific question. If it does not, I apologise and I shall try to come back to it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the Minister for even endeavouring to answer the question. I think that it would be helpful to the Committee if he returned to it because Clause 150 does not provide compensation; it provides only for the recovery of fees paid by a frustrated buyer following, for example, the failure of a would-be seller to provide the necessary survey. It would not cover a case where a seller simply did not put into the pack other terms required by the subsidiary legislation. As I said, I think that it would be helpful to hammer this matter out later.
Lord Rooker: We would not expect the omission of a component of the pack to affect the validity of the sale. That is our view. We do not think that if a component
1138
of the pack were omitted, the technicality of the sale—the exchange of the ownership from one person to another—would be affected.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: But it might of course affect the price which the purchaser would have been willing to pay had he or she had it.
Lord Rooker: I fully accept that, and that would be a matter for later action because the sale would have taken place. I presume that such things happen now; for example, where the sale has taken place but the new owner is aggrieved about something that was missed out in the normal course of events and he may seek to claim damages due to negligence from someone who had advised him—perhaps the estate agent or the solicitor who had been acting for him. Perhaps damages would be sought from the previous owner, who did not answer all the requests for information. There have been cases in the courts involving people who did not correctly fill in the voluntary check list. They filled it in but not accurately, and the buyer was entitled to rely on it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the Minister for that. The only reason that I persevere with wondering whether it is not worth a little more investigation is that Clause 150 deals with a civil remedy—this has nothing to do with criminal law—but does not refer at all to normal common law compensation rights. But perhaps that is not necessary. Again, it may be worth the Government returning to this matter because I suspect that this is the kind of thing that will happen many, many times, and it may be as well if we cleared the decks for the consumers.
Baroness Hanham: This exciting exchange prevented me realising that I had Amendment No. 198 in this group. The Minister has kindly replied to it even though I have not moved it. It is a small amendment and I do not need to move it. However, I also have Amendment No. 201 in this group, and it may be easier if I deal with it in its place if the Minister is happy to reply to it then. So exciting has this exchange been that the amendment now has nothing to do with this issue and it would be more appropriate to deal with it later, but it is down to the Minister to decide. I see that he nods his head in agreement.
Baroness Hamwee: I take issue with my noble friend. I think that the Minister would be wasted on property work. I can see him so disarming other parties to a negotiation over a major commercial transaction that he would just walk all over them. That displays my view of conveyancers.
The Earl of Caithness: And he does not need any qualifications to do that!
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for the detailed assurances that the Minister gave on the two amendments we started some time ago. We seem to have wandered slightly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1139
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 98, line 41, after "property)" insert ", though the provision of any such information by the seller shall be voluntary and entirely at his discretion, and the Secretary of State cannot require the seller to provide such information in the home information pack through regulation"
The noble Baroness said: I apologise to some Members of the Committee. We said that we would not move the Amendment, but now we are moving it. It deals with the word "voluntary", which we have discussed quite a lot today. It also refers to the home condition report not being a full structural survey, which we have also discussed. That was the reason why we were not going to move it, in the interests of getting a move on with the business. However, as the Minister had a rather good speech in reply, we were begged to move it.
The amendment is fairly simple. Its purpose is to make the home condition report voluntary. We believe that if the whole thing cannot be voluntary, the inclusion of the home condition report in the pack should be voluntary. It is one of the most expensive elements in the pack and therefore likely to add considerably to the cost of moving home. In many cases we believe that buyers and lenders will not feel able to rely on the report. That is an issue we have discussed several times under this part of the Bill.
We understand that it is not a full structural survey and that it does not contain a valuation. Therefore, we know that mortgage lenders may want a different sort of survey, as will many people buying a house. During the recent exchanges on the lifetime of a pack, particularly on the home condition report, I was struck by the fact that if you could not sell a house for three years, you would probably need to paint the woodwork, for example. So, there are many difficulties with this.
Perhaps I may press the Minister on another point ill the same section. Clause 144(5) refers to the energy efficiency of the property. It is listed under,
"the information which the Secretary of State may consider to be relevant information … about",
and there follows a long list which includes the energy efficiency of the property. Can the Minister confirm that when the EU regulation kicks in requiring people to have an energy efficiency report on their home, it will be required at the point of sale under the European regulation? Again, that backs up some of the points that we have been discussing about the need for information to be ready on day one of marketing. I look forward to the speech which the Minister wanted to give in reply to our amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. There are a few points I want to make to clear up some misunderstandings and hares that have been set running. This amendment seemed the most appropriate place in which to do that. I fixed all my notes according to that, but then I was passed a note saying that the amendment would not be moved.
1140
I could have included all the material I have elsewhere, but this seemed the most appropriate place. I wanted to reiterate the point we made earlier as I take the last point about the energy report.
I am not good on the EU issue. I know that there is a requirement. It is in the consultation document at pages 128 to about—for existing houses—132. The energy report on the new home was set out as part of the consultation. So there is no surprise about that because a model pack was published in March last year. The home condition report runs to about 20 pages. They are obviously blank forms, but it gives the kind of information that would be required.
Clause 144 deals with the contents of the home information pack. It gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the documents to be included in the pack, the time at which they should be included and the information that may be included in, or excluded from, those documents.
The information prescribed is subject to the condition that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is information that is relevant to the property being sold. Amendment No. 198A would add a restriction to the effect that sellers may provide the information voluntarily but cannot be required to do so under regulations made under this part.
In our discussion on Amendments Nos. 183B and 185A in Clause 137 we explained why a voluntary home information pack system would not work. The same arguments apply here. I thought that the noble Baroness accepted that, hence she was not going to move the amendment. We need the home condition report to be a standard part of the pack. Its inclusion is fundamental to achieving the objectives of the reforms, for reasons I shall explain.
Our objective is a home-buying process where people are confident that their transactions will succeed by a reasonably certain timescale and at a reasonably predictable cost. To achieve that we need to make sure that the main factors that cause transactions to slow down or fail are known at the outset, not half way through.
Our research showed that 28 per cent of all transactions fail after an offer has been made. That is a huge number. Problems revealed by either a lender's valuation inspection or an independent survey account for 43 per cent of failed transactions. Condition-related problems also cause delays in transactions which ultimately succeed. Twelve per cent of all sellers reported such problems between the lender's valuation, inspection and exchange of contracts.
These problems are compounded because of chains. About 60 per cent of transactions involve chains. The industry estimates that an average chain has four transactions, so the knock-on effects of condition problems can be felt by over a half of all of transactions.
I have used the figure of 43 per cent again, which has been challenged. Yesterday it was almost alleged— I do not put words into noble Lords' mouths—that in effect by using the 43 per cent I was exaggerating the number of sales that had fallen through because of bad

1141
surveys. The 43 per cent failure rate is derived from the findings of the 1998 research study, reported in Key research on easier home buying and selling. The research report indicates that in 13 per cent of cases the transaction failed following an unfavourable property survey commissioned by the buyer himself.
The research report also said that a further 30 per cent of buyers withdrew as a consequence of their lender's valuation survey report. Opponents of the reforms have tried to claim that this 30 per cent had nothing to do with property condition.
The research report breaks down the 30 per cent and says that 10 per cent was attributable to the lender's valuation being too low and 20 per cent because of "other matters" revealed in the lender's valuation survey report. So it seems preposterous to claim that the 10 per cent that failed due to the lender's valuation being too low had nothing to do with the condition of the property. How do they know that the down valuation did not reflect the property conditions? As far as the remaining 20 per cent is concerned, what else could those "other matters" be if not condition problems of some shape or form?
I know that the lady I am going to mention was criticised, but, in her evidence to the Commons Select Committee on the Bill, Maria Coleman said that one of the main reasons for starting her voluntary scheme was the discovery that 71 per cent of her transaction failures were due to an adverse survey. We estimate that the home condition report will add about £350 to the £4,000 plus bill that sellers already typically face. This is a small price to pay for a survey that will be of great value to buyer and seller alike.
I have already referred to the 28 per cent of deals that fall after a valuation. We have put a figure on that of £350 million of wasted money, which is £1 million a day wasted in this country. That has been challenged as well, so I want to explain how we got the figure. The tracking surveys in the 1998 research study, Key research on easier home buying and selling, recorded details of the costs incurred by people whose purchase or sale had fallen through. It found that the average cost of a failed transaction was £906: £680 for buyers and £206 for sellers. However, the number of people who provided these details was small, as was said yesterday. It was fewer than 30 cases and the research report advised that the figures should be used with caution, which is what I am seeking to prove that we have done. At £906 per failure, that adds up to around £530 million a year. So our estimate of £350 million takes account of the uncertainty over the small sample size and assumes a cost of only £600 per transaction failure for the total cost to buyer and seller. Despite attempts to talk down the rate of failure—some people claim that it is a lot less, at 15 per cent—our recent discussions with some of the largest estate agency firms in the country, to which I referred yesterday and which is not a scientific survey, show that the failure rate is still about 30 per cent. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Maddock: Earlier on, the Minister used the figure of a 28 per cent failure rate for transactions. He then said that 43 per cent of those were due to the survey going wrong. That is only 12 per cent of the total.
Lord Rooker: So what?
Baroness Maddock: The Minister is accusing noble Lords of talking the figures down yesterday and I think that that is something like the figure that came out yesterday.
Lord Rooker: We have an enormous number of failures. I have broken that figure down and it does vary. That was the claim that we made and our own research showed that only 13 per cent of transaction failures were for that reason. I was not hiding the figure. In fact, I used the figure yesterday of 13 per cent at the same time as I used the figure of 43 per cent. But, taken in the round, we have a major problem of waste of money and distress caused to people in this country.
I want to put seven brief examples on the record because the department receives a steady stream of correspondence from people who have been let down by the current system. These cases show that our estimate of the cost to individuals of failed transactions is vastly underestimated. We have used £350 million, which averages about £600 for buyer and seller together. I want to give some recent examples that have come into the department. They are very brief and there are only seven of them.
The first one relates to a lady in Somerset. Her offer on a property was accepted but the property was then withdrawn from the market by the seller after four months, as planning permission papers for garage access could not be produced. She wasted £730 on valuation and search fees. This is in addition to a previous attempted purchase where the property was withdrawn after three months, due to problems with the property. On that occasion, £680 was wasted on valuation and search fees.
A Brighton pensioner had her offer of the asking price accepted. She then engaged solicitors and had the survey done but days before the contracts were to be drawn up the vendors withdrew, leaving her with a bill of almost £1,000 and nothing to show for it.
A young London couple with a young daughter spent months looking for a property. They then spent months going through the buying process, spending almost £2,000 on fees. They signed contracts to the point of pre-exchange. The sellers pulled out at the last minute. All of those sums are well above the £600 figure that I used.
A vendor in Cardiff accepted a couple's offer on a property. They became nervous when a "To Let" sign was put outside the property, but the vendor assured them that the sale was still on. At the last moment, the property was withdrawn. The couple had spent all their savings—more than £1,000—on surveys, searches and fees, and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Again, that is well over the £600 figure.

1143
In Gateshead, a vendor assured Mr F four times that the property would be his, after agreeing to terms on the house. He paid for the search fees. The vendor then informed him that the property had been sold to another couple. He is afraid that that could happen to him again and again, costing him thousands of pounds before he has even paid his first mortgage instalment.
In the south-west, in Exeter, a lady wrote on behalf of her daughter—a first-time buyer and a nurse—whose offer on a £90,000 flat was accepted. The seller pulled out at the last moment after the writer's daughter had paid for a survey, searches and other items that cost more than £1,000. The final solicitor's bill is yet to come on top of that.
My final example is that of a couple of young architects in London trying to buy a property for some time. Eventually, they had an offer accepted a few months ago. A week before completion the seller pulled out as he wanted more money. They have paid out several thousand pounds on abortive fees with no recourse, plus distress and upset.
Those examples are just a sample of the letters that come into the department. As I have said, 18 months ago I addressed the National Association of Estate Agents. I did not use the prepared speech, I just asked for the last 20 letters that I had signed to Members of the Commons in answer to queries from their constituents. I chose a dozen examples to read out instead of the speech in order to try to explain that there was a problem. I was accused of all kinds of things, but I just said, "Well, this is the people speaking; not me or the Government".
One of the letters did not go down very well because it was from an estate agent who had spent 25 years as a police officer. He had some quite disparaging things to say about buying and selling houses, which were far worse than anything that he had come across when he was a police officer. That did not go down at all well. I really had to ensure that I did not disclose his location in the country.
I am not claiming that the examples I have given are scientific. But, I am saying that our figure of £350 million for the waste is a very conservative figure based on the 30 cases that we had. With a £600 average cost for buyers and sellers—I am quoting only potential buyers here—the costs involved in every one of those examples are well above that figure.
The noble Earl wants to rise and respond. He will be able to explain his own views: he has brought to this debate his personal experience. But on the website of the estate agency where he is a consultant, the average properties for sale are between £500,000 and £2 million. Frankly, that is not the generality of house buying and selling in this country.
The noble Earl is expert in a very atypical part of the country. He is expert in other matters and I have found his contribution extremely valuable. But that is a matter of public record. On the website of said estate agency, the highest value property is £4.6 million; the cheapest is about £300,000 for a studio flat. That is not typical of buying and selling properties for the 40,000 dwellings that are put on the market each week in this
1144
country. Although the noble Earl can bring his technical expertise to our debates—for which I am very grateful—frankly, in terms of his expertise of buying and selling on a daily basis, that is not relevant to the generality of millions of people in this country who are buying and selling houses every day. As he clearly wants to get up, I shall give way to him.
The Earl of Caithness: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Yesterday, I said that I agree that the market in which I work is a specialised sector. But that is part of the housing market. There is no one housing market: every area is specialised. From the bottom end of the housing market with the lowest capital value houses, which will be excluded from the home information pack and the home condition report, right up to the top value houses, they are all part of the housing market. However, the transactions are exactly the same. We have the same problems with people pulling out and potential buyers wasting time that every other market has. All that is different is the price bracket.
10.45 p.m.
Let us look at what the Minister has just read out to us when it comes to failures because of valuation. Nothing in the Bill is going to affect that—there is no change. The home information pack does not contain a valuation. Perhaps it should, but there is nothing that will change the present situation. The vendor's agent will put a price on the property. If the purchaser comes along and the sale falls through because he or his mortgage company has a different valuation, that will be no different. The situation remains the same. The same letters will still come into the department.
The pre-purchase survey will change little. There is going to be a home condition survey. That is not a full structural survey. The Minister has said that all that is required of that survey is that it must be made within three months of the property being marketed. Let us imagine that we are in a poor property market and someone's house has been on the market for nine months. A potential purchaser comes along and asks whether anything has changed since the home condition report. The vendor will then say, "Yes, you look for yourself. That was the home condition report at the date that it was marketed. It was valid at the date of its market. Yes, things have happened, but caveat emptor"—I have the same problem with Latin as the Minister—"it is up to you".
So the buyer has to carry out his own survey at his own cost. There is no change to the current situation; we are back to the same position. The department will still receive letters about pre-purchase surveys. Let us say that the seller pulls out; sellers pull out for all sorts of reasons. In the key research to which the Minister referred sellers pull out because of changes in financial circumstances; because they did not continue the purchase of the house; because they decided to stay where they were—there are all sorts of reasons for pulling out. Nothing in the Bill or the home information pack will alter that in the slightest.

1145
Let us say that the property is sold to another person. That is going to happen. It does not matter whether there is a home information pack. If someone else comes along with a higher offer, the vendor will sell. The agent is duty bound to obtain the best price. The department will still receive letters.
The Minister referred again to sellers pulling out. The one area where there could be a potential change is to have the searches upfront, which might speed up the process. But there is no requirement to keep the searches up to date, so if the property has been on the market for nine months, all that the vendor's agent has to say is, "Yes, the searches were done in accordance with law. It is up to you to check whether it's changed. I am not going to spend any more money. Prescott has made me spend all this money upfront. I'm not going to do a darn thing more. Why should I? It's up to you as the purchaser".
What in reality is going to happen is that there will be a change for properties that can be sold quickly in a good market. In a bad market we will be back to exactly the same position as now. One noticeable thing that will change is that the purchaser will be presented with a home condition report. Most purchasers do not have any survey or condition report undertaken now. They will be handed 20 pages—which are pretty general; we will come to that in a moment. They will ask whether anything has changed. As the agent I will say, "Yes, it is up to you to check what's changed, because it's caveat emptor". They will then in all probability get in a surveyor to carry out another report, which they are not doing at the moment. That pack will lead to more expense.
I understand exactly where the Minister is coming from. But the Bill does not change a single iota of what he said, except possibly for houses that are sold quickly in a bull market.
Lord Rooker: By giving way to the noble Earl, I have lost track of where I was; I was nearly at the end.
I want to answer the point raised about the energy efficiency report so that there is no misunderstanding, but let me make a point about the additional cost of the home condition report. I said that, against the total money that the seller must pay, £350 out of the £4,000 bill that they already typically face, is a small price to pay for a survey that will be of value—the value being that, hopefully, it will cut down the loss of the £350 million, which I tried to explain was a fairly modest figure.
The additional cost, of course, is offset by savings in those transactions where the buyer would have commissioned his own survey. In many cases—not all—it could eliminate the need for separate mortgage valuation inspections, which cost borrowers almost £200 on average, and remove much of the wasteful duplication of surveys that occur under the current system where more than one buyer has surveys on the same house. That is the reality. People queuing up to buy have their own surveys carried out on the same property. It is an enormous waste of money.
1146
As to the energy efficiency requirement, our consultation document was published in March 2003. In regard to the issue about the energy efficiency information being required at the point of sale, the answer is yes, but Article 7 of the directive makes clear that the intention is that the information should help the prospective buyer with his choice of a home. Our own information pack proposals pre-date the European Union directive and it has always been our intention that this energy efficiency information should be available at the point it is of most use—which of course is at the start of the transaction in the home information pack.
Yes, sellers will still sell to someone else with a higher offer, but, unlike now, the buyer will not be saddled with the cost of the surveys and searches. In the examples I have given, the people would not have wasted their money in the first place.
I am sorry that I have taken a little longer than I expected but there were some general points that I wanted to put before we reached the end of the home condition part of the Bill.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that reply. We have tried to save time and I hope that it is there on the record.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has made many of the points that I wanted to raise. I thank the Minister for clarifying the energy efficiency report. It is the one part of the home condition report that we would support being compulsory. It is very important. Another part of the EU regulation is that it should be indicated to people how they can improve the energy efficiency of their home, which is a useful suggestion. I am very much in favour of it and have supported it for a long time.
We could bandy figures about the Chamber—and I do not detract from the real distress that people suffer in buying and selling homes—but the Minister is right to say that this is not a scientific issue. It is not. He is referring to a self-selecting group of people who write with their problems. Although it gives us quite a good picture of the kinds of things that go wrong, we have to be careful about drawing big conclusions from such examples. I referred to the percentages earlier.
The Minister has given very detailed replies but, at this hour of the night, I am going to have to read very carefully some of his remarks. It has been a helpful debate. Noble Lords on this side of the Chamber would like the pack to be voluntary, but not the energy efficiency part of the home condition report.
We know that many people are not going to rely on the home condition report and that they will carry out surveys. People are always arguing about surveys. I have had a terrible experience with a survey myself. I bought a flat that was recommended to me. I have discovered since I moved in that he failed to realise that I was paying for all the electricity on the communal staircase; he also failed to inform me that the radiators were outside my property. There are great difficulties involved and everybody can tell a story about how surveys have gone wrong. I am not convinced that the

1147
home condition report is going to be so much better than many of the surveys, but as it is late, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199 and 199A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 200 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 200ZA:
Page 99, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Earl said: The amendment would delete Clause 144(6)(a), which states:
"The regulations may require or authorise the home information pack to include replies the seller proposes to give to prescribed pre-contract enquiries".
I do not see the point of including such a requirement in the Bill, because the Minister has said that the property for sale can be changed without having to change the home information pack. If, after a number of pre-contract enquiries have been made, the property is changed or an alteration in the negotiation is made, all those enquiries become invalid. Until the contracts are exchanged, nobody can be totally certain of what is being sold in a property.
I shall take three brief examples. The first is the three-bedroom semi-detached house which has been used as an example in some of the Government's figures. The pre-contract enquiries may concern the kitchen units and that will come up in the home condition report. The vendor might say that he is selling the property with the units included. The property takes a little time to sell and the vendor renews the kitchen units. He does not have to have a new home condition report or change the home information pack. He has therefore ticked all the boxes that regulations require him to tick, but he has changed his mind about the kitchen because he has put in new units and he wants to take the dishwasher, the deep freeze and the new cooker with him because he has just spent a lot of money on them. However, that is reflected in the price of the property. It is only when one has the price of the property and knows what is included in the sale that one can answer those kinds of questions.
Let us look at a house with land. Let us move out of the city and into the country. Somebody is selling a house and a garden, but owns the field next door. He excludes the field next door from the sale. The pre-contract enquiries may ask who is responsible for the boundary fences and that box is filled in. During the negotiation for the sale of the house and the garden, the vendor is made such a good offer by a potential purchaser of the field that he decides to sell it. Once again, all the boxes that he has ticked have to be changed. It is not until the price and what is included in it are agreed that answers to those questions can be had.
What about the house next door? Exactly the same situation arises. What if I am just redeveloping a property? I have a home condition report when I buy it, and it is fit to live in—but what if I decide to remodel
1148
the house, and I am adding bits to it, uncertain exactly what I am going to sell until the final terms are agreed? The main thrust of the argument for deleting subsection (6)(a) is that, until the final terms are agreed, one does not know what is included in the sale and what is not. Why do we need regulations to contain,
"replies the seller proposes to give to prescribed pre-contract enquiries",
when one does not know what the sale is going to include? I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Rooker: This amendment would, as the noble Earl said, delete subsection (6)(a) of Clause 144, which provides that regulations may require the pack to contain,
"replies the seller proposes to give to prescribed pre-contract enquiries".
It is standard practice under the current system for the buyer's conveyancer to seek information from the seller on a range of matters relating to the property, including boundaries, disputes, notices, planning consent and other matters about which the seller would normally have information, and which it is important that the buyer knows about. The Law Society has produced a standard property information form that is used for just that purpose, and I suspect that more than one noble Lord could probably quote chapter and verse from each of its questions.
As the information is needed by the buyer and is provided under the current system, it is clearly "relevant information" for the purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 144. The Government have consulted on the contents of the home information pack, and most of those who have commented on this particular point thought the pack should include a property information form along the lines of the Law Society's form, which was included in our consultation document. The contents of the pack will be set out in regulations, but we have not yet taken any final decisions. The Government are establishing specialist working groups to consider these matters, and there are some issues around the property information form. For example, in some cases, sellers may have limited knowledge of the property and be unable to provide answers. Sellers are not legally obliged to answer questions now, and we do not intend to change that.
The noble Earl raised issues relating to fixtures and fittings. What he did not do, when he talked about the kitchen appliances, was say whether they were built in or not. If a kitchen is built in, I think it would be a reasonable assumption on my part, as a reasonable person, that when I open the doors I will find the oven and the fridge. If they are freestanding, that is another issue, and indeed the question of whether the furniture is built in or not is covered in some of the forms. If the equipment changes during the course of the sale, that is a matter that can easily be decided. I do not see any great issue there.

1149
The original list is just a starting point for negotiations; no one ever refers to it as a straitjacket. I am not aware of it causing major problems, except where people tell porkies when they answer the form, and people then abort statements that were untrue as regards boundaries, disputes with neighbours or other issues. As I said, the specimen form is in Appendix K of the consultation paper on the contents of the pack. We expect that most of the information will not change. We are consulting on the matter, because it is important that we get this right with the industry. It is 18 months ago, near enough, since we published the consultation document. No one is saying that that is exactly the form it will take, but that document will largely form the basis for the home information pack.
The Earl of Caithness: All those who have bought and sold their own houses will be aware of the form. However, the simple point I am trying to make is that where there has been change to the property being marketed—as the Minister has said, that does not necessitate a new home information pack—the answers given to the inquiries laid down in regulations would be wrong. However, obviously that does not matter. If neither the vendor nor the agent are to be penalised because the answers are wrong, then I do not see the point of giving them in the first place and the need for this amendment is removed. It means that you can put what you like in the information pack and change the circumstances at will. The home information pack will mean nothing to the potential purchaser: this is caveat emptor and he will have to do his own thing anyway.
This has proved that much of what the Government seek is not binding and will make life more complicated for the potential purchaser. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 200B:
Page 99, line 14, leave out from "which" to end of line 16 and insert "acknowledge liability for any error contained in the prescribed document due to his negligence in favour of"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 206A which is grouped with it, along with Amendment No. 202, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
The first of these amendments would remove from subsection (8) the words,
"enable provisions of the contract under which the document is to be prepared to be enforced",
and insert instead,
"acknowledge liability for any error contained in the prescribed document due to his negligence in favour of".
This is another amendment suggested by the Law Society and seeks to establish exactly what is intended here.
Subsections (7) and (8) appear to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations that would entitle the buyer, the lender or other persons to enforce the provisions of the contract under which a prescribed document is to be prepared. I should be grateful if the Minister could assist us on exactly what is intended.
Amendment No. 206A would allow sellers, buyers and lenders to bring proceedings where they have relied on information contained in the home condition report which proves not to be correct. The Minister spoke earlier today on the issue of liability, but if a home condition report is included in the pack, it ought to be correct for anyone who needs to rely on it. The seller could secure compensation if the report is defective, but if the lender and the buyer cannot secure compensation—or, to put it another way, if the person preparing the report knows that he will not be exposed to action from the lender or buyer—then they may well be reluctant to rely on that report. If there is no redress, one's reliance is reduced accordingly.
The amendment deals with the issue of liability, which is probably a more important matter than is indicated by this minor amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 202 is grouped with this amendment. We have not really touched at all on the surveys which are required before a mortgage can be obtained. Practically every person who buys a house has to have a mortgage survey. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that 77 per cent of people do not undertake a survey of their premises. But that is nonsense in terms of those who have mortgages because they have a survey of a sort. It is usually not a survey that stands up sufficiently as a full condition survey
However, if there is to be a survey for a home condition report, is it the intention that it should be acceptable to the mortgage lenders so that they will not have to do another survey in order to justify a mortgage? I do not need to go into the situation any further. That is the nub of the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with Amendment No. 202 first because I believe that I can satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on that. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the home condition report is acceptable to lenders. We accept that it is crucial that the report is acceptable to them, but I am reluctant to single them out in the way the amendment suggests. It could be dangerous to do so as it could give them a right of veto over the format and content of the home condition report.
That said—and I want this understood—we have been developing the home condition report in very close consultation with mortgage lenders and the Council of Mortgage Lenders to ensure that their information requirements are met by the home condition report. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness because it is intended to. Obviously, we cannot give people a right of veto over the process of consultation, but it is intended to cover the points that need to be covered. I hope that is a helpful response.

1151
Amendment No. 200B would specify that the terms of documents provided in the pack may include terms that allow claims for negligence to be brought by those who rely on them. Of course we share the sentiment behind the amendment. We all want the packs to be useful to those involved in a transaction. However, I do not think that the amendment is necessary.
The Secretary of State will prescribe the components of the home information pack in regulations under Clause 144, as we have explained. Subsection (7)(b) of that clause enables him to prescribe the terms on which they are prepared. This will provide the means for achieving what I believe the mover of the amendment wants. Clearly, the Secretary of State will want to ensure that sellers, buyers and lenders can rely on these documents.
We intend that the home inspector's liability to sellers, buyers and lenders will be secured by contract. Home inspectors can therefore be bound by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. This should ensure that the buyer and lender, as well as the seller who commissions the home condition report, will be able to rely on it and bring proceedings against the inspector should that prove necessary. It is the current intention that regulations made under Clause 145 will specify that home condition reports must contain a statement confirming the rights of buyers, sellers and mortgage lenders to rely on its contents. I believe that is a response to the points raised.
Amendment No. 206A was also in this group. I shall refer to it even though I am not sure that it has been moved. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that appropriate arrangements were in place for buyers, sellers and lenders to be able to bring proceedings against the person who prepared a home condition report upon which they relied before he could approve a certification scheme.
We endorse the sentiment behind the amendment, but we do not believe that it is necessary. We believe that the arrangements we have set out will provide sufficient safeguards to cover all the interests of those who rely on home condition reports. I have tried to give assurances here and I hope that they match the points made in the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in reply to this group of amendments. Would he not agree that although the home condition report might satisfy the criteria of the mortgage lenders when first made and there is no valuation in the home information pack, the mortgage lenders have to undertake some kind of valuation in order to make the grant of a mortgage?
Secondly, the older the home condition report—it does not need to be updated—the less any lender will rely on it and the more likely it is that the lender will have to instigate a survey of his own to update the pack because a seller does not have to and the seller will not. Perhaps at day one it may satisfy the criteria, but in the
1152
five months, six months, nine months, two years it could take to sell a property, no lender will rely on such a report and there is no valuation attached to it. It has huge built-in weaknesses.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl makes a good point. Most transactions will not take the period of time that he has described, although some will. Even the noble Earl will accept that for an overall percentage of transactions to take longer than six months to go through the purchasing process is perhaps exceptional; certainly a year is very exceptional indeed.
I know the noble Earl is a specialist, but the lenders may want to satisfy themselves; they may want to have another look at some points, particularly if the transaction period is extended. We are talking to them about the detail of the home condition report. We shall no doubt have to continue our discussions with them on that because we want that report to be of value to them, so that it obviates the need for independent and separate reports to satisfy the lenders. We recognise the issue and we recognise some of the implications raised in this discussion. But it is our intention to do all that we can to ensure that that report satisfies them so that they can lend money against the property.
Baroness Hamwee: I freely acknowledge that at this time of night I am flagging. I shall not attribute that to others, but I shall have to read what the Minister has said. I am not sure that I have followed everything, which I am sure is my fault and not his.
On Amendment No. 200B, we are assured that the regulations will be all right, but when talking about issues of enforcement I am not sure that that is wholly satisfactory. I spoke to Amendment No. 206A, but I want to see in black and white what has been said as, earlier, I had understood something slightly different from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I thank the Minister for his reply.
Baroness Hanham: I am very interested in the Minister's reply that work has been carried out with the mortgage lenders. The hope is that the home condition report will satisfy them. It would be essential for the home condition report to carry at least a statement saying that it is accepted by the mortgage lenders. As with other matters, one can see that beginning to fade out of existence, as the home condition report removes the novelty. It seems to me important that the buyer will be exempted from having to pay the costs of a valuation in those circumstances; indeed, the seller will have paid for the valuation report for the buyer. That is a completely new concept. I shall not take the matter any further tonight. It has sparked off a whole new area of interest, but I shall not bother the Committee with it tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 99, line 27, at end insert "; and
(d) allow the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to set and maintain fees for those searches and functions under the Local Land Charges Act 1975 (c. 76), The Local Land Charges Rules 1977 and the Common Registration Act 1965 (c. 64)."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment gives the Government a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of local government by giving local councils more power to raise money locally.
There are currently two types of search. The first type is the official search carried out by local authority officers. There are also now reports carried out by private agencies which are becoming increasingly popular. I dare say that private agencies will still be entitled to do the searches for the vendor. However, these private agencies still have to rely on the information from the local land charges register. Those are given to them by council officers.
The cost of the searches at the moment is set by law at £11. That does not cover the costs. The estimated actual cost in time and effort of local council officers is more likely to be £50 per search. Where a local council is able to charge a sensible amount for the services it provides, these local agencies have estimated that a sum in the region of £60 million from revenue would be raised by local councils across the land. That is a positive development that I hope the Minister will accept. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support this amendment. I am very glad that the noble Baroness was fast enough to table it. I realise that we should have tabled it and was happy to see that it was tabled. Personal searches are made because the purchaser wants to get on with it and is prepared to bear the professional cost of a personal search—in other words, the cost of somebody pitching up at the local authority's offices and looking at the material rather than sitting in an office and waiting for it.
That in itself is an expense, so it would not be a great disaster for the consumer—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has rightly talked of the Bill as a consumer Bill—if the cost to the local authority of personal searches was covered, because officers have to go and get the files and so on. It is unlikely to add very greatly to the cost for the consumer, but would be fair to the local authority.
Lord Rooker: I have good news—it is a good news day or a good news amendment—although it is only partial good news. I do not want to oversell it.
Amendment No. 201 seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to enable local authorities to set their own fees for services provided under the Local Land Charges Act 1975 and the Commons Registration Act 1965, including for searches of the relevant registers. That is similar to an amendment discussed in Committee in the other place. The Minister with responsibility for housing said then that these fees are not restricted to housing matters. The wording of this
1154
amendment might have the unfortunate consequence of allowing only fees relating to residential properties to be devolved to local authorities.
Local land charge fees in England and Wales are currently set by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury. For England, deregulation of the setting of these fees is part of the Government's strategy for implementing the local government White Paper. The Government have supported David Borrow's Local Land Charges (Fees) Bill. However, it is unlikely that that Bill will complete its parliamentary stages in this Session. I can now confirm that the Government are intending to bring forward an amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill which would devolve to local authorities in England the power to set fees for local land charge services, with the exception of personal search fees.
In relation to local land charges services in Wales, including personal search fees, the Government have agreed to the National Assembly's proposal to transfer fee-setting powers to the Assembly. A transfer of functions order to achieve that is to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Wales shortly.
Personal search fees are excepted from the proposals for England because they present some difficult issues. A full review is to be undertaken before any decision is made. It would be premature to set a date for that review until we know the scope of the study that the Office of Fair Trading is planning to conduct into the property search market. The National Assembly for Wales has confirmed that it will not use its powers to set personal search fees in Wales until it has undertaken a review of those fees. It is expected that the National Assembly will join in a review of personal search fees across England and Wales.
Setting fees for searches of the common land register is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra is currently considering a package of reforms to the registers, and plans to introduce primary legislation as soon as possible. Information in the local land charges register and information about common land would fall within the ambit of Clause 144(5)(c) as relevant information for the home information pack. However, charging powers in relation to the provision of such information is very much a matter for other legislation, as I have explained.
Progress is on the way. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the noble Baroness will be more than satisfied that that was a very positive response to a fully worked-up amendment that, sadly, I cannot accept.
Lord Avebury: Is it not possible that, one day, all the information will be digitised, and that the consumers will be able to make the searches for themselves without paying professional fees?
Lord Rooker: Probably, one day.
Baroness Hanham: The answer to my amendment seems to be, "Yes, but not now". I accept that, although it is a great pity that it cannot be put into the legislation. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Home condition reports]:
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 99, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 203 to 205 are grouped together. They suggest that, when regulations are put in place, the home condition reports must be produced by someone adequately qualified to carry out the task. Those who carry out the reports must be able to inspire the trust of the purchaser. If we are to have the home information packs foisted on us, for goodness' sake let us at least make sure that they are worth the paper on which they are written.
I refer back to the amendment regarding the suitability of the reports to mortgage lenders. In order for the reports to have any credibility at all in the marketplace, they must be prepared in such a way and by such a qualified person that they are fit for the task. Having language such as,
"regulations may require a home condition report to be made by an individual who is a member of an approved certification scheme",
in the clause is not at all helpful. It suggests that anyone may be in the position to produce such a report and that, if necessary, the house seller can scratch one together.
I recall the Minister saying earlier that there would be a training programme for the inspectors, and I recall reading elsewhere that an NVQ would be required for home inspectors. An NVQ is nowhere near the qualification of a chartered surveyor, the person who currently does the surveys. One of the most important aspects of the reports will be that they are of sufficient quality to enable everyone to rely on them, otherwise exactly what I suggested before will happen—they will not be worth the paper on which they are written, people will not rely on them, and buyers will simply get their own searches and surveys done at the normal expense to them, and thereby will not really save anything at all.
Therefore, it is extremely important that we know what the training scheme for the home inspectors will entail. We should know the level of the qualification that they will be required to have if they carry out this work, the extent of the training and what is involved. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 145(4) enables the Secretary of State to make provision for the approval of one or more certification schemes. Subsection (5) lists a number of points on which the Secretary of State
1156
would need to be satisfied before approving a scheme. They include home inspectors being fit and proper persons to carry out home condition reports, having adequate indemnity insurance and a complaint resolution procedure being in place.
Amendment No. 203 would replace the word "may" with "shall" in subsection (3) of Clause 145. We think that it is appropriate to use the word "may" rather than "shall" in this instance as there is no requirement for the regulations empowered by Clause 144 to be made. However, the use of the word "may" does not imply that the regulations will not be made, nor that home condition reports will be carried out other than by members of an approved certification scheme. The rest of the provisions in the Bill cannot work unless the contents of the pack are prescribed in regulations. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State has every intention, after full consultation with interested parties, of making regulations under Clause 144 which will deal with the provisions in Clause 145.
As I said, Clause 145(4) allows the Secretary of State to approve one or more certification schemes. The effect of Amendment No. 204 would be to restrict that power so that only one scheme could be approved at any one time, effectively giving the scheme a monopoly over the certification of home inspectors. I do not know whether that was the noble Baroness's intention but that is what its effect would be. We do not consider that that step would be in the best interests of home inspectors or ultimately, perhaps more importantly, consumers. In the event that the certification scheme was failing, it would be difficult for a second scheme to be introduced quickly enough to offer a viable alternative. Therefore, if the amendment were at some stage to be successful, effectively it would create a monopoly situation which would not work to the benefit of the consumer or supplier of the service.
While there would be the advantage of certainty in having a single scheme—we have no current reasons to believe that approval is likely to be sought for more than one—I think it is important for the Secretary of State to have some flexibility here to approve another scheme or schemes if that were to become necessary or desirable. Crucially, whether it is one scheme, two or three, all will have to meet the same exacting standards. Listening to what the noble Baroness said, that is probably a shared objective because we all want to ensure that the home condition report is a document of value.
Amendment No. 205 would require the Secretary of State to approve any qualification and training schemes set up to train home inspectors. We do not think that that is either necessary or practicable, for the reasons that I shall now set out. As part of the process of approving a certification scheme, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied about its arrangements for ensuring that applicants for membership are properly competent.
In September 2003, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority approved national occupational standards for home inspectors. The standards clearly set out the skills and knowledge that

1157
should be acquired by home inspectors. Candidates should be trained and assessed to ensure that they meet prescribed standards.
Rather than have a single, one-size-fits-all training course, we propose to allow competition and choice. We envisage that the certification scheme will appoint an awarding body or bodies that will establish qualifications in home inspection. That process is already well under way. On 1 September this year, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority approved a qualification in home inspection, submitted by the Awarding Body for the Built Environment, in the expectation of Royal Assent and subsequent approval of the ABBE as an awarding body.
In turn, the awarding body could appoint assessment centres that can assess and give credit for candidates' prior knowledge and experience and identify any gaps where additional training is required. We expect that these training needs will be filled, for example, through courses provided by universities or colleges or major employers of surveyors. All candidates would then need to sit a final test set and marked by the awarding body before being awarded the home inspection qualification required to be admitted to membership of a certification scheme.
That seems to us to be an effective and entirely appropriate regime for ensuring that home inspectors are appropriately qualified and trained. Obviously, we have worked hard with the potential awarding bodies, the university sector, the professional organisations and so forth to ensure that what we have set up and designed works effectively so that there can be trust and confidence in home inspectors and their product; that is, the report. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question on this qualification. It follows the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, kindly gave me last week. I have been looking for it for the last couple of minutes and cannot find it. I asked about the costs that had been paid to a company called SAVA, which is now no longer anything to do with the ODPM but those that were involved in that section of SAVA have now set up a company called Property Industry Research Limited (PIR) and have a big contract with the ODPM.
From memory the Minister's letter said that the total of the contracts first to SAVA and now to PIR are something in excess of £2 million. Later in the paragraph he mentions another figure of £2 million. That figure, coincidentally, is the same as the total of the two figures that he gave me earlier for SAVA and PIR. Can he confirm that the total amount of the contract is just over £2 million or is it £4.2 million or thereabouts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker has provided me with a copy of this. The total value of the contract is £2,114,913.
The Earl of Caithness: Is that the total that the ODPM has so far spent on these two companies in the contract, and that will be the end of it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: All I can say to the noble Earl is that that is the total value of the contract.
Baroness Hanham: It is too late to go into the details of this but what we will need to be satisfied about—I am not satisfied yet—is that the training of these inspectors will be such that they will be in a position to do a survey which is adequate; in fact, not adequate, more than adequate. If the home condition survey is not comparable to the survey which is carried out on premises at the moment, buyers will not rely upon it. It is terribly important that we get clear the standard of this home condition report. Does the Minister agree with that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to agree with the noble Baroness in this sense. It is one of those situations where we are not quite comparing like with like. I understand what the noble Baroness says, but home inspectors will not need to be qualified to what one might describe as the full RICS standard, largely because they are not undertaking the full range of tasks that are included in the chartered surveyor's qualification. I think the noble Baroness needs to accept that point. However, that said, we want them to be of a very high standard indeed.
We have worked very hard with the relevant bodies so that we can have confidence in this and so that the market itself and those institutions and bodies which are part of the market are satisfied. That work has been ongoing. As I said earlier, we have had very extensive discussions with stakeholders to ensure that we achieve the very high standard that will be required so that confidence can be assured.
No doubt the noble Baroness will want to tease more of that out at a later stage, but that is our intention. We recognise the essential importance of the issue.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. For today, we beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 100, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) for ensuring that members of the scheme are completely independent and have no links financial or otherwise with the responsible person;"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 205A amends Clause 145 by dealing with regulations that may be made concerning members of approved certification schemes. The purpose of the amendment is to make it absolutely clear that home inspectors

1159
must be independent. The hour is late but this is an important amendment. It is absolutely essential for buyers to know that home inspectors are completely independent if they are going to have the confidence to rely on home condition reports commissioned by sellers. Given the decisions we have had about these reports already this evening, that is very important.
Members of a scheme who are linked to estate agents, mortgage lenders, building fabric warranty providers and financial product providers may not sufficiently protect the consumer in our view. I think that this is a difficult issue. We believe that independence is an important consumer protection for both sellers and buyers to ensure that pressures are not brought to bear on members of a scheme which could influence the contents of the report.
I hope that the Government agree with us on this. They may not think that the amendment should be here, and they may have made provision for it elsewhere in the Bill where we have not found it. However, I think that the issue is important. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Amendment No. 208A and Amendment No. 209, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hanham and myself, are grouped. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is absolutely right. This is a fundamental and crucial amendment to how this part of the Bill is going to work. It is a consumer protection amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is not in his place because I think that on this occasion he would probably be with us.
Given the advocacy and passion with which the Government have promoted the Bill, one might well have thought that many other countries in the world are ready to follow this lead and the unprecedented step that the Government are taking for England and Wales. But the silence is deafening. Nobody is following what the Government are advocating in Part 5 of the Bill.
The reason for that is simple. The surveyor must be totally independent from all other parties. In the US, it is illegal for there to be any link between home inspectors and the selling agent. Financial institutions are not allowed to own an estate agency chain as their view is that a consumer needs independent financial advice on a mortgage, not from someone selling a property. If transgressions are found, a practitioner can lose his state licence. That is very different from what is happening in the UK, where it is not a question of a conflict of interest but more of a vested interest.
I have concerns about the home condition inspector being responsible to the seller, the buyer and the lender. Those concerns have been somewhat eased by the Minister's comments that the home condition report does not need to be updated. All the surveyor—but let us not call him a surveyor as he does not have the qualifications of a surveyor: he will have the qualifications of an inspector, which are not the same and of a lesser standard—all the inspector will have to say is, "At the time that I did the report it was right, but that was nine months ago. It is now up to the vendor or
1160
the purchaser to get an up-to-date survey. You prove that what I said nine months ago was wrong". That is not a good position for an inspector to be in. It gives him a get out clause. But we still have the position where the inspector is responsible and can be sued by three different parties.
11.45 p.m.
Another group that has a vested interest is my institution, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. All those who have the proper surveying qualifications automatically have the qualifications to be a home inspector. It is not surprising that many firms see this as a good way to increase the turnover of their business without adding to costs.
I move on to an agency that has been giving the Government a lot of advice and which the Government seem to think to be rather good news—Countrywide Assured. But it has a vested interest, in that it is seeking to become a one-stop-shop. If one looks at its annual statement in 2000, it states that it had recently taken an investment amounting to 47 per cent of equity shares in Teramedia, a company that has been granted a licence to access and provide Land Registry and local authority searches electronically. Countrywide also has surveyors. So within one building, within one firm, actions are being taken against the interests of the consumer because if one goes to that firm, it will say that it can recommend a surveyor, who happens to be sitting at a desk there, and that, of course, he will be independent. No, he cannot be independent, he is working for that firm and that is utterly unacceptable.
On a smaller scale, let us turn to the case of Maria Coleman. When she did the pilot scheme in Bristol, she was in control of a company promoting the sale of voluntary seller's pack schemes to estate agents. I asked the Minister yesterday whether she declared that interest to the Government. At the moment, as far as I can see from her website, she is selling 16 properties. That is not the basis on which the Government of this country should be making legislation. That is quite wrong. I must press the Government for an answer. Did Maria Coleman advise the ODPM or the Government of her dual interest, her conflict of interest?
This is where the trouble is going to begin. This is where there will be a huge amount of consumer resistance. At the moment, packs are voluntary, but when all the packs become compulsory and consumers start to wake up to the fact that, rather than getting independent advice, they are getting advice from people who are selling properties as well as being surveyors, or who are working within the same firm, or who are controlled by a financial institution, like the lenders, then consumers will lose even more confidence in the housing market and the way it works.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, read out seven examples from letters. Those letters are nothing in comparison to the letters he will get in a few years' time. In a few years' time, the letters are going to say exactly the same thing, but they will have this sentence:

1161
"You misled us; you told us that this was going to be a better system". No, it is not a better system but one way we can improve what is proposed by the Government is to have the inspector totally separate and verifiably independent from any of the other institutions: from the purchaser, the vendor and the lender.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 205A would require that home inspectors are "independent". The amendment does not really give any more depth than that, but it is an important statement in itself. The home condition report should of course be completely objective. We recognise and understand the concern that this objectivity could be compromised if there were to be any potential or actual conflict of interest. I know that there is a particular concern about risks where, for example, the home inspector and the seller's estate agent are employed by the same company.
However, the Government believe that the checks and balances that we intend to put into place will ensure that those fears, while completely understandable, are misplaced. We intend to tackle those risks through the regulations made in accordance with Clauses 144 and 145 and the terms under which the home inspectors will belong to the certification scheme. All the main stakeholders, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Consumers' Association are involved in that work. Certification schemes will not be approved unless all the interested parties can rely on those reports.
I will outline some of the checks and balances. First, we intend that the guidance will be made available. It will set out clearly what the home inspector must do when preparing a home condition report. If the inspector fails to act correctly, that will be readily apparent. Secondly, we intend that inspectors will be required to make a "related parties" statement on the front page of the home condition report if the firm is related to that of the estate agent selling the property. That will make any link fully transparent.
Thirdly, we expect that approval will be granted to a certification scheme only if it clearly establishes the duties and responsibilities of home inspectors and publishes clear guidance about the conduct expected of inspectors, particularly in cases of perceived and actual conflicts of interest. Furthermore, approval will be granted only to certification schemes that monitor and audit the work of home inspectors.
The evidence from our research—and the practical experience of those operating voluntary home information packs in the real world—is that most buyers are prepared to trust a report that is provided by the seller now. Our objective is to ensure that when home condition reports are being provided under the terms of an approved certification scheme, they will be completely above suspicion. In that respect, our aim is to ensure that home condition reports will be regarded in much the same way as an RAC or AA report on a second-hand car is regarded now.
1162
Any home inspector producing a report in a manner that is partial to one party risks being sued by the other and a claim against indemnity insurance will impact on renewal terms. That would also be likely to trigger a complaint to the certification scheme, which could lead to sanctions and even expulsion from membership of the scheme and the loss of livelihood. In summary, that robust package of safeguards will ensure the objectivity of home condition reports.
Amendment No. 208 seeks to delay the implementation of the certification scheme until the Secretary of State is satisfied. I apologise, I should have turned to Amendment No. 208A. The points in respect of Amendment No. 208A are similar to those for Amendment No. 205A. Again, we understood the concerns, but the checks and balances that we have put in place will cover the points that are of concern to the noble Earl.
Amendment No. 209 seeks to delete Clause 145(7). As we have explained many times, Clause 144 contains the general powers for the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the documents required to be included in a home information pack and information to be included in, or excluded from, those documents. Regulations regarding the inclusion of a home condition report in the pack would be made under the powers in Clause 144.
Clause 145 is supplementary to Clause 144. It makes provision for what may be required in any Clause 144 regulations made in relation to home condition reports. It also sets out points on which any regulations shall require the Secretary of State to be satisfied before approving a certification scheme for the production of home condition reports.
Clause 145(7) confirms that nothing in Clause 145 limits the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 144 to make provision about home condition reports in regulations. That is the case because Clause 145(3) provides only that the Secretary of State may require in regulations that a home condition report must be prepared by an individual who is a member of an approved certification scheme. It does not require him to do so. Only if the Secretary of State makes a requirement must he make provision for the approval of certification schemes and for the schemes to contain appropriate provision for the arrangements regarding qualifications, indemnity insurance and other aspects set out in Clause 145(5).
I appreciate that that is a technical point, but given the knowledge available on the Opposition Benches and the fact that we have dispatched consultation papers on the pack's contents specifically proposing the inclusion of a home condition report supported by one or more of the certification schemes, I hope that it will be understood. Clause 145 is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of what might be provided in regulations regarding home condition reports. It may prove necessary for regulations to cover considerations not mentioned in that clause: possible examples are monitoring and auditing arrangements and provision for insurance of last resort; that is, cover

1163
to protect the homebuyer should the home inspector's run-off cover have lapsed, for example, following his death.
Accordingly, for the avoidance of doubt, Clause 145(7) provides that nothing in Clause 145 limits the Secretary of State's power under Clause 144 to make provision about home condition reports and regulations. I hope that that has covered the issues of concern relating to the amendments.
To answer the specific point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, concerning Maria Coleman, the Government have always been aware of her commercial interests in estate agency and home information packs. She was operating packs before the Government prepared these proposals, so it has been well known to us for some time. We have acted entirely properly and taken good advice in bringing forward our proposals. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that we have acted in good faith, as I am sure he does.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to what the Minister said in reply. I shall read carefully his response when it is printed in the Official Report. There is a fundamental difference between mine and the Government's position and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. From the consumer's point of view, if home information packs and home condition reports are to be foisted on the public, the inspector must be totally independent from any other party. That is crucial for consumer confidence and for the reputation of the scheme that the Government propose.
The Minister and I could argue all night about that, but we are coming from fundamentally different positions. I believe that it is absolutely right that the inspector is totally independent. The Government do not care: they think that they can control it by regulations and that they can bring in enough checks and balances to ensure that the public are not put at a disadvantage. I do not believe it for a moment: it just will not work.
Baroness Maddock: As I said in moving the amendment—and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, expressed the same firm opinion—this is an important matter. I shall have to read carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. He gave a long reply; it is late and we are all tired. Between now and Report stage will the Minister spell out a little more clearly the checks and balances about which he has been talking? That seems to be where the difference is between us. We are saying that we want to be independent: the Minister is saying yes, we have put things in place but we will ensure their independence. That is the point on which we need to be reassured.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate what the noble Baroness is saying. I cannot be specific, but we will see what we can do to give some further comfort on that point. I recognise the centrality and importance of the issue. We want to get it right and ensure that home inspectors and home inspection
1164
reports are worth the paper on which they are written—that is everyone's objective and it is in everyone's interests that that is the case.
Baroness Maddock: At the present stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Midnight
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 100, line 5, at end insert "which may be achieved by the government underwriting scheme"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 145(5)(b) states that the Government will make regulations in regard to an indemnity insurance that must be available to home inspectors. We understand that many people representing the surveying community, the mortgage lenders and, indeed, the consumers themselves are concerned that there is a dearth of firms wanting to underwrite the work of the inspectors.
This is obviously of enormous concern. If that is still the situation, it will be inevitable that the Government will have to underwrite a scheme of insurance to enable the whole project to get off the ground. That is the purpose of the amendment, briefly and quickly at this time of night, and I am sure the Minister has a respectable answer. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: He certainly does. Satisfactory insurance is absolutely essential to ensure that consumers and lenders can rely on the home condition report. The insurance needs of home inspectors have been the subject of extensive research and discussion with stakeholders. This includes research carried out on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by several consultants into suitable means of providing a robust insurance regime, which will include insurance of last resort to be provided by the certification scheme. We are confident that it will be made available.
Assisted by the Association of British Insurers and the industry working group advising us on insurance matters, discussions are continuing with commercial insurers to identify options based on a commercial approach. The possible basis for an insurance regime will be published when this further work is complete. We do not intend to introduce compulsory home condition reports until we are absolutely certain that satisfactory insurance arrangements are available. We are confident that adequate insurance will be available without the need for a government guarantee.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope his confidence is justified. It could not have been justified a little while ago because concerns have been expressed to us ever since the Bill was published. We will keep a watching brief on this. It may very well be worth coming back to it on Report to see how matters are progressing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206A not moved.]
Baroness Hanhamhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 207:
Page 100, line 10, at end insert "; and
(f) a home condition report must be no more than three months old at the point at which a property is marketed"
The noble Baroness said: We have discussed at considerable length the time links of home condition reports. The Minister replied earlier—he did not satisfy us—and I do not believe there is any benefit in moving the amendment now because we will come back to the whole process later.
The Minister said the report could be three months old when it was first put into the pack. The amendment would not allow it a life expectancy of more than three months. I am not going to move the amendment tonight because we will have to come back to it.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Baroness must not speak to amendments which are not moved.
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 100, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State will delay the implementation of the appropriate certification scheme outlined in subsection (5) until he is satisfied that there are enough members of such a scheme to meet demand."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to this amendment because I am going to move it. I like to explain as I go along what is happening. I got it all wrong. I do the wrong thing and the Minister does the wrong thing.
The amendment reflects a genuine concern of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that in order for the task of providing home information packs to be carried out effectively at least 7,000 inspectors need to be trained and ready by the time that the home information packs are rolled out across the country. Having said that, although I am happy to accept the institution's estimate, we must be able to allow ourselves a little latitude in this regard.
It comes back to the quality of training and the regulation and maintenance of consistently high standards that will instil trust in consumers, mortgage lenders and probably the estate agents themselves. If the institution's estimate is short and the initial number of 7,000 qualified surveyors is overwhelmed in the first two weeks, it will be little short of catastrophic for both the housing market and the Act. The Secretary of State must have leeway and, again, discretion in the implementation of home condition reports. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The amendment would delay the implementation of the certification scheme until the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are enough home condition inspectors to meet demand.
1166
I am delighted to reassure the Committee, as would be every Minister, because we all come and go, that there is absolutely no question of implementing mandatory home condition reports until we are absolutely satisfied that there are sufficient qualified and insured home inspectors available to do the necessary work. Before taking any decision on that, the Secretary of State will of course seek the views of stakeholders.
As I have said repeatedly, we are working closely with those stakeholders, including property professionals, and we are confident that the required numbers of home inspectors can be in place by January 2007. We concur with industry estimates that in the region of 7,500 people will be needed. Some of them will work full time and others part time on preparing home condition reports.
I am pleased to say that there is considerable interest from existing surveyors and related professions and trades. For example, 5,500 chartered surveyors have expressed interest to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in becoming home inspectors and that does not take account of a further 1,200 surveyors employed by corporate surveying firms. Added to those 6,700 or so chartered surveyors are many members of other bodies, including architects and other building professionals.
We know that a lot of concern has been expressed about the availability of suitable recruits, but I hope that, having heard those kinds of figures in September 2004, Members of the Committee will see that our expectation of having in place by January 2007 the necessary 7,000 full and part-time inspectors is justifiable. There is still work to be done, but, contrary to some of the comments that have been made today, there is a willingness among professionals to make the scheme work and it looks as though there will be enough people to make sure that that happens.
Baroness Hanham: The Minister has said throughout our discussion that 40,000 houses come up for sale each week. Each of those 7,000 qualified people, with half of them on holiday and a quarter of them sick, will be doing at least four home condition reports a day. I hope the Minister is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes after midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Pensions Bill
(Ninth Day)
Tuesday, 14 September 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 229 [Categories of pension scheme]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) moved Amendment No. 295D:
Page 155, line 17, after "applies" insert "when the scheme is established or (as the case may be) to whom that subsection would have applied when the scheme was established had that subsection then been in force"
The noble Baroness said: We start with a really major set of amendments that are consequential on things that we have already discussed. Amendments Nos. 295D to 295H, 349, 349RA and 350 are consequential on the new provisions introduced by Clause 229. That clause introduces new definitions of occupational and personal pension schemes to Section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. Whether a pension scheme is an occupational or personal scheme determines which regulatory regime it will be subject to: the Pensions Regulator for occupational schemes; the Financial Services Authority for personal schemes. It is therefore crucial that that is clear. The new definitions are contained in Clause 229(3).
I wonder whether I need to go on much beyond that. A pension scheme is itself defined in subsection (4). It may be a single or multiple employer scheme. Occupational pension schemes that have their main administration in another EU member state are not deemed to be occupational pension schemes for the purposes of UK legislation. Those will therefore not be regulated by the Pensions Regulator and will be regulated primarily by the authority in that member state. Part 7 deals with occupational pension schemes that operate on a cross-border basis. If the Committee will allow, I think that it would be sensible to leave discussion of the cluster of issues about pensions that cross borders until we reach Part 7.
A personal pension scheme is defined as a scheme established by a person—for example, an insurance company permitted under the Finance Act 2004—but that is not an occupational pension scheme. That is to ensure that where a financial institution has an occupational pension scheme for its own employees, that scheme is correctly classified, where appropriate, as an occupational scheme. The new definitions are needed partly as a consequence of tax simplification
GC 342
provisions in the Finance Act, and to ensure that the UK is compliant with the European directive on occupational retirement provisions.
I could go into the amendments in detail, but that is basically what they do: they define what an occupational pension for these purposes to determine under which regulator regime they fall. If the Committee wants me to continue with a longer speech on each of the amendments, I am happy to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 295E to 295H:
Page 155, line 19, at end insert—
"or a pension scheme that is prescribed or is of a prescribed description;"
Page 155, line 23, leave out "144(1)" and insert "154(l)"
Page 156, line 9, leave out "144(4)" and insert "154(4)"
Page 156, line 10, leave out "144 and 145" and insert "154 and 155"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 229, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: In speaking to her amendments, the noble Baroness has cleared up several of the points that were of concern to me. I think that only two are outstanding. She referred to the definition in subsection (3), which relates to a scheme,
"that has its main administration in the United Kingdom or outside the member States".
That seems a strange way to define it. If I understand it correctly, she is saying that it does not apply to schemes in European Union states. Of course, that is a rather larger group of states than has been the case until comparatively recently.
I am unclear on the situation of a scheme whose main administration is in, for example, the United States or the Channel Islands. Is the definition as tight as it ought to be? If a scheme is in the United States, which type is it? The noble Baroness suggested that we consider some of these problems in relation to the cross-border clauses that appear later. That would be advisable.
Clause 229(3)(b) states that "personal pension scheme" means one that,
"is established by a person within any of the paragraphs of section 144(1) of the Finance Act 2004".
Has the Finance Act 2004 received Royal Assent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has.
Lord Higgins: Could the noble Baroness tell us what persons were affected by Section 144(1) of the Finance Act 2004? I fear that I have not gone into the issue and am uncertain who is affected.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall respond first to the noble Lord's point about companies in the United States and the Channel Islands. I would like to take advice on the Channel Islands, which may be different because of their offshore status, to some degree. If a

GC 343
United States company—for example, an American bank—had UK employees who were part of the UK pension scheme, we would require it to have a UK trustee such that the regulator could ensure that the protection of those employees was met. The basic structure of regulation would be for the home country where the scheme is based.
Lord Higgins: Would it be regulated by the FSA?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: An occupational pension would be regulated in the broadest terms by the regulator; a personal pension would be regulated by the FSA.
Lord Higgins: If the scheme is in the United States, which type is it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It depends entirely on the type of pension scheme, I suspect. If a United States company has a UK-based DB scheme for its British employees, it would be regulated by the regulator.
A personal pension scheme is not an occupational pension scheme; it is one established by a financial institution to ensure that an occupational pension scheme provided by a financial institution was correctly classified. I do not think that this relates particularly to the American experience, whereby if there are employees in Britain with pensions, we would expect there to be a UK trustee over which the regulator could rule. That would be if the scheme were defined as an occupational pension within the remit of the regulator. It is not impossible that the employer could produce the equivalent of a group personal pension, which would remain regulated by the FSA in so far as there were British members.
As there were eight different tax regimes in the past, the Inland Revenue determined the status of pensions and therefore under what regulatory authority they came. Frankly, the DWP piggy-backed on the Inland Revenue. Now, that is no longer possible because of the change in Inland Revenue regimes. There is also a need for clarification by virtue of the European directive. We are taking the opportunity to recast the language, but so far as I am aware, there is absolutely no change in policy. The existing regime of supervision continues for the same type of pensions.
Lord Higgins: On the second point, who are the persons within the paragraphs of Section 144?
I picked the Channel Islands rather at random, but there are a number of offshore areas which I am not sure are covered by the phrase,
"in the United Kingdom or outside the member States".
Could I press the noble Baroness on that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would prefer to write to the noble Lord about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Lord Higgins: It is quite important.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I accept that. However, I should like to take advice on that point and on other
GC 344
alleged tax havens. I repeat that, if it is a US scheme, it will be regulated by the US regulator. If there is a separate branch in the UK, it will be covered by us.
Lord Higgins: Who is affected? Who are the people in Section 144?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All that is being said here is that Section 154 of the Finance Act refers to Section 144 of the previous legislation. It defines Section 154 and lists the financial institutions that can provide personal pensions, including insurance companies, unit trust schemes, recognised collective investment schemes, investment companies, building societies, banks and investment portfolio managers. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Higgins: We are making heavy weather of this. The clause states that a personal pension scheme means a pension scheme that,
"is established by a person within any of the paragraphs of section 144(1) of the Finance Act 2004".
We have established that the Finance Act 2004 has received Royal Assent. I am not clear which persons are covered by the paragraphs of Section 144(1) of the Finance Act. It seemed from the noble Baroness's reply that it was persons in the sense of corporate bodies rather than individuals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is correct. I am sorry about the confusion. I would like to check this; I was slightly taken aback by the mention of the Finance Act. Section 144 is now Section 154 of the Finance Act, but the persons referred to are the bodies or institutions of companies that I listed—that is, insurance companies, unit trust schemes, investment companies, building societies, banks, and so on.
Lord Higgins: Are we really saying that a personal pension scheme means a scheme that is established by a bank, an insurance company, and so on? Is that the total content of the provision, or are such schemes more clearly defined?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, I think that that is correct.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry to intervene, but I am now slightly more confused than I was to start with. The noble Baroness mentioned Section 154, and the Bill refers to Section 144. Are we therefore expecting a government amendment on Report to remove "section 144" and substitute "section 154"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord looks at Amendments Nos. 295F and 295G, he will see that the reference to the Finance Act has been changed from Section 144 to Section 154. That is all. The substantive point is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about which persons are involved. The answer turns out to be financial and finance-related companies.
Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 296:
After Clause 229, insert the following new clause—

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Pensions Bill

  MEANING OF EMPLOYER IN PART 1 OF THE PENSIONS ACT 1995
  (1) In section 125 of the Pensions Act 1995 (c. 26) (supplementary provision relating to interpretation), in subsection (3) (extension of meaning of "employer")—

  (a) after "include" insert "—

  (a)"

  (b) after "scheme" insert ";

  (b) such other persons as may be prescribed".

  (2) In section 175 of that Act (parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (2) (instruments subject to affirmative resolution procedure), omit "or" at end of paragraph (c) and after that paragraph insert—
  "(ca) section 125(3)(b), or"."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment Nos. 296, 346, 346C, 347 and 348 allow regulations to prescribe by the affirmative procedure that in particular circumstances certain persons shall be treated as employers for the purposes of any provisions of the Bill. The amendments are required because under Clause 39 and Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, certain related companies or other bodies or persons will be providing back-up support to pension schemes pursuant to arrangements agreed with the regulator.
  Those entities will have responsibilities similar to participating employers in schemes. For that reason, it is necessary to have the power to treat such entities as employers for specific purposes.
  In particular, the regulator has a number of powers to seek information in relation to schemes and their employers to enable it to monitor the position of schemes and exercise its functions properly. It is intended that this new power will be used to include these guarantor-type employers in the category of bodies in relation to which the regulator can seek information. For example, under Clause 65, "Reports by skilled persons", if a person is named in a financial support direction under Clause 39, or an appropriate arrangement under Clause 260, they have a choice as to the type of arrangement they put in place, which must be approved by the regulator.
  3.45 p.m.
  In order for the regulator to have appropriate and sufficient information to approve the arrangement, it may be necessary for the regulator to ask for a skilled person report in relation to the arrangements—for example, a financial expert's report. The regulator can issue a notice only to the trustees, employer or person involved in the administration of the scheme. Without the amendment, those named in the direction or arrangement are unlikely to fall within those categories.
  In addition, under Clause 166, "Pension protection levies", the board of the PPF will have power, once the risk-based levy is introduced, to include the financial position of the employer as a factor in setting the levy
  GC 346
  under Clause 166(3)(a). When a financial support direction has been made or an appropriate arrangement has been agreed, the board would wish to recognise that the weak employer in relation to the multi-employer scheme is being supported by a stronger group member. It is only fair that this support can be recognised in the levy calculation. The amendment makes that possible.
  A further example where the power may be used is to determine what share of any debt arising on the winding-up of a multi-employer scheme is to be allocated to entities, potentially more than one, that have guaranteed the obligations of an employer. Regulations made in relation to the amendments will be by affirmative procedure. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments dealing with the situation of multi-employer schemes.
  Lord Higgins: The amendments come under the general heading of,
  "Occupational and personal pension schemes: miscellaneous provisions".
  I have never heard such a "miscellaneous" amendment, and I do not have any points to raise on it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 230 [Requirement for member-nominated trustees]:
  Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 297:
  Page 156, line 20, leave out "one-third" and insert "half"
  The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and I are grateful to my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde for taking a brief on this group of amendments because my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, who is an expert on the subject, is in Brighton with our noble friend Lord Hoyle at the TUC debate on pensions. It is being addressed by the new Secretary of State Alan Johnson.
  The issue has moved steadily to the top of the trade union agenda. Trade union experience is that the issue is seen as one of deferred pay. Wearing our trade union hats, we are conscious of the fact that although trustees do not wear a hat on one side or the other, employers, if they have a majority are seen as wearing a particular hat. That is the context of this debate, which I welcome. My noble friend Lady Dean will go into some detail. I beg to move.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I would like to speak to the amendment and the others in the group. We feel that it is only fair that we increase the number of member trustees to 50 per cent. That is the case in quite a number of current schemes. We also have to bear it in mind that in most pension funds the trustees do not have the authority either to increase benefits or to reduce contributions without the support of the employer. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall mentioned that it was seen as deferred pay; whether that point is accepted or not, the blunt fact is that it is an enormous investment by the individual employees. Therefore, they should have, through their representative group, a fair say.

  GC 347
  I move on to the other amendments in this group. The amendments in my name are not my proudest moment of drafting, and I apologise for that. However, I should like to speak to their general principle, as they are probing amendments.
  The reference to trade union representation and trade union-nominated trustees does not mean that the trustees nominated by the employees will automatically be employees in the company. The employees may wish to nominate an independent adviser—perhaps a financial adviser. For them to have the right to have their say and to have their trade union involved in the process is very important, and already applies in quite a few cases.
  My noble friend the Minister may argue, when she speaks on Amendment No. 297B, in favour of the words that have been put there by the government amendment—"adequately represents". But what does that mean? Who defines that test, and what is the test for adequately representing? The amendment uses the word "eligible", but it does not actually give rights. So it is all being run very much on the basis of very little involvement of the employees themselves—and this at a time when there is particular sensitivity on the subject because of what has happened in pension schemes.
  Employees feel that if they are members of a trade union, the union should have a role, because they have chosen freely to be in that union. They want their own nominated trusteeship of 50 per cent, not a third. The TUC over the years has provided some of the best professional courses for training of pension trustees that we have around. That is simply because trade unions have been very involved in pension schemes for employees. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in reply to the amendments.
  Lord Higgins: The noble Lord and the noble Baroness—and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who is at the conference in Brighton—have a distinguished and long record in pension and trade union matters, so their views should be taken very seriously. However, truth to tell with regard to the trade union movement as a whole, only comparatively recently has it given the attention to pension matters that perhaps should have been the case before. That is, I suppose, understandable, because the situation with regard to pensions has deteriorated so significantly in recent times.
  I do not believe that the noble Lord or the noble Baroness referred to the lead amendment, Amendment No. 297, which suggests that the number of member-nominated trustees should be increased from one third to a half—but I may have missed that point. Obviously, where the balance is struck is important. My own experience is that a significant number of member-nominated trustees is clearly necessary. However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, it requires a great deal of training, if they are members of the scheme themselves; that is less so if the person nominated happens to be an outsider rather than a member of the scheme.
  GC 348
  I am not quite clear about the exact import of the amendment over the question about the provisions with regard to being appointed by a recognised trade union or trade union committee. I am not sure what the situation is if there is no trade union representation for the company or the scheme itself. I presume that it is not intended, if there is no trade union representation, that the trade unions should somehow come along and suddenly start appointing trustees. But I believe that that is the implication of the amendments.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: It is not my intention to prolong the debate, but I must say, with great respect, that it is not just a five-minute wonder that the trade unions have discovered pensions. When I was a young officer of 28, I negotiated pensions. My first pension course was 20-odd years ago. Over the years, the TUC has placed great importance on the matter—rightly so—even before the Maxwell days.
  The amendments are not intended to place impositions on any company scheme that does not have trade union recognition and trade union members. We are talking about employee representatives and member representatives on a scheme.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying that, although I am not sure that that is what the amendments actually do. No doubt, the Minister can confirm that the reference to being appointed by a recognised trade union would not apply in cases in which the company or pension fund was not involved.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: It is industrial relations jargon. The phrase "recognised trade union" implies a situation in which a trade union is recognised for negotiations on pay and conditions. That is what it means.
  Lord Higgins: Fine. If we interpret it as meaning "recognised by the employer", that clarifies the situation.
  As I said, I think that it is a question of balance. I would have thought that a third was about right. We need a reasonable number of member-nominated trustees, and that is probably the right proportion, rather than a half. With a half, the number of people who are expert in the field may be reduced. I take the noble Baroness's point: it may be that the people nominated are not members of the scheme, which modifies the balance between expertise, on the one hand, and employer participation, on the other.
  That said, there is still a question about whether it is appropriate for a trade union to appoint outsiders, however expert, as trustees, rather than appointing members of the union or members of the scheme. No doubt, the Minister can give us a view on that. My impression, from personal experience, is that the provision for "at least one-third"—it is not "a maximum of one third"—is probably about right.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: We have considerable sympathy with the spirit of the

  GC 349
  amendments. To the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, I say in passing that pensions are not just at the top of the trade union agenda; they are at the top of the political agenda for the whole country, as we will see in the forthcoming general election.
  It is right to have a minimum of a third, which is what the position is at the moment. In many cases, a half would be appropriate, but, if the Bill said "a minimum of a half", it would be going too far. One might think that, in some situations, it would be right to have 40 per cent members, 40 per cent employers and 20 per cent independent representatives, but there would be no room for manoeuvre if the Bill stipulated a minimum of a half. However, the principle is that the members should have at least equal rights with the employers because it is their money as much as that of the employers. A deficit in the fund is, in effect, an unsecured loan by the company to the pension fund. All those points are right. The principle that the members' representation should be at least equal to that of the employers is fair, so we are sympathetic to the principle behind the amendments.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has been an interesting debate. It was interesting that people emphasised words such as "balance".
  We start from a situation in which the larger schemes and, if I may say so, the good schemes have at least a third—often, it is 50 per cent—of such representation. A friend and colleague who is on the board of trustees of one of the largest media companies in the country told me that 50 per cent were member-nominated trustees and that they were worth their weight in gold. When the company thought about altering the revaluation rates for deferred pensioners, those trustees insisted on consultation, as the others would not have done, which was the right thing to do. That is an example of how valuable they are.
  Our problem, of course, is that many of the smaller and medium-sized companies do not have a single member-nominated trustee, or barely one. That is our dilemma. We have no doubt at all that 50 per cent, give or take, is good practice and we want to encourage it. I shall come back to that point if I may.
  4 p.m.
  I shall try to pick up some of the specific points. The first is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked whether it was legitimate that someone who was not a member of the company could be nominated as a trustee because they were a trade union representative. That happens now where there is an experienced and appropriate person—such a person is nominated. However, in such cases the employer can, so to speak, veto it if he thinks there might be a conflict of interest if, for example, the external trustee belongs to a competitive company. However, for the most part, I understand that this is an extremely successful arrangement and gives member-nominated trustees some useful additional quasi-professional spine to their deliberation. Obviously, if
  GC 350
  no one comes forward, the employer can nominate all the trustees. However, where firms have the relevant third, there is currently no problem.
  The noble Lord asked what happens if there is no trade union. If there is no trade union, the members nominate. It may be worth describing the process. We are expecting a two-stage process, first of nomination, then of selection. On nomination, the trustees must invite nominations from all active members or organisations that they regard as adequately representing them. Of course the term "adequate" is a judgment, but they will tend to be bodies such as trade unions or, on the pensioners' side, pension schemes with the British Airways pension association or the BT one or the Post Office one. If those nominations are greater in number than the number of places available, there has to be a pre-described and pre-confirmed selection arrangement. The trustees may interview people or whatever and will produce a final list. If there are any problems about this even though it is not a matter of law there could be reference to the regulator, although his guidance will be essentially guidance rather than upholding the law.
  Having said that, I want to take the opportunity to bring to the Committee's attention news that Members may very possibly have picked up today. I refer to the speech made by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Alan Johnson, to the TUC conference. I shall quote his words, so that there can be no error:
  "Everyone agrees"—
  as everyone has done today—
  "that Member Nominated Trustees are a good idea. They add a different perspective to the trustee board and they allow trustee boards to have a wider range of skills and experiences to draw upon. If members are involved in the running of their scheme it can make them feel that they have a real stake in their pension provision. I can announce today that we have decided to take a power in the Pensions Bill to enable us to move to ensure that 50% of pension scheme trustees are member-nominated".
  That power will be taken by regulations. Let me make it clear at this stage that there is no question of saying what the timetable will be or how quickly it will operate. It is not an open-ended commitment, but we recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that we probably need to move to that position incrementally, especially with schemes which at the moment have no member-nominated trustees at all. What we expect and hope to see in the reasonably foreseeable future is that all schemes will have 50 per cent member-nominated trustees. The power to achieve that will be introduced by regulation. The Secretary of State will bring forward such regulations with an appropriate timetable and with consultation.
  We are seeking to enrich the board of trustees while increasing the ownership and feel of responsibility of members towards their schemes, not to put an additional burden on small and medium-sized employers who may at the moment have few, if any, member-nominated trustees. I am sure that my noble friends will welcome this move. It is a balanced approach. We will get there in a reasonable time with consultation and by introducing the power through regulation. Whether that means that we roll out the

  GC 351
  measure in a particular size of firm or whether it means that we introduce it after certain kinds of consultation will have to be determined. However, there is an intent to introduce the measure. I thought that it would be helpful to tell the Committee that the Secretary of State announced it this morning. I could pick up on individual points about knowledge and information but we shall come to that later. I thought that this might be an appropriate time at which to make that announcement.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: All my noble friends are encouraged by what the Minister has said; it is a significant move forward. My noble friends will study Hansard with more than usual interest, and we look forward to the amendment on Report which the Government have signalled in the Secretary of State's speech in Brighton today. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 297A not moved.]
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 297B:
  Page 156, line 25, leave out from "which" to end of line 26 and insert "at least the following are eligible to participate—

  (i) all the active members of the scheme or an organisation which adequately represents the active members, and

  (ii) all the pensioner members of the scheme or an organisation which adequately represents the pensioner members, and"

  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 297C, 299A, 299B and 299C. When our provisions for simplified procedures were debated in the other place, opposition Members were concerned that they might give preference to active members, to the disadvantage of pensioner members. It was a perfectly honourable concern. Of course this was not the intention; we simply aimed to keep the procedures as simple and non-prescriptive as possible. None the less, we agreed to think further about the position of pensioners. My noble friend Lady Dean—and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, were she here—will remember that we pressed the issue of pensioner representation on scheme trustee boards when we debated the 1995 legislation through those long nights back in 1994.
  We seek to introduce as much simplicity and flexibility as possible in individual schemes so that they determine their own procedures. Unfortunately, the amendments will none the less introduce some complexity. We are giving schemes a choice. As I suggested in response to my noble friend's amendments in the previous group, the schemes will be able to invite all the active members and all the pensioner members to make nominations, or they will be able to invite nominations from an organisation that represents the interests of active members—the presumption is that it would be a staff association or trade union—or pensioner members. Some of the
  GC 352
  bigger companies have very well established pensioner member schemes. There is nothing to stop them doing that. As Members of the Committee will see, exactly the same requirement applies to both active members and pensioner members.
  The amendments include the term,
  "an organisation which adequately represents",
  and I hope that I have addressed that. The regulator will produce a code of practice on member nomination trustees. What counts as an adequately representative organisation will be one of the issues that he will cover in the code of practice so that we do not get a handful of self-nominated people claiming special status.
  We have also taken the opportunity to make a minor amendment to subsections dealing with selecting member-nominated trustees and directors—Amendment Nos. 297C and 299C. The amendments provide slightly more flexibility by requiring that the selection process must always involve scheme members but not exclusively so.
  I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendments are an attempt to make clear that pensioner members may be invited to nominate to the trustees, and that they may be included as part of the scheme trustees. The amendments seek to respond to a concern raised nearly a decade ago. The time is now right to honour it. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 297C:
  Page 156, line 27, leave out "by" and insert "as a result of a process which involves"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 297D not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 298 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 298A:
  age 157, line 3, at end insert ", and
  (e) may include details of a member-nominated trustee's term of office and that the member-nominated trustee ceases to be a trustee when he ceases to be a member of the scheme."
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 298B, 300A and 300B. The genesis of the amendments is in the representations made by the Scottish Law Society. To some extent, they are drafting amendments, but they also raise some broader issues.
  Amendment No. 300B would insert, after "director",
  "other than by reason of the expiry of their period of office or their membership of the scheme".
  As drafted, the clause suggests that member-nominated directors can be removed from office only with the agreement of the other trustees. The Law Society is concerned that there could be provision for giving a term of office in the arrangements. Therefore, the amendment seeks to clarify the position.
  The Law Society also seems to be of the view that a member-nominated trustee would cease to be a trustee when he ceases to be a member of scheme. That raises

  GC 353
  the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, as to whether a member-nominated trustee can be other than a member of the scheme. Until the noble Baroness spoke this afternoon, I had normally thought of member-nominated trustees as being people who are members of the scheme and nominated by members of the scheme. If one is going to have members nominating non-members, that raises a series of issues. As the Minister pointed out, there may be objections from the employer in that regard. Will the noble Baroness clarify whether that is the position?
  The other issue that is of some concern is to what extent there is provision in these clauses for member-nominated trustees not to be removable. There is danger of a conflict between the other trustees or the employer. Could the noble Baroness clarify to what extent the position of a trustee is protected and whether he is obliged to leave if he leaves the scheme? I beg to move.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I hope that what I said earlier does not set any hares running about members of a scheme being able to nominate someone to be a trustee who is not a member of a scheme. I have actually been one—and on the employer side, on a board of directors, when I was not a member of the scheme but was nominated as a management nominee. In another scheme to which I did not belong I was nominated by the employees. So that does happen, and I hope that we are not going to disturb that arrangement, as it is a way of getting people on to schemes who may bring some outside knowledge.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, but the point is, how did the noble Baroness withdraw from being a member of either of those schemes?
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I was not a member of the fund when I was nominated as a trustee, and I never would be. Periods of office are set for a period, such as three or four years.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Thank you.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I am sorry but I thought that was known, as it is a normal situation.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether the noble Lord's concerns have not been largely answered by my noble friend. First, the rules of the scheme will normally specify the period of time for the trustees. Four years, for example, might be a typical period. After that, the procedure must be gone through again; it may be that most of the trustees will be expected to stay on, but that would be for the rules of the scheme to decide.
  Secondly, to make clear the point about non-members. I understand the noble Lord's concern, but they can represent a real asset and bring experience from other pension schemes on which they serve, particularly for relatively new and inexperienced scheme trustees. We are asking new trustees to offer themselves for training, take on responsibility, make decisions on the advice of the actuary and so on. In
  GC 354
  particular, it would seem to me that the experience of somebody in a related but not necessarily competitive industry could be extremely valuable to a scheme that has not had the experience of member-nominated trustees. However, I repeat: the employer must give his approval to nominated non-members—in other words, those who are not employed by the employer. The employer may feel that there is a possible issue relating to competition or something of that kind. It must be done with the employer's consent. That seems to get the balance about right.
  4.15 p.m.
  The noble Lord asked me whether a particular trustee could be removed. I refer him to subsection (6):
  "The arrangements must provide that the removal of a member-nominated trustee requires the agreement of all the other trustees".
  That is a safeguard. One may wish to remove a trustee who fails to attend or whatever, but, none the less, if someone is seen as being inconvenient, all the other trustees would have to be persuaded before that person could be removed.
  The thrust of the amendments is to specify terms of office and to provide that,
  "the member-nominated trustee ceases to be a trustee when he ceases to be a member of the scheme".
  I have no problem with that, in principle. It would be for the rules of the scheme to specify such matters, and most schemes will do that. However, it is not necessary to make the amendments. Obviously, it is open to the regulator to issue a code of guidance, should that prove necessary, particularly for schemes that have not hitherto had member-nominated trustees. At the moment, we expect that the rules of a scheme will determine such matters.
  I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, but I want to consider one point. The provision that someone can go only with the agreement of all the other trustees seems to imply that, if someone wants to go, all the other trustees must agree. That is what worries the Law Society of Scotland.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I am giving it an incorrect gloss, I apologise, but the arrangements must provide for removal, not voluntary retirement. I understand that to refer to something that may be happening against that individual's wish, and it can happen only with the agreement of all the other trustees. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
  Lord Higgins: As I said, I want to think about it. There is a fine line between the case of someone who is being removed and that of someone who, in all the circumstances, feels that he should resign. He might get the other trustees' backs up—that would be an advantage—particularly if he is being removed for some doubtful reason.

  GC 355
  I shall think about the drafting. I am not sure that the amendment is drafted as precisely as it ought to be, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 298B not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 230, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: I have one general point to make. It relates to nominated trustees. The question of the payment of trustees is not covered anywhere in the Bill. I am increasingly concerned about that.
  The duties that are being imposed on trustees by this Bill and by the mass of legislation on company pensions that already exists represent an enormous burden. That is why training is so important. Indeed, in a company such as British Airways, for example, the assets being dealt with by the trustees are such that the chairman of the trustees carries far more financial responsibility than the chairman of the organisation itself. Yet, the chairman of the trustees and the other trustees may not be paid at all or are certainly paid a fraction of what the chairman and the directors of the employer company are paid. At some stage we need to address the issue of payment of trustees.
  There is a particular problem that is relevant to the clause regarding member-nominated trustees, because although outsiders are nominated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has pointed out, generally nominations are of other employees. Paying someone from the shop floor as a trustee an appropriate amount in relation to the size of the company might provide a useful balance, but it might entail paying him four or five times more than he is earning on the shop floor. That is likely to cause consternation. So it is not a simple issue, but the time has come, given the particular liability of trustees—we will deal with indemnities and so on later—for us to consider carefully some sort of provision in this regard, if only in terms of encouraging more progressive companies.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: May I just finish this? This was raised at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and perhaps I may repeat what I said then. There is no requirement that trustees must be paid. Some schemes pay their trustees, but it is voluntary. However, trustees must have paid time off for duties and training under the Employment Rights Act. In that sense, it reflects the situation for councillors, but without the allowances on top. So trustees are allowed paid time off for duties and training; there is no requirement for payment, although that can happen and sometimes does. But I agree with the noble Lord that it is a difficult issue, as with local government, given the other financial circumstances of the employee which may well be disproportionate to the responsibility as a trustee.
  Clause 230, as amended, agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.23 to 4.33 p.m.]
  Clause 231 [Requirement for member-nominated directors of corporate trustees]:
  [Amendment No. 299 not moved.]
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 299A to 299C:
  Page 157, line 28, after second "directors" insert "of the company in question"
  page 157, line 29, leave out from "which" to end of line 30 and insert "at least the following are eligible to participate—

  (i) all the active members of the occupational trust scheme or an organisation which adequately represents the active members, and

  (ii) all the pensioner members of the occupational trust scheme scheme or an organisation which adequately represents the pensioner members."

  Page 157, line 32, leave out "by" and insert "as a result of a process which involves"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 300 to 300B not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 231, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Skelmersdale: Clause 231 starts by talking about companies being trustees of an occupational trust scheme. That is perfectly obvious and reasonable; however, I am confused by the phrase,
  "and every trustee of the scheme is a company".
  This, I am sure, shows my ignorance, but it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could explain how every trustee of a scheme can be a company.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 231 serves the same purpose as Clause 230 but applies where the trustee is a company. It will ensure that in every occupational scheme where the trustee is a company, members have the opportunity to nominate at least one third of the directors. The context is that most companies have corporate trustees in order, I suspect, to protect their liability so that it does not fall on individual members. Therefore, the trustees have behind them member-nominated directors and the procedures for their nomination and selection under Clause 231 are parallel to what we have already described in Clause 230. I shall not describe it as a device, as that would suggest a degree of opprobrium, but it is a way in which many larger companies organise their affairs.
  A scheme may have a corporate trustee—for example, a company—and a professional independent trustee that is also a company. Where one reads in Clause 230 the term "member-nominated trustees", Clause 231 refers to member-nominated directors of the trustee company. I do not know the most appropriate term to describe its function: shelter, protection or device? It gives trustees an added degree of protection.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I readily understand that. Smaller schemes may well go to an outside company

  GC 357
  for management, but that would be a single corporation, if you like. The Bill says that every trustee of a scheme is a company, so surely that means that each individual trustee is a free-standing company. I do not see how that can come about.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Bill does not say that all trustees are companies but refers to where there is a match between the two aspects:
  "Where a company is a trustee of an occupational trust scheme and every trustee of the scheme is a company".
  It does not say that all trustees, independent of this clause, are companies, because clearly under Clause 230 they are not. I am not sure where the gulf is between us. Is it simply the understanding of the opening line and a half of the clause?
  Lord Skelmersdale: It is the understanding of the second half. I nearly tabled an amendment to delete,
  "and every trustee of the scheme is a company",
  in order to have the meaning of those words explained. I am afraid that I still have not understood.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry; I need some more help from the noble Lord. The phrase,
  "where every trustee of the scheme is a company"
  means that there can a single trustee of the company, because it is a corporate trustee and behind that there is the member-nominated directors but there could be two such companies. It simply says that every trustee of the scheme is a company. Is that all right?
  Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, that is fine.
  Clause 231, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 232 agreed to.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 300BA:
  Before Clause 233, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION SENT TO MEMBERS OF OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
  (1) Section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48) (disclosure of information about schemes) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (4), insert—
  "(5) The annual report of the Trustee of an occupational pension scheme which is sent to members shall contain contact details of any organisation which adequately represents the pensioner members of the scheme.""
  The noble Lord said: I am sorry: I was disrupted by the Division and consequently have mislaid my Marshalled List of amendments.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment is about whether trustees should be required to include details about appropriate pension literature.
  Lord Higgins: Amendment No. 300BA is about information sent to members of occupational pension schemes. The amendment reflects the views put to us by the Occupational Pensioners Alliance. It suggests that in addition to the annual reports of the scheme being made available to all members, active and pensioners, they should also be made available to those who represent their interests. Presumably that means trade unions as well.
  GC 358
  At present, there is no definition in pension legislation of what is meant by a pensioners' association. The view is that it would, none the less, be appropriate for the annual report to be sent to such bodies so that they can be aware of the situation in any given scheme when they are advising pensioners. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment seeks to amend primary legislation, but, of course, schemes already have the power to do that under Section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. We agree with the push of the amendment, but we do not need to take powers into primary legislation when that power already exists.
  We do not think that copying the annual report to members is the right way to do this; we think that this information is probably more at home in the basic scheme information that schemes must provide to members and beneficiaries. That already contains details of the scheme, the OPA, the pension ombudsman and the regulatory authority. We propose to amend secondary legislation on disclosure of information to ensure that members and beneficiaries receive contact details of these organisations. We are doing what the noble Lord is proposing but through secondary legislation rather than in the Bill.
  Lord Higgins: Will it be done in the basic information provided by the scheme rather than annually?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not have very strong views about this, but we felt that a better home for it was in the basic scheme information which lists all the various regimes, rights of appeal, and so on. It is an aide memoire, which we thought people were more likely to keep than annual reports. Annual reports can be used if one wishes, but my advice is the scheme information is a more comfortable home. The point is which documentation scheme members are most likely to refer to, and I suspect that it would be the basic scheme details in the original pack rather than the annual report. The form in which such information is sent out will be a matter for the scheme trustees, but we will be taking powers to ensure that that happens.
  Lord Higgins: Yes, but I suppose that a member of a scheme may look at the basic information when he first joins and does not look at it thereafter. There may be some case for repeating the information in the annual report, but no doubt we will in due course see the regulations. Can the noble Baroness give us any idea about timing?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish I could. All I can say is, as I said to the noble Lord earlier, that the latest check has shown more than 100 different sets of regulations. The drafting of some—not all—is well under way. Almost all of them require quite extensive consultation with the industry. I was checking on something this morning and asked where we were but was told that we could not get a response from the industry to our draft regulations. Our dilemma is not simply the length and complexity of the regulations

  GC 359
  but the fact that, quite rightly, they need extensive consultation. I shall ensure that I give the noble Lord an update before we reach Report. I shall give him what information I can.
  Lord Higgins: I am most grateful for that forthcoming reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 233 [Investment principles]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 233 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: Clause 233 is very important and a number of points need to be made. On a point of detail, Clause 233(1) states that the trustees of a trust scheme must secure a statement of investment principles. The word "secure" seems rather odd—I should have thought that "ensure" was more appropriate, but that is obviously a drafting point.
  The provision is yet again made by regulation in a number of important respects, for example in subsection (3), which states:
  "Before preparing or revising a statement … the trustees … must comply with any prescribed requirements".
  We do not have the remotest idea what the Government have in mind regarding that. It would be helpful to know that. Will the Minister clarify those two points?
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best. This clause replaces Section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995, which requires trustees of occupational pension schemes to prepare and maintain a "statement of investment principles". The change is needed to implement the provisions of Article 12 of the European Occupational Pensions Directive, which requires the statement to be reviewed at least every three years, rather than from time-to-time as the Pensions Act currently requires. That is the only change. It is almost linguistic rather than anything else. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's point.
  We do not intend to make substantial changes to the content of the statement, although we will consult on the regulations. It is just a question of how often that matter has to be addressed—it shall be every three years to comply with the Occupational Pensions Directive. This comes back to the point we were making earlier about evaluations every three years. It is part of the same structure.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful for that reply.
  Clause 233 agreed to.
  Clause 234 [Power to make regulations governing investment by trustees]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 234 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: I am not sure how widely these powers operate but I am concerned about whether the regulations could implement the kind of proposal
  GC 360
  made some four or five years ago by a government Minister that pension trustees should invest in what would be regarded as socially desirable aims rather than simply investing the money to obtain the best return. Could the Minister give us some assurance on that point, which is important? Most sensible trustees replied in fairly forthright terms to the Minister that their task was to operate in the best interests of their members rather than to achieve other social objectives. I am a little worried that taking powers by regulation to govern investment by trustees might be dangerous.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I am very happy to circulate a fuller explanation, if necessary. Again this is something of a language issue. Essentially, we are having to get the directive into our legislation with minimum change to existing practices by trustees, but we have to do so to make the legislation comply. We are simply seeking to recast in words compliant with the directive the existing responsibilities and investment decisions of trustees. We require pension funds to state their policy on socially responsible investment in the statement of investment principles, but it is not for the Government to dictate investment policy, nor, incidentally, should the European Union interfere with trustees' responsibility to that extent.
  Again, this is not dissimilar to the previous issue of ensuring that the language in which we operate is now compliant with the European directive. I am assured that the measure will have no further implication for trustees in so far as they are already stating fully appropriate statements of investment principles. The regulation has to comply because the Occupational Pensions Directive does not permit member states to require investment in certain categories. I do not believe that there is anything of substance in the clause, but I am happy to write a fuller letter to the noble Lord if he wishes.
  Lord Higgins: I am not clear what difference the directive makes.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Perhaps I may ask a short question. At the bottom of page 159 the Bill states:
  "Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular … specify criteria to be applied in choosing investments".
  Are there regulations in existence now under this clause, and if not can the Minister give us any idea of what sort of criteria might be applied? I am just a little concerned.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Perhaps it would be better if we waited until after the Division for the Minister's reply to the noble Lord. We will meet again in 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.49 to 4.59 p.m.]
  5 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: We were discussing Clause 234 when the Division was called. If I could encapsulate my concern, the noble Baroness appears to be saying that

  GC 361
  the clause does not do anything at all but is necessary in order to implement the European directive. I assume that there must be some difference between the present circumstances and what is stated in the European directive, but I am not in the least bit clear about what that difference is. As I said previously, regulations specifying the criteria to be used and so on could be open to abuse and I am concerned about that.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure that I can help the noble Lord very much further. The advice that I have confirms what I said to the noble Lord; namely, that the directive puts into UK law the "prudent person" principle which is already established in trust law. There should not need to be any change in investment strategy. These statutory provisions are necessary to ensure that the occupational pensions directive is implemented in a transparent manner. The relevant regulations do not currently exist but the criteria to be applied under Clause 234(2)(1A) will include the need for diversification, the need to be prudent and to secure the quality of the portfolio as a whole, as required in the EU directive.
  I was specifically asked what difference, if any, the measure would make on the ground. I am advised that in practice it should make none whatever; it is about making our legislation transparent and compliant with the directive. That is consistent throughout. After all, we are seeking to ensure that what we believe to be not only good but best practice is not deformed for any other reason.
  Lord Higgins: This seems a very strange situation, but no doubt it is what we must expect if we go along with directives into which we seem to have had remarkably little input.
  Clause 234 agreed to.
  Clause 235 [Borrowing by trustees]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 235 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: I wish to make one quick point. Trustees are not allowed to borrow money except in prescribed circumstances. Perhaps we could save the draftsmen the trouble of drafting the relevant regulations if the noble Baroness puts on the face of the Bill what those prescribed circumstances are. She must have a fairly clear idea what they are. I see no reason why they cannot be on the face of the Bill with necessary provisions for amending in the light of changed circumstances.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would not wish to put it on the face of the Bill but I am perfectly willing to put on the face of Hansard that regulations made under this power would specify that trustees may borrow only where that was on a temporary basis and for liquidity purposes and would prohibit trustees from acting as guarantors. We have consulted in broad terms on this. The industry thinks that it is a useful backstop. It could not advise us of particular circumstances where it might come into play but it considers that it would be useful to have that power. Regulations will, therefore, indicate that.
  GC 362
  We plan to use the directive's small scheme exemption to exempt small, self-administered schemes from these provisions. Such schemes will, however, be bound by the rules set by the Inland Revenue. I hope that helps the noble Lord. The provision is regarded as useful by the industry. It could not cite a particular example of where it might wish to use it, although I have pursued that point. I failed to get such an example. That is what the regulations will do. It seems a useful reserve power.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful for that explanation. No doubt between now and Report we can draft an amendment that will avoid the problem of producing the regulations.
  Clause 235 agreed to.
  Clause 236 [Requirement for knowledge and understanding: individual trustees]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 300C:
  Page 160, line 31, leave out "scheme rules" and insert "rules of the scheme".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 236, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Skelmersdale: Clauses 236, 237 and the supplementary Clause 238 relate to the requirement for knowledge and understanding of trustees of miscellaneous description—in fact, two descriptions, because there are two clauses dealing with those trustees. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, mentioned that it was some years ago that she went on her first pensions course, no doubt courtesy of her union at that time. But I could not find any place in the clauses where there was a requirement for education of the trustees. That seems absolutely essential, and I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me.
  Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I follow on from that point. In fact, it is clear from the Explanatory Notes that the regulator will give a lot of advice about how much of the process will be carried out. However, I should like to know how far that goes. I have heard debates along these lines, and there is a real danger if one goes too far. I accept the need for knowledge and training, but if it goes too far it will become extremely difficult to find people willing to come forward to be trustees—particularly employee trustees. Will the Minister indicate what she expects the regulator to do in terms of training courses, qualifications achieved, and so on?
  One must also bear in mind that most trustees are guided by a great deal of professional advice in so many of the relevant matters, such as investment management and actuarial matters—indeed, in all general process matters dealing with legal and compliance requirements which actuarial firms provide. I would be interested to know whether it is expected that trustees will have to reach something approaching the level of the advice that they are given.

  GC 363
  If that happens, combined with the liabilities that trustees face, it will be increasingly difficult to attract people to do the job.
  I was chairman of the House of Commons pension fund trustees for some time. We were fortunate when I was chairman in having a number of members who had a reasonable amount of experience; but it was always difficult to attract people to become trustees and, if they were required to go on training courses and undertake all sorts of qualifications, I suspect that it would become even more difficult to get all the trustees required. There is clearly a balance to be struck here, and I should be interested to hear how the Government are approaching that matter.
  I meant to raise a point about Clause 233, but it is relevant here, too. The Explanatory Notes on Clause 233 say that before a statement of investment principles is prepared or revised, trustees must,
  "obtain and consider written advice from somebody they reasonably believe to be qualified by ability in and practical experience of financial matters and who has the appropriate knowledge and experience of the management of investments of such a scheme".
  Given the training that trustees will undertake, and particularly given that they will be people with a great deal of knowledge and experience who are prepared to take on the trusteeship, if they have within their midst people with as much practical experience and knowledge as any professional adviser from outside, will it be sufficient for one of them to consider the written advice? I suspect that a number of trustees will consider it unnecessary to incur extra expenditure when it will merely duplicate what they already know.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I have a question on the relationship between Clause 238(2) and Clauses 236 and 237. Would that subsection make it possible effectively to repeal or water down substantially those clauses, which set out sensible basic requirements for knowledge and understanding for trustees? Do we really want to run the risk that the provisions could be watered down?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I could just seek to address the specific points, but the issue is so big that I am very happy—if Members of the Committee will be patient with me—to give a fuller answer than I usually do. I am mindful of what we have to cover, and, as all Members of the Committee are, I am trying to expedite proceedings. However, the issue is a serious one and it may be worth spelling out, because the fears expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord MacGregor, have been widely shared.
  Let me set out what we expect trustees to bring with them to the job. The clause requires an individual trustee to be conversant with the documentation of their own scheme and to have the knowledge and understanding of trust and pensions law and the principles of investment and funding appropriate to the functions that they are carrying out. The provisions supplement the existing "duty of care" and the principle of prudence that underpins it.
  GC 364
  The "prudent person" principle remains at the heart of pensions, yet trustees may take crucial decisions without either adequate resources or expertise. Some 20 per cent of pension schemes—particularly the smaller schemes—may have trustees who have had no training, whom we are asking to make very difficult and responsible decisions on professional advice.
  With regard to the requirements for knowledge and understanding of individual trustees, we are developing a code. We expect them to have knowledge and understanding about pension schemes generally; the law relating to pensions, including tax law, state pensions, ombudsmen, and so on; the law relating to trusts and the concept of "duty of care"; conflicts of interest; the duty to take professional advice; duties on ceasing to hold office; different types of scheme, and how DB schemes work; and so on.
  I would be happy to circulate to all Members of the Committee a much wider description of what we would expect, rather than take the time of the Committee—but what I have said has given an outline. Basically, we want to ensure that trustees have the necessary knowledge and understanding to take informed decisions and to subject the advice that they receive from the scheme's advisers to critical challenge, rather than just following it passively. We have found that the trustees of smaller pension schemes are heavily dependent on professional advice and too often abdicate their proper responsibility for the wise investment of the scheme's funds because they lack the necessary knowledge, understanding and confidence and familiarity with their own scheme. The Myners report showed that to be the case.
  The clauses have been welcomed by many, particularly trustees, who have realised the importance of knowledge for the effective performance of their tasks. However, there are misgivings. Some fear that the requirements may, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, said, deter potential trustees, especially those seeking member nomination, from putting themselves forward. However, the clause requires trustees to have only the knowledge and understanding appropriate to the functions that they carry out.
  I know that is a matter of balance, but it is not unreasonable to expect people who put themselves forward for member nomination, who will be allowed time off with pay for appropriate training, to take such training. We do not expect trustees to have the detailed technical knowledge of, say, the professional investment manager, let alone be experts, but they should have a good knowledge of how occupational pensions in general and their scheme in particular work. They should know the terms of the trust deed, what the scheme rules say and what policies the scheme has adopted on investment and funding. They also need an understanding of pensions and trust law, of the principles of scheme funding and of different types of scheme. From trustees carrying out more specialist functions—for example, somebody who sits on an investment sub-committee—we would expect appropriately enhanced knowledge.

  GC 365
  There have been several pieces of research, including the PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of pension scheme governance. That survey found that 20 per cent of the schemes that replied to the survey had made no assessment of trustees' knowledge and skills. Only 30 per cent were taking steps to close the perceived skills gap. In our DWP/HMT research, we found that, although most schemes provided some initial training for new trustees—one or two days—only a minority, even among larger schemes, provided refresher training. It is clear what is necessary. I have examined some of the training courses organised by the NAPF, OPRA and the trade unions, and it would seem reasonable that, when the Act is in place, people should receive four or five days' initial training and a day every year thereafter. Most schemes—even the best—fall well short of that.
  I do not believe that there is a lack of interest or enthusiasm among member-nominated trustees. They want to do the job. They may find it demanding, but they also find it interesting and important. However, there has been no culture of support of the need for training or education. We need to go down that path. OPRA's research on 450 schemes—with a 98 per cent response rate—pointed to similar conclusions. It showed that the trustees of smaller schemes were overdependent on professional advice and that the professionals became the decision makers, not the advisers to the scheme. As we have discussed, we have rectified that.
  The powers in Clause 238(2)(b) allow a period of grace for new trustees. That is sensible. The requirement is for knowledge, not education. They may already possess the knowledge, and we do not want to pursue a tick-box approach. It is a difficult line to draw.
  The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, asked why we required trustees to take advice, if they already had enough knowledge. Trustees will not, by virtue of the provisions, have to be experts, so professional advice will still be required, before the preparation of a statement of investment principle. However, a trustee who was an expert would meet that requirement. I think that that was the question.
  I could talk more generally about the development of packages, about OPRA's work or about trade union work. Even in relation to enforcement, the regulator will have a primarily educative rather than punitive role. If a trustee or a number of trustees or the board as a whole demonstrably lack knowledge and understanding, the regulator would intervene in the first instance by suggesting that they acquire the relevant knowledge by appropriate means. Only if that failed would the regulator go through the process of an improvement notice. Essentially, we are trying to change the culture. As I say, even the best schemes need to improve their act to this extent, given the degree of responsibility of trustees and the increased number of member-nominated trustees who may be less familiar with the material.
  There is a period of grace; we expect firms and schemes to recognise and endorse the need for training. If the regulator at the end of the day feels that
  GC 366
  scheme members are being ill served by the lack of training that trustees have undertaken, the regulator can intervene—if necessary, by a notice. We do not expect the regulator to go down that road, except with the most wilful of schemes. The gradual approach of upping the game is, we think, the right one. I very much hope that employers and trustees, especially member-nominated trustees, will welcome the proposals. I am sure that it is necessary; there is no point in having member-nominated trustees on a board unless they can exercise their duties so that they are value added to the benefit of members. That is what the clauses seek to do.
  5.15 p.m.
  Viscount Trenchard: Why do those same requirements for knowledge and education not apply to the members of the board of the PPF? Surely it is, in a sense, a vast pension scheme—or it is discharging the functions of a pension scheme.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have had that debate on previous occasions. In practice, the board of the PPF, like the regulator, will recruit professionals including actuaries, accountants, lawyers, and so on. I would expect those people to be well above the level of knowledge that I have indicated for member-nominated trustees. However, they are not operating an insurance or a pension scheme; they are operating a compensation scheme, which means that there are different criteria involved than would apply to ordinary trustees. That requires them to have knowledge of their own scheme rules and investment strategies and to handle some £700 billion-worth of assets in this country.
  Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I do not disagree with anything that she says; it is important to up the experience in many schemes. It is also a question of getting balance and not going too far, and it will he interesting to see how that works out.
  I add one more point. In relation to non-employee trustees, the Minister referred to the Myners report, which recommended that trustees will probably have to be paid a fee, given the level of responsibility, training, experience and skills that they will have to acquire. We will have to recognise that trend in relation to all that we are taking on.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We missed the noble Lord on a previous discussion when I referred to him on that very subject. Schemes have the power to pay their trustees; they are required to give time off for training and duties and, if they are employees of the company, to continue to be paid during that period. The noble Lord may be right—but we also identified that there could be real difficulties in a correlation between the size of the assets managed and the normal pay of the workforce employee. I made a comparison with local government councillors who face similar

  GC 367
  problems of recompense—what happens when people are very part-time indeed. But there is no obstacle to schemes doing that if they wish.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Does the Minister intend to deal with my point about Clause 238(2) now, or will she do so when we come to it?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do apologise—did I not do so?
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I do not think so.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did actually do so, but I accept that the acoustics are not brilliant in this room.
  The power in Clause 238(2)(b) will be used to allow a period of grace for new trustees.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Only for that?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe so. If that is not the case, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Let me remind the noble Baroness that my specific question was whether there were any circumstances in which the power in Clause 238(2) would be used to water down the very sensible requirements of Clauses 236 and 237. I find it hard to envisage, but I wonder.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Given that the whole push is in exactly the opposite direction, the probability of the Government seeking to water down what they are trying to claw up seems unlikely. That is the intent, over and beyond recognising that we need to take people with us and change the culture. I cannot conceive of it, but I am wondering whether there are any assurances that I can give the noble Lord. These are regulations and will be available for the House to scrutinise.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I am happy to accept "I cannot conceive of it", and thank the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I find it hard to, but I cannot speak for any future government.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My few words have turned this into a most useful and educative debate. On education/ training, I reassure my noble friend Lord MacGregor that I had no intention of forcing trustees or potential trustees to take exams and get certificates. That is not what we are about. We are about enabling trustees to evaluate the professional advice, whether it be actuarial, investment or even legal.
  I note that the noble Baroness said that at the moment the Bill is about encouragement rather than a formal requirement to take up training places. I hope that she is right and that we do not have to come back to this on future occasions. The push is certainly in the right direction, even if it does not end up with the achievement that we would all like to see.
  Clause 236, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 237 [Requirement for knowledge and understanding: corporate trustees]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 300D:
  Page 161, line 17, leave out "scheme rules" and insert "rules of the scheme".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 237, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 238 [Requirement for knowledge and understanding: supplementary]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 301:
  Page 162, line 15, at end insert—
  "(4) Each of the Regulator and the Board must secure that any individual who exercises any function of theirs has knowledge and understanding of the matters mentioned in section 237(5).
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the degree of knowledge and understanding required is that appropriate for the purpose of enabling the individual properly to exercise the function in question having regard in particular to the nature of the duties and objectives of the Regulator of the Board (as the case may be)."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment reflects representations from the National Association of Pension Funds. Perhaps I might comment on the debate that we have just had. My noble friend Lord MacGregor pointed out that he was chairman of the parliamentary pension fund. My own experience of that some years ago, when I represented various members' interests, was that every time the fund was in surplus, the Treasury contribution went down, and every time it was in deficit the members' contributions went up. In any event, there have been considerable changes in the scheme since then.
  The amendment is related to supplementary requirements on knowledge and understanding. As with the earlier points made, the crucial thing is not to what extent individual trustees have as much knowledge as their advisers, but the fact that they are very ill advised to take on the role, because unless they have taken professional advice from appropriate fund managers or lawyers—I see that the Lord Chairman has been through this as well—they can be extremely vulnerable personally. That is why, however expert the trustees may be, they need to take account of professional advice.
  The amendment suggests that the regulator and the board must secure that any individual who exercises any function of theirs—not the trustees of pension schemes, as was mentioned earlier—should have what the amendment suggests—that is, the appropriate degree of knowledge and understanding. This reflects the point of my noble friend a little while ago. This seems to be eminently sensible—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Government are to require this of members of pension funds, surely they should require it of the regulator and the board as well. I beg to move.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: We support this amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I tried to respond briefly just now. I thought that, perhaps, as a result,

  GC 369
  the noble Lord, Lord Higgins would not move the amendment. Otherwise, I would have encouraged him to defer his comments.
  The question is: why does the knowledge requirement that we are asking of member-nominated trustees not apply to the regulator? I made my first point, which is that it is about the type of staff involved and that we are dealing with a compensation scheme, not a pension scheme with particular trust rules and so on. So the basis of knowledge of the professionals coming into it will be infinitely more advanced than those of member-nominated trustees, where appropriate. Secondly, their job, functions and responsibilities are in some ways distinctive and different. But the third point is that board members will be appointed with specific requirements set out in the recruitment material and terms of employment to ensure that we get the range of skills that we want. That is why we do not think that this route is the right one to go down.
  Clauses 236 to 238 relate to trustees generically, not to specific board members of an NDPB, where they follow the usual public recruitment rules. So I gently suggest that this is a non-issue. If I thought that it was a real issue, I would take it away and fight its corner, but the notion that we would appoint people to do the serious job of the regulator without having confidence that they were appropriately equipped and qualified and professionally trained, where that is also appropriate, seems absurd, given the rules governing public appointments.
  So I hope that, with what is a pretty blue sky response, the noble Lord will none the less accept that it will be inconceivable—and I mean that word—that we would appoint or would be allowed to appoint members to an NDPB who did not have the appropriate qualifications, training and support necessary for the job, as outlined by Parliament as and when the Bill is passed.
  Lord Higgins: The Minister is inclined to use the expression, "It is a compensation scheme, not a pension scheme", in a number of different contexts. But the reality is that the Pension Protection Fund board will be operating a massive pension scheme. It may be that the proceeds go in the form of compensation—although in fact they go in the form of pensions—but it still has the same problems with regard to investment decisions. In fact, they are on a far bigger scale than a normal pension fund. But the fact that it is on a bigger scale does not mean that it is appropriate to leave it all to experts, as the noble Baroness suggests.
  It is also inappropriate that everyone involved—the amendment specifies the individuals involved—should have the appropriate level of expertise. They really do not. The fact that it is compensation being paid out does not make it any different from a pension scheme, either in relation to the fact that it has investment decisions to make or to the fact that what it is doing is paying out pensions. The pensions may be compensation for other pensions, but they are still pensions. I do not think that we can say that it is
  GC 370
  appropriate for them to operate in the way that the noble Baroness has described, with a lot of experts, rather than people who have a fiscal responsibility.
  On the point that produced a reaction from the Deputy Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, it is debatable whether the members of the regulator and the board are personally liable if they are not taking advice but making the decisions themselves on the basis of their own expertise. I do not think that the regulator or the board are sufficiently legally distinguishable to ensure that that is not the case. As I said, you take advice when you are a trustee of a pension scheme because you need to be able to say. "I took advice". But if the board or the regulator is not going to do that—this had not occurred to me until now—its legal position is rather doubtful. We ought to give some further thought to that, so the amendment seems appropriate. But I will not pursue the matter.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wanted to respond on only one point. Obviously, the recruitment process for the board is different from the recruitment process for staff. I have been involved, appropriately at arm's length, with things such as disability living allowance boards, and members of such boards are run on Nolan principles. The members of the board conform to the Nolan system of recruitment to an NDPB. Staff are also professionally recruited in an appropriate way.
  On the legal point, I do not know, but let me see if there is any substance to the noble Lord's point. If there is, obviously we must respond to it. I am not persuaded that there should be, given the structure. I do not think that it is any different from the legal position of someone on a DLA board or an incapacity benefit board. They also make decisions that affect people's income. But let me reflect on that to see whether the noble Lord's point should be taken further.
  As for the argument about the difference between trustees and the other staff of the regulator, the PPF, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that they are very different. There is provision to ensure that they are not liable unless they act contrary to human rights or with malice—I was wondering whether to raise the point about acting with malice earlier—but they are not individually liable unless, as I say, they knowingly flout the Human Rights Act or act with malice. That returns us to the point about publication that I think we raised yesterday.
  However, I will push that point a little further to see whether I am missing anything, because that is not impossible.
  Lord Higgins: It is worth thinking about. The provision on malice, human rights and so on, would not protect a trustee on a pension fund who got it wrong because he did not take advice. So let us examine it. I think that the regulator and the PPF are much closer to a pension fund than they are to the other kinds of board mentioned by the noble Baroness, which, generally speaking, deal with public money in a

  GC 371
  more specific sense. But let us not take longer on the matter now; let us think about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 238 agreed to.
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 302:
  After Clause 238, insert the following new clause—
  "INTERNAL CONTROLS
  Regulations may provide that trustees of an occupational pension scheme must secure that the scheme has appropriate and sufficient systems of internal control."
  The noble Lord said: Although my noble friend, Lord Lucas, is absent, I know exactly what he is worried about. He has been doing something that I would not do: ploughing through the European Pensions Directive, which must be made law in its entirety in the United Kingdom by September 2005, as I understand it. Article 14 of the directive is very short and comparatively sweet. It talks about powers of intervention and duties of a competent authority. It states:
  "The competent authorities shall require every institution located in their territories to have sound administrative accounting procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms".
  It may be that buried somewhere in this enormous Bill, Article 14 is covered with both belt and braces, but my noble friend Lord Lucas, in his reading of the Bill, clearly failed to find it. Therefore, he suggests that a new clause be inserted to implement it. The most appropriate place in the Bill would seem to be around Clauses 237, 238 and 239, which already cover the trustees of occupational pension schemes, as we have just discussed. He also feels that it would be appropriate to mirror the wording of the directive as closely as possible, and this he has sought to do. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord identified, we are talking not particularly about DB schemes, which tend to have internal controls in place, but DC schemes—money purchase schemes. We are in a way resuming a debate that we had on Amendment No. 155 before the Summer Recess, in the light of Article 14.1. I argued at the time that I was not persuaded or entirely clear that those internal controls did not exist to a sufficient degree to meet the requirements of the European directive.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Could the noble Baroness rephrase that? It sounded like the most appalling double negative.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is a fine history of double negatives in this country. Since when have they been appalling? I am quite sure that I cannot repeat the sentence.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Good.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Following the debate on Clause 155—when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas,
  GC 372
  argued the need for internal controls, in which he was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I said I was surprised that they thought this so important—I was left unpersuaded that we did not already have in place sufficient internal controls to meet the requirements of the European directive. I think that that is a perfectly proper use of a double negative, according to my O-level Latin.
  Officials take the deliberations of members of the Committee very seriously, and we have looked at this further in the light of the arguments then expressed a view. We accept that European directives can lend themselves to a variety of interpretations. We thought, as I say, that we were showing full compliance with Article 14.1 and felt that the totality of the existing regulatory regime has, in effect, created an environment in which schemes already have to have internal controls, as most schemes do.
  Since the detailed discussions between officials and representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, we have been urged to put the matter beyond doubt and provide an explicit legislative reference. To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was acting as the accountants' voice on this occasion. This would give us the flexibility to decide, in the light of events and our experience in operating the directive, whether any further intervention by Government was necessary.
  Although we are not convinced that it may be needed, we are willing to accept the case for flexibility and the clarity for which the accountants are asking. In the light of that, it is highly likely, if members of the Committee agree, that I shall return to this matter at a later stage to see whether I can give reassurances that we do not need this or accept the obligation that we do. In that case, we shall come forward with appropriate words to that effect.
  Given the understanding that we are continuing to explore this, we have had differing advice from different bodies. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will recognise that we are engaged in an honourable activity and will withdraw the amendment on behalf of his noble friend.
  Lord Skelmersdale: What I recognise is that the matter is pending. I know that my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Hunt will be delighted that the department is taking that point seriously. I really have nothing more to say except that I hope that the matter ends satisfactorily and goes into the out-tray and the Bill in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 303 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 239 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: This clause is concerned with payment of surplus to an employer. There has been an enormous amount of controversy recently in the light of changed circumstances as to whether it was appropriate for trustees to grant to employers

  GC 373
  contributions holidays and so on. The circumstances have changed very radically indeed. However, as I understand it, there has always been a huge debate about who owns the pension surplus. I believe that there is a whole string of decided cases on that point.
  The purpose of the contributions, whether from an employer or an employee, and the purpose of building up the fund, is to ensure that the liabilities can be met following actuarial advice and so on. In some cases where very large surpluses were accumulated it was clearly inappropriate—indeed, I think I am right in saying that there was a limit on the extent of surpluses—for them to remain the size that they were, which is why they tended to be disbursed in a combination of a pensions holiday and, generally speaking, increased provision for the beneficiaries.
  However, suddenly, we come to a clause on payment of surplus to the employer, which seems to run right over the situation that I have just described. I am not clear why that should be. Under Clause 239, new Section 37 is to be substituted for Section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995. I must confess that I have not checked what that provision states. However, I would be surprised if it introduced a measure of the kind that is in the new section. Rather than simply pay a surplus to an employer it is better that there should be some quid pro quo in exchange for a pensions holiday, if, indeed, as I hope might happen at some point, we ever get back to the stage where large surpluses accumulate. That is certainly not the case at present as a result of the events of the past seven years. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us why this clause is necessary.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is right; the context of this matter is to be found in the rules introduced, I think, by Nigel Lawson in 1988. I seek help on that point. In order to prevent employers using pension funds to build up tax privileges through surpluses the figure was capped at 105 per cent. There has been some controversy about the matter since then. I read a recent Bank of England article on the matter which suggested that in some cases there was manipulation of the 105 per cent rule to enable employers to extract funds from pension funds which they did not need to do and in the process calling it a contributions holiday. The trade union movement was concerned about the substantial sums of money that came out of funds as a result of that. None the less I am not suggesting that that was done always or necessarily in bad faith as it was done within a context of the regulations laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The current tax rules about requiring the run-down of a surplus to a 105 per cent cap will disappear. Trustees will have the freedom to decide whether to retain a surplus within the scheme in the event that there is a surplus in it. Payment could be made only from a surplus above and beyond the amount needed to secure the full buy-out rights of every member and beneficiary. The valuation certificate needed for such payments would be of limited duration. What is being said here is, should we return to a situation of soaring stock markets that resulted in pension schemes being
  GC 374
  not only not underfunded but having substantial funding over and beyond that necessary to meet full buy-out—which is a very high hurdle and much higher than exists under the 1995 Act—the trustees can decide, if they believe it is in the members' interests, to return that surplus to the employer. It is quite hard to conceive of circumstances in which it might be in the members' interests; the obvious one is if there is some question about the solvency of the company and the employer needing access to the fund. That would immediately raise a question mark as to how safe the pension fund might be.
  Any such surplus would exist only when all the need to meet full wind-up liabilities could be met. In that case, the trustees could—although I am not saying that they would—make a decision that it could be returned to the employer. There is a very high hurdle that fully protects the employee. The provisions say that under the circumstances—who knows when they might occur, but should we return to that position—there is a route that trustees, the employer and scheme members can follow should they so choose. That is the point of the clause. It is necessary partly because there are no longer Inland Revenue rules, given the tax simplification with which we are now proceeding.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: As I said, there is still a great deal of controversy legally about who does or does not own the surplus, and one would have thought that there might be a corresponding clause for repaying the surplus to the employees. We seem so far from that situation at the moment that we must only hope that this clause is necessary as soon as possible. But it seems strange to legislate for it now, when it has not been a situation that has persisted in the past.
  Clause 239 agreed to.
  Clauses 240 and 241 agreed to.
  Clause 242 [Non-European scheme to be trust with UK-resident trustee]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 242 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: This clause relates to non-European schemes to be a trust with UK-resident status. Again, it is one of the international aspects of the problems with which we are dealing. I am not clear about a minor point, at Clause 242(4)(b), where it says that one of the conditions is that,
  "a trustee of the scheme is resident in the United Kingdom".
  Does that mean that there must be a trustee—rather than the trustee—in the United Kingdom? Perhaps it refers to a company trustee rather than a set of individual trustees. Or does it mean that one of the trustees of a trustee board must be resident in the United Kingdom?
  I am not sure when it will be best to debate my other point, which relates to the controversial issue of the Nikko Bank, and the fact that an overseas non-European scheme can effectively evade its pension commitments. Is it intended that the clause would

  GC 375
  cover that sort of situation? We are in fairly deep water, so it would be helpful if we could have a little clarification.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am perfectly happy to have a go at describing the clause. On the other point, which the noble Lord has referred to on a previous occasion, I would be grateful if he could write to me and identify his concerns. Part 7 may be the appropriate place to raise the matter—I am not absolutely sure about that. I am broadly aware of the issues involved, but I would welcome his take on what policy issues he believes that that raises, which he believes that we should address. Then I could see where the debate might fit the Bill and could come back to him as to where we might raise the question. My first reflex is that Part 7 might be a more appropriate point than this one.
  Clause 242 provides similar provisions to Clause 241, which dealt with UK-based schemes. This clause, as the noble Lord rightly identified, deals with occupational pension schemes which have their main administration outside the member states of the European Union. We are largely dealing with American companies in that regard. Part 7 deals with cross-border provisions for EC companies.
  This clause applies to schemes that have their main administration outside the UK but in which there is a UK interest—either a UK-based employer is paying contributions to the scheme, or an overseas-based employer is paying contributions in respect of a UK employee employed in the UK. The clause provides that a UK-based employer can pay contributions into such a scheme and an overseas-based employer can pay contributions into such a scheme in respect of employees employed in the UK only if certain conditions are satisfied. The scheme must be established under trust and a trustee must be resident in the UK. The powers allow the Pensions Regulator a sanction if that is not the case.
  More broadly, the noble Lord asked whether the trustee could be an individual or corporate trustee. It could be either, but the point is that the Pensions Regulator must have some person on which to exercise the leverage of regulation. That is what the clause sets up. Any company in that situation, such as an American bank, might have a UK pension scheme, but it would have to have a UK trustee drawn from the UK side. That might be a corporation or individual and the rest of its trustees can be based in the USA, but there must be some body or somebody resident in the UK, so that the regulator has leverage on it and so that the obligations to which I referred may be fulfilled.
  I believe that the noble Lord understood those points well in his opening remarks; I am happy if he thinks that I have now confirmed his understanding.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister. It seems a rather thin line of communication if all that is necessary is an individual trustee, and if the regulator
  GC 376
  can communicate with an individual trustee who is resident in the United Kingdom—who does not even need to be a United Kingdom citizen.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would be interested to hear about the noble Lord's experience in that regard, and in the experience of other Members of the Committee. How would he toughen up the provision? I would genuinely be interested to know. Given trustee law, given the status and the regulator's leverage, and given therefore that the board corporately will end up funding whatever the individual trustee resident in the UK is required to do by virtue of the regulator's powers, what would the noble Lord suggest? Perhaps someone will write to me about the matter.
  I take the point that the noble Lord has made. If he believes that this is too slender an edifice—
  Lord Higgins: Right off the top of my head, I should have thought that a majority of the trustees should have to be resident in the United Kingdom. That is absolutely off the top of my head. Otherwise, there will be one trustee here and all the other trustees will not be registered in the United Kingdom. The regulator may come up to the trustee who is resident in the United Kingdom and say, "Hey, you're doing something wrong!". The trustee may reply, "Yes, but every time I raise the matter with my board, I'm outvoted". That is the best that I can do on the spur of the moment—but the thread seems pretty thin as it is.
  On the other point, it may be the case that the issue that I have raised on several points will come up better in Part 7. I am referring to the case of an overseas company in Japan which has pensioners in the United Kingdom and reneges on the pension commitments—and very little can be done about it, apparently. But let us discuss that at a later stage, as the Minister suggests.
  Clause 242 agreed to.
  Clause 243 agreed to.
  Clause 244 [Activities of occupational pension schemes]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 244 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: I am not clear what other activities, apart from retirement benefit activities, the Government envisage might be caught by the provision. It says that occupational pension schemes would be limited to retirement benefit activities. Of course, we are not only talking about provision of pension; there are many pension schemes, for example, which have people who go around visiting the retired pensioners, and so on. But I am not clear what it is that the Government are worried that occupational pension schemes might suddenly rush off and do—run a lottery, or something, perhaps.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps running a garage, or something like that. Absolutely.
  The clause does not prevent occupational pension schemes that are subject to it undertaking any current business. The Inland Revenue rules on tax relief currently restrict pension schemes undertaking

  GC 377
  business which is not related to the provision of pensions. Despite this, it is necessary to include the provision in the Bill because the scope of the tax rules is slightly different from the scope of the directive. It is necessary for the legislation implementing the directive to cover all occupational pension schemes, irrespective of their tax-approved status.
  Lord Higgins: Whenever one gets worried about a clause in the Bill, one or two spectral figures in the background appear. It is either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the European directive. The Chancellor may restrict tax privileges to schemes which do not engage in other activities. I should have thought that a more appropriate response would be to tax the other activities. However, I do not want to pursue this point further.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can already see tomorrow's headlines.
  Lord Higgins: I think that we should have little stars on each clause showing that this one is because of the directive and that one is because of the Chancellor.
  Clause 244 agreed to.
  Clause 245 [No indemnification for fines or civil penalties]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 245 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: I am rather worried about this clause. There is no doubt that the vulnerability of pension trustees is increasing from moment to moment and has reached terrifying heights. Generally speaking, I think that countless employers, if not the pension fund itself, tend to take out insurance policies in cases where trustees may be vulnerable with regard to legal action. I should have thought that that would probably include fines or civil penalties. In the absence of any such protection, I should have thought the tendency for trustees to take a risk, because there is often not much in it for them, would be rather dangerous. The provision seems an unnecessary restriction which might deter people from taking on the task of being a trustee, but perhaps I have misunderstood the situation.
  Lord Lucas: In a practical sense, will this not simply increase the costs on pension funds? Rather than the pension fund being able to pay for these premiums out of its income, it will have to pay the trustees, who will then pay tax on that payment before they can pay the premiums, and the cost will be grossed up.
  There is no way that people would be pension trustees without such insurance. It will be obtained in one way or another—it is ridiculous to suppose otherwise. The liabilities are so enormous that no one of any standing could sensibly do the job without insurance. There will be conditions in the insurance saying that if someone does something entirely fraudulent they will not be covered by insurance and are personally liable—well, fine. But you have to have the ordinary, everyday insurance that covers you for
  GC 378
  mistakes or general forgetfulness. You could not do the job without it. All the clause will do is increase the cost for the fund.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The clause does not require anybody to take out insurance, although that may well be the result. However, I am slightly surprised at the comments that have been made. The clause will ensure that if a trustee has behaved unreasonably and is fined or subject to a penalty, the scheme should not reimburse that trustee. Insurance may be taken out but my understanding is that this is no different from the current arrangements for OPRA and the Financial Services Authority. The clause extends the provision to personal pensions. There may or may not be a further discussion about insurance but the power is there, in analogous circumstances, in OPRA. The clause makes sure that scheme members are not asked to pay for a trustee's unreasonable behaviour. It is quite a stringent test. The power currently exists in OPRA and is being carried forward here with a wider remit for the pensions that it covers.
  6 p.m.
  It seems absolutely right that members should not guarantee the liability of trustees for failure to behave appropriately. To put it in totally different language, where there has been a failure of trustees' duties of fiduciary care, it is right that scheme members should not pick up the bill. I suggest that the issue of insurance is separate. This is not a new power; a similar one already exists in OPRA. We are extending it to personal pensions, although it already exists with the Financial Services Authority.
  Lord Lucas: I agree entirely with the noble Baroness on subsection (1). Certainly the scheme should not indemnify the trustees, but I cannot imagine that, these days, trustees would not have insurance. Non-executives and charity trustees have insurance, for example. Subsection (2) seems to rule that out. Perhaps I have misunderstood it.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not see how subsection (2) rules it out. The employer can pay a fine that could be insurance—I am sure that the noble Lord is right about this. All the clause says is that scheme members do not pay, and that it does not come out of scheme funds.
  Lord Lucas: But it will come out of scheme funds anyway, because the trustee will require insurance. If the scheme is not funding the insurance, it will pay the trustee so that it can pay for the insurance. One way or another, the insurance will be there, and the cheapest way is for the scheme to pay for it directly, because any other way involves paying the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Under subsection (2) schemes cannot pay the insurance; either employers or the trustee individually may do so.
  Lord Higgins: It may be that either way the employer ends up paying, although the cost may be

  GC 379
  shared if the scheme pays rather than the employer. I share entirely my noble friend's views on the matter. In the absence of any insurance, there is a danger that it will be a question, not of whether members should pay for the liability of the trustee, but of there not being any trustees for them to pay. The noble Baroness underestimates the dangers involved. If she says that the employer will have to pay but not the pensioners—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I am effectively saying that. In that situation, the trustee could—with agreement, presumably—lay it off, so to speak, on the employer. We are protecting pensioners from the failure of the trustees, where they have behaved unreasonably.
  Lord Higgins: But the trustees of the pension fund are not directors of the company. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of who pays: the employer or the fund? To a large extent, the fund is paid for by the employer. It will be yet another nail in the coffin of final salary schemes if one starts saying, "Oh well, the fund won't pay so the employer will have to".
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The scheme already exists under OPRA, which we have had for seven years. Have Members of the Committee any evidence for thinking that the present scheme does what the noble Lord fears or that there have been any cases where trustees have been deterred because of it in a substantial way? I am not saying that there may not be individual cases. There is nothing new here. While I take the point about insurance, we should not treat the provision as though it were a brand new intervention. We are merely making clear that scheme members should not pay when trustees have failed bluntly to protect their interests.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: The point is not that this is a new power but that conditions for trustees are becoming more onerous. In particular, I am conscious of the interesting points made in the recent open letter of the National Association of Pension Funds. It pointed out that, as a result of the move towards scheme-specific funding and so on, trustees will probably become much more cautious and will take more seriously the burdens on them. To that extent, the rules are the same as before but they deal with a different situation. That is the concern.
  Lord Lucas: One of the other differences is that, when we were debating the Bill that created OPRA, I was on the Front Bench and therefore the legislation was perfect. Now that we are looking at the provisions in opposition, we question some of the things that we did at the time. I understand what the noble Baroness says and can see that it will all come out in the wash, except perhaps in cases where an employer has gone bust. Under these provisions, we are telling pension scheme trustees that, if the employer goes bust or fails to pay the premiums, they are on their own and cannot
  GC 380
  get insurance unless they pay for it themselves. That seems to be inviting them to resign en masse the moment the employer goes bust.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can we get matters into proportion? We are talking about insurance for regulator penalties, for which the maximum is £5,000. The analogy given to me suggests that this is no different from saying that, although you have motor insurance, it does not cover parking fines.
  Lord Lucas: No, but often one's employer will pay them.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Parking fines?
  Lord Lucas: Certainly, if you are in the business of making deliveries.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Ah, I see.
  Lord Higgins: I am still concerned about this. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is absolutely right. The feeling among people taking on posts such as executive or non-executive director of a charity or whatever is that one can be inadvertently and without malice caught out, and that it would be foolish to take up such a position without insurance. The trustees are there helping the pensioners, therefore it seems not wholly unreasonable that the pensioners should pay the insurance. The trustees are not company employees.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Forgive me, but this is not a debate about insurance, is it? It is a debate about saying that if a trustee has behaved unreasonably—whether it is recklessness is another matter—and, as a result, has incurred a fine, members should not pay for this.
  One of the issues that I have picked up throughout the Committee is Members' concern about issues of liability in any role. Perhaps it would help if I wrote to Members explaining why a fine would be imposed at the end of a long series of steps of intervention by the regulator which the trustees had not corrected and was a last step. At that point, having failed to correct "a, b, c or d", as the regulator has invited, it is not then reasonable to expect members to pay for the trustee's failure to alter his or her actions.
  Rather than push further on the matter now, perhaps I could outline the position in writing and give details of the steps and safeguards that are in place, as a preparation for returning to the item on Report.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Could the noble Baroness concentrate on the insurance point? So far as I am concerned, this debate is about insurance. I accept entirely what she says about subsection (1), but she said initially that it was a separate issue. In my view, we are talking about who pays for insurance and what is acceptable.
  Lord Higgins: Subsection (2) refers specifically to insurance premiums and so on. If the risk is as slight as the noble Baroness says, any such insurance premium

  GC 381
  would be trivial anyway. It is a question, not of what the risk is, but of whether the trustee perceives that he may be at risk and is not covered if he is. If one wants to encourage trustees and schemes, and to deter companies from switching to defined contribution schemes to avoid this, then the clause is probably counterproductive.
  Clause 245 agreed to.
  Clause 246 [Conditions for pension protection]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 303A:
  Page 167, leave out lines 40 to 41 and insert "if the benefits are provided under a money-purchase scheme"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 303B. These are concerned with the transfer or schemes from one employer to another, if I understand them correctly. As currently drafted, defined benefit schemes with a money purchase option for voluntary contributions could be excluded from the protection provided by the clause. The amendment seeks to rectify that position. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am in a bit of a dilemma and I shall seek the help of the Committee. This is the start of a debate on TUPE. I could either take the opportunity now to say something about TUPE or I could hone in narrowly on the noble Lord's point and, perhaps, have a stand part debate on TUPE in a moment, which your Lordships might prefer.
  It may be that the noble Lord has misunderstood the intention of the provisions regarding money purchase schemes. The effect of his amendment, given that there are occupational schemes such as hybrid and mixed benefit schemes, would mean that requiring the contributions to comply with conditions would not comply with the respective schemes which are not money purchase schemes, such as defined benefit or hybrid schemes which provide some money purchase benefits. Technically, his amendment obscures the problem with hybrid schemes. Amendments Nos. 303B and 303C extend the same provision to employees eligible to join the scheme who have not yet joined and to employees who are serving a qualifying period of employment before vesting rights.
  Protection already exists where transferors provide hybrid pension schemes which provide money purchase benefits. As this type of scheme is becoming more popular with employers, I am sure that the noble Lord would not like to restrict that. As it happens, his amendments have the technical effect of denying the protection to hybrid schemes that I am sure he would wish to see extended. It may be that it would be more appropriate to have the wider debate on the clause stand part debate, but I can assure the noble Lord that, as drafted, his amendments would provide narrower, rather than enhanced protection.
  Lord Higgins: It was my intention that the amendment would ensure that money purchase options would be included rather than excluded. Perhaps I should withdraw the amendment and raise the whole issue on the clause stand part debate, which, as the Minister said, largely concerns TUPE.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 303B and 303C not moved.]
  Clause 246 agreed to.
  Clause 247 [Form of protection]:
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 304:
  Page 169, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—
  "(i) is certified by the actuary to provide to or in respect of the employee, benefits of similar value to the occupational pension scheme referred to in section 246(1)(c),"
  The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lady Turner, I shall move the amendment and speak to the other five amendments in this group. Clause 247 is intended to implement the Government's commitment to extend the protection afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. The move is much welcomed by many workers in such situations.
  However, there is concern among many workers who are facing this situation about certain aspects of the Bill as currently drafted. I should like to briefly cover those and I very much look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister.
  The Bill provides for a maximum of 6 per cent contribution from the employer—12 per cent in total. The reference scheme test under paragraph 699 of the Explanatory Notes refers to that. But the benefits could differ greatly from those that employees received before they transferred. For instance, they may be on a 1/60th scheme and able to retire at 60. I am given to understand that, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, people could get much lower benefits than that on transfer. Younger people may well meet the benefits, but in the case of older people in some schemes, the contribution from the employer needs to be much higher than the 6 per cent specified. That is the bones of Amendment No. 304.
  6.15 p.m.
  The amendment also includes an actuary provision to provide employees with benefits of similar value. That links into Amendment No. 305. The Explanatory Notes, under the reference scheme test, refer to the standard under Section 12A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. This amendment is intended to move towards the benefits that may be paid out where there is not a money-purchase scheme. The issue is quite complicated, but nevertheless there is a concern about a shortcoming in the Bill. I would welcome a response from the Minister.
  Amendment No. 305A is tabled in my name. I am seriously concerned about subsection (6) of Clause 247. It refers to subsection (1), which covers the scheme requirements under the Bill, stating that it,
  "does not apply in relation to a contract if or to the extent that the employee and the transferee so agree at any time after the time when the employee becomes employed by the transferee".

  GC 383
  In other words, as I understand it, if an employee in a pension scheme transfers to another employer, the Bill will enable the employer to try to put pressure on the employee to convince them that you do not need the provisions in the Bill or the continuation of the contract to continue a pension scheme. I would welcome very much my noble friend's comments. I am sure that what I have described was not intended when the Bill was drafted, but it looks like that would be the result. I would like some assurance.
  Amendment No. 306, in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner, is aimed at achieving clarity and protection for the scheme. Amendment No. 307 is better than my Amendment No. 307A, so I shall speak to it. It provides that you do not see a diminution of contribution and therefore a diminution of benefit, so the transferee should not be able to pay less and the employees should not be required to pay more. That might sound like fairyland, but I have seen that happen in pension schemes, particularly in the old schemes where there were surpluses: employers took a pensions holiday but the employees continued to pay, or a scheme was in trouble and employees were expected to pay more but not the employer.
  I do not suggest that that is the intention of the Bill. It is intended for the very best of reasons. But we all know that, between cup and lip, a slip can happen on drafting. There are some serious concerns about this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: The amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken would change significantly the Government's approach as carried out in Clauses 246 and 247. The amendments would mean that a transferee employer would have to provide a pension with benefits of similar value to the pension benefits provided by the transferor. However, the Government require only that a transferee employer provide either membership of an occupational-related scheme that meets the reference scheme test or alternatively membership of a defined contribution scheme—for example, a stakeholder pension—to which the new employer matches the employee contribution up to 6 per cent.
  My understanding is that the Government have held considerable discussions with various outside interests, particularly the DTI, some three years ago. Nothing much has happened in the mean time. Organisation such as the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) had serious reservations about regulations that would give protection in private sector to private sector transfers. It suggested that that would limit the number of transfers that took place. In a buyout situation, in particular, the problem is that the pension transfer provisions may be so onerous that the transfer simply does not take place. As a result, instead of transferring the operation of, say, a subsidiary from one company to another where it will survive, or from the company to a buyout situation where it will survive, the transfer does not happen and that part of the operation closes down, with a loss of employment and so on.
  GC 384
  There is very much a question of balance in the extent to which those transferring from one company to another gain the full benefits that they enjoyed originally. On balance, for the reasons that I have just given, I am inclined to take the Government's view. No doubt we can debate the matter further, but it is a question of balance. There is considerable danger, if one goes along a route that puts too heavy a burden on the company that is trying to dispose of the assets to another operation.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has very fairly described the intent of the proposals and identified the position from which my noble friend argues her case. Clauses 246 and 247 extend TUPE's commitment across the full range of pension provision. Research shows that the average employer contribution in a DB scheme may be around 12 to 16 per cent, whereas the average employer contribution to a money-purchase scheme is around 6 per cent. We think that the proposal for a matched contribution to a money-purchase scheme of up to 6 per cent strikes a sensible balance, given that this is the average value of contributions.
  I wish to make a couple of blue-sky points before responding to each amendment. My noble friend was worried that the new approach might not produce an adequate standard of living on retirement. She is obviously right that it is age related. But the provisions also reflect the fact that in a TUPE situation an older employee will have come with accrued rights, whether through a DB or DC scheme, in his existing scheme. We are saying that, during an employee's period of employment with the transferee employer, he will be able to have a pension scheme whose baseline involves a 6 per cent contribution from the employer if he makes a matching 6 per cent contribution. A worker who contributes that 6 per cent matched by the employer could have a replacement rate of between 40 and 60 per cent of his final salary on retirement from his private pension. If, on top of that, assuming a 4 per cent rate of return, we include the state retirement pension and, if he was not contracted out, the state second pension or, if he was contracted out, to the effect of that, the replacement ratio should then be nearer 70 per cent.
  So the 6 per cent plus 6 per cent plus either S2P plus state pension or the NI rebates should produce a retirement income of 70 per cent. I think that that is perfectly adequate. I must say, and far exceeds what many people will currently be retiring from in their working life. We have worked this through. Someone will be more at risk where he is not under a TUPE but is changing jobs, possibly in DB schemes and not building up vested rights. That person may very well end up with a pension far short of that, but what TUPE should do, given the hedges that I have put around it in terms of other forms of financial support, such as the state second pension or state pension, will, at those rates of contribution, on quite moderate assumptions, produce a replacement retirement income of about 70 per cent of earnings, which may be larger than people might have expected.

  GC 385
  I therefore turn to my noble friend's amendments. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has identified her argument, which is why I cannot go with her. She seeks by Amendment No. 305A to remove subsection (6) from Clause 247. That would remove an employer's ability to vary the level of voluntary contribution for the remainder of the individual's period of employment. That would be the case even where the employee wants a change to be made and, importantly, would apply to increases as well as decreases in pension provision.
  More generally, that would unacceptably restrict an employer's rights flexibly to manage his business and could place him under an unacceptable burden to continue with the rate of contributions that he cannot economically maintain. Through that route, we begin to come to a level of compulsion, especially on a transferee employer, that the Government cannot accept, certainly at this stage. With our 6 per cent and 6 per cent, we are ensuring that there is a baseline that many people would regard as more than adequate in today's circumstances. We do not want to tilt on to the transferee employer statutory requirements that are more onerous than on the transferor employer from whom the employee originally migrated.
  I think that we have got a pretty good balance. Even the 6 plus 6 per cent figure has in some cases been felt to be unacceptably onerous because, for example, where an existing employer, the transferor employer, contributes 4 per cent, none the less, when that person goes across to the transferee employer, providing the employee is willing to match it, the new employer must go up to 6 per cent. So it is not impossible in some cases that people will actually see their pension provision improve, providing that they are willing to match it.
  Given that, if I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I think that we have got the balance right. Providing the employee matches the contributions, the outcome will provide a more than acceptable level of income in retirement—all in all, about 70 per cent. With that, I hope that my noble friend will accept that we are unwilling to take the risk of upping the compulsory element of the transferee employer at this time.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I have been waiting to listen to the Minister about this, because I feel somewhat torn. My heart is with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the point, but I feel that there is a rather different situation between a private transfer, where there may be genuine problems if the EEF says that solvency or ongoing jobs are at risk.
  With a public sector to private transfer, which many of these could be, I feel strongly that it is not acceptable just to say that in the new situation, some people may be doing better than other people do on average. The key point is that where, effectively, a decision is taken over employees' heads and they are transferred out with no real say about what happens, they should be in no worse a pension position. That is an important
  GC 386
  principle. I am rather groping here, but I feel that on a public to private transfer, I am very much with the noble Baroness.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, whose instincts are absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has rightly picked up that this would be a change to the Bill, but it proposes a protection to employees and the pensions promise that they have been given by their employer. We must consider the environment in which we are working on the Bill. People out there feel that the pensions promise does not seem to have meant very much. So many people have worked the whole of their lives and at the end of it have a much reduced pension. I think we all agree that pensions will be a key issue in the election, when it comes.
  The blunt fact is that if you change your job, you take a choice. You enter voluntarily into a contract with your new employer about the overall terms and conditions. All too often, I have seen companies sold off—sometimes to save the company. Usually, in the process, a lot of jobs go. But here, the employees would have no say at all and their pensions are affected. I was very interested in the figures cited by my noble friend and will certainly read her contribution. Could details about those figures be made available? The points that she made were interesting.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I am very happy to share that information with my noble friend. On the public to private point, which arose after I spoke, occupational rights of local authority employees who transfer to the private sector—the point identified by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and my noble friend—on a service contract are protected by measures in the Local Government Act 2003. Employees in the wider public sector who transfer to the private sector under such contracts have their occupational pension entitlement protected in most instances under the non-legislative guidelines issued by the Cabinet Office.
  But there is no protection from a private-to-private TUPE. The Bill deals with private-to-private TUPEs, where we are dealing with pension funds that are not protected by Crown guarantee, if you like. As a result, the 6 plus 6 per cent, the statistics that I was giving to my noble friend, which I am happy to circulate, represents a substantial increase in protection to employees who opt and will remain in the private sector.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I accept that last point entirely, because there is no protection there at present. That is why I said that, overall, I very much welcome the clause. But I cannot help but draw on my experience, which is that it is not a terribly good employer who merely matches the employees' pension contributions. A good employer normally provides one-and-a-half to twice as much. I am not sure how many fall in the category where the employee's contribution is the same that of the employer. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 305 to 306 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 306A:
  Page 169, line 31, leave out from "means" to end of line 32 and insert—

  "(a) such contributions in respect of such period or periods as may be prescribed;

  (b) such contributions where the transferee employer must match the employee's contributions up to a maximum of 3%"

  The noble Lord said: As has already been discussed, the Bill will effectively extend the TUPE regulations by making a pension provision a benefit that must be included in the new employer's contract of employment where employees are members, or eligible to become members, of the occupational scheme with their previous employer. The relevant contributions will be defined in regulations and will specify that the transferee must match the employee's contribution, up to a maximum of 6 per cent. My understanding is that the CBI is not in favour of extending TUPE to cover occupational pensions because in its view that is unnecessary. Pensions are already taken into account in the private sector with flexible packages that reflect employee and employer priorities. The measure would certainly make transfers considerably more time consuming and complex to administer and in the CBI's view that would impede corporate activity by creating uncertainty, imposing burdens and so on.
  There is no doubt at all that the pension provision side of any negotiation which takes place about changing ownership of an operation is now regarded as far more important—there have been a number of headline cases on this—than was previously the case. As I understand it, it is already widespread practice within the private sector for transferees to offer pension provision to those affected by a TUPE transfer. That may well be a sensible thing to do. If you transfer the operation from one employer to another and do not operate in the way that I have described, clearly the morale of the workforce is likely to be adversely affected. Problems exist in that area. Sometimes a deal is done with regard to other benefits and so on. The negotiations may be complicated. I have been involved in such matters.
  The extension of TUPE to cover occupational pensions would also make transfers more time consuming and complex. The inclusion of pensions within TUPE is likely to give rise to a number of legal and technical issues as well. That creates uncertainty in the middle of what may be a very knife-edge decision. As I said earlier, it may be a question of whether the operation concerned continues at all. We have to balance all those considerations and take into account the risk that an employee loses his or her job altogether as opposed to finding that his pension is not as favourable as previously.
  If the Government are going ahead with this proposal—I well understand why they think that they should—it is important that the extension of TUPE to occupational pensions is accomplished in a way that is
  GC 388
  workable and does not undermine the way in which transfers would normally operate by imposing excessive costs. Simplicity is an important aspect that we need to take into account. The CBI has said that the system should provide a safety net rather than prescribe what it considers to be good practice legislation. There is a dispute about whether the relevant figure should be 6 per cent, as in the Bill as it stands, or 3 per cent, as set out in the amendment.
  Overall, this is a question of balance. The Government are moving in the direction of improving the situation somewhat as regards pension provision in transfer situations, although, for reasons that we have just debated, they are not going so far as giving the same benefits effectively. As I say, this is a question of balance. We need to consider very carefully whether the Government or those involved commercially in these operations are following the right course. These operations are often very difficult, time consuming and complex and turn on a knife edge. If the pension transfers are not agreed, the whole thing may break down, perhaps to the disadvantage of the economy as a whole and everything else. We need to strike a balance here. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reaction to this amendment. I beg to move.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 307 or 307A.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: We do not support this amendment. This seems to me a classic case of CBI schizophrenia. The CBI is very good on the general policy and saying how we should take pensions much more seriously. It makes many good general points, but when it comes to the nitty gritty detail I am afraid that it is too mean. It is not prepared to carry through the logic of what it is saying, if that would cost any of its members. The 3 per cent limit is too mean, and we do not support it.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord asked what I like to think was a rhetorical question—did the Government believe that they had got the balance right? Of course they do. We have certainly got it clear today: on the one hand my noble friend Lady Dean is asking us to ensure that the pension in a scheme of a transferee employer should be at least as good as the scheme from which the employee is transferring. We believe in some cases that that may be too high and onerous a responsibility.
  Then, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord argued for 3 per cent. I suspect that the 3 per cent figure arose because of some sort of mental alignment with the information and advice rules. Certainly 3 per cent, even matched, would not float most recipients into an adequate standard of living—and certainly not a replacement income based on a private pension of more than about 30 to 40 per cent. That is unacceptable.
  I have gone over the figures. We believe that the 6 per cent plus 6 per cent together with the implications of the contracted-out NI rebates or the alternative

  GC 389
  second state pension will together give employees a retirement income of around 70 per cent of their earnings in retirement, depending on the assumptions made about growth while, at the same time, reflecting the average contribution made now by employers to DC schemes. Let us remember that the majority of employees remain in DB schemes because those schemes tend to be the large ones.
  We believe that we have the balance right; we are reflecting not best practice but average practice in the industry, which allows us at the same time to protect the position of employees. As the noble Lord might have expected when he asked whether the Government had got it right, we believe that we have. When he moved his amendment, I did not think that he argued the CBI case; he put himself at some distance from it and merely made it out that that was what the CBI argued. I take his hesitant endorsement of the CBI's position to be tacit support for that of the Government, and that as a result he will he able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: The Minister is of course wrong about that, just as she is wrong in saying that the Government have always got it right. It is the "always" that is the crucial word; I have never yet heard her say that the Government have got it wrong—or at least I cannot recall an instance, although there may have been one or two.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When we were talking about internal controls under the previous amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, moved on behalf of his noble friend Lord Lucas, I accepted that on reflection we were getting conflicting advice on the matter. It may be that the advice that I originally gave to the Committee was wrong, incomplete, inaccurate and conflicting, and I said that we wanted to reconsider the matter to say whether we wanted to come out with a clearer position.
  Lord Higgins: There is one thing that I am quite clear about: that the Minister has not got it right on the balance of saying whether the Government are right or wrong. Be that as it may, this is a very important issue, and we need to weigh the arguments.
  We should not underestimate the argument that I made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, under the previous amendment, and which I made just now. The argument is perfectly valid; if the process is made too complicated or the cost of the transfer is too great, operations that might otherwise have been viable may turn out not to be. Any company thinking of transferring a subsidiary to another owner or of transferring it in a buy-out situation is effectively in the first place, to some extent, considering whether it wants to continue with it at all. If the company decides that it is not worth transferring the subsidiary because it is too difficult or complicated or would cost too much, it might simply close it down. It is important that we do all we can to preserve pensioners' rights, but there is no point in doing that if they are unemployed as a result of being too enthusiastic on this point.
  GC 390
  Arguments have been put forward by both sides—the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, on one side and the CBI on the other. We have hit a balance. It is important to take into account the other points that I made towards the end of my remarks. If the Government are going to go ahead, they must consider closely some of the technical problems that arise in these circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 307 and 307A not moved.]
  Clause 247 agreed to.
  Clause 248 [Consultation by employers: occupational pension schemes]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 248 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: The clause is so full of regulations that it is totally devoid of content. Can the Minister give us any idea what it is all about?
  Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I want to ask whether I have got it right. Obviously the clause refers to situations that are all too common nowadays, in which employers have to take decisions to close a defined-benefit scheme to new members, because of developments or other factors. As we know, there has been an enormous switch to that position, even among the companies in the FTSE 100, and clearly more will follow.
  As I understand it, the clause is saying that the employer must consult employees in such situations, but that the decision after that consultation is up to the employer and the consultation does not affect the actual decision. I may be wrong about this, but according to the Explanatory Notes, subsection (3) seems to imply that if the employer fails to consult the employee, so be it—the decision can still be made and is valid. Is that an accurate depiction of the clause?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clauses 248 to 250 are in a way the other side of what I call Section 67 clauses; they relate to future changes to the scheme, while Section 67 relates to the situation with accrued rights. There is not an identical set of requirements as to what must or must not be consulted about—they differ between the two provisions. I want to ensure that there is no ambiguity there.
  The duty to consult is important, and I shall make a fuller speech, rather than simply answer the brief points that have been made. Subsequently, there may be confusion with Section 67, so this might be an opportunity to say something on that, although it will mean going on longer than I would normally seek to do.
  The three clauses introduce the requirement to consult, meaning that in future employers will have a statutory obligation to consult affected active members of pension schemes or their representatives before making major changes to future pension

  GC 391
  arrangements. The requirement will apply to employers who offer occupational pension schemes or group personal pension schemes which have direct payment arrangements in place benefiting up to 7.5 million people, for example.
  We shall set out the decisions which will trigger consultation by way of regulations, but we anticipate that they will include decisions, identified by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, such as closing a scheme to future accruals or to new members, changing from DB to DC or hybrid schemes and significantly reducing or removing an employer contribution to a DC scheme or group personal pension scheme. Those are the big ones on which the employer is required to consult. Experience shows that many employers already consult, but others have failed to take up the opportunity to do so as part of good employment relations and practice.
  It will be part of the duties and objectives of the new Pensions Regulator to promote compliance and best practice by employers. Clause 299 contains the relevant powers which will enable civil penalties to be applied by the regulator to breaches of the requirement to consult regulations. When a possible breach comes to light, the regulator has powers to investigate, including requiring employers to produce evidence of compliance. In cases of non-compliance, the regulations will enable the regulator to impose a sanction by way of a civil penalty of up to £5,000 for individuals and up to £50,000 in any other case.
  It has been suggested that employment tribunals should enforce compliance with the new requirement, but an important difference comparing sanctions applied by employment tribunals to those applied by the Pensions Regulator is that the regulator will be able to enforce compliance by employers and trustees equally, in a proportionate and proactive way appropriate to a pension scheme and in a way that will be joined up with the rest of pensions legislation. The new consultation requirement will focus on future changes—distinct, therefore, from the provisions in Clause 251, dealing with the former Section 67.
  Clause 248 is the first of the three clauses, and relates to consultation requirements where future changes to occupational schemes are proposed. We are considering, under Clause 248(1), possible exemptions for some areas of the public sector and in respect of small employers. For example, the requirement would not add much if applied to large public sector schemes, which are governed by statutory requirements to consult. For small employers, we need to get the balance right between protection and excessive burdens.
  We also must take account of different powers. We will be using these powers to prescribe who will be consulted to build on the Government's approach on information and consultation, based on a framework agreed by the CBI and TUC. This is the first time that the UK has approached implementation of EU social legislation in this way.
  GC 392
  The key principle is that where trade unions are recognised by an employer, the employer will be able to consult on changes to future pension arrangements using another mechanism only where employees have specifically agreed and approved an alternative approach to information and consultation. So they must use trade union or approved nominated members under the information and consultation requirement or, in the absence of those, their members more generally. Throughout the consultation stages of the Bill, we have consulted and listened to both sides of the industry, and I think that we have a workable balance.
  Clause 250 contains further provisions about regulations under the section. Ultimately, because pensions are voluntary, the employer is not required, following consultation, to implement the views of those consulted, but he must give them due consideration. Equally, if trustees propose changes to the scheme, the employer must still undertake the exercise. The sanctions do not bite if the employer fails to deliver what the consultation exercise has produced but if he fails the consultation exercise in its entirety. That is the distinction that I think the noble Lord wanted me to make. However, the consultation does not exercise a veto, because pensions remain voluntary.
  In comparison with Section 67, the employer has all the residual powers when dealing with future changes. In the provisions replacing Section 67, the trustees have the residual powers because they are acquired rights that have been built up. That is the essential distinction between the two—who has the determining power. Here it remains with the employer; under the provision replacing Section 67 it will be, as we shall see, with the scheme trustees.
  I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that rather long answer, but I think, given that there has been some confusion on the issue outside, it would be helpful to put it clearly on the record.
  Clause 248 agreed to.
  Clause 249 [Consultation by employers: personal pension schemes]:
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 308:
  Page 170, line 14, at end insert "or
  (c) proposes to reduce the contributions which the employer pays to the personal pension scheme,"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 308, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 308A, 309 and 310.
  Amendment No. 308 puts into regulation something which we believe is not there at the moment. The proposal is that there should be consultation on personal pension schemes. Over the past few years, employers have been moving towards paying a contribution either to an individual money purchase scheme, a group personal pension or, indeed, a stakeholder pension. We feel that there is a blank in the Bill on consultation in that regard.
  The amendment also deals with employers who want to reduce the contributions they pay to an individual's personal pension. Certainly, Amendment

  GC 393
  No. 308A moves on to remedy. That leads on to Amendment No. 309 and the two are very much connected—as is Amendment No. 310.
  I should be happy to be corrected, but there does not appear to be provision for the remedy that applies to consultation. We know that consultation means different things for different people. I know that it will be put in the regulations, but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little about what is meant by "consultation". The word "meaningful" is not in the Bill and I do not intend to have half an hour's debate over one word. But "consultation" to some people means "informing"; to other people it means "discussing before you reach conclusions". That is what it means to me but that is not always the case and it has not been the case in people's experience, either.
  Amendment No. 309 is not dissimilar and the requirement for consultation there is not dissimilar to what is required under health and safety legislation. We believe that it is reasonable to provide for some remedies. It may be that the intention was to do that anyway, but this is a probing amendment and I am trying to draw from the Minister what the Government mean by "consultation". If the Bill is left as it is, there would be very different interpretations of that. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As it stands, the amendment would impose an obligation to consult in the instance of any reduction in contributions. Our phrasing is "significant" reductions, so the noble Baroness would agree that the Government's position is not unreasonable. But the thrust of her amendments is, as she says, to probe what we mean by "consultation".
  The regulations, which will be drawn up in partnership with the CBI, the trade union movement and so on, will explain who must be consulted. The employers must, for example, consult a recognised trade union or a recognised I&C member from April 2005. The regulations will give the timescale for representations to be made, during which the employer must "consider". If there is no trade union or I&C member, those recommendations must go directly to the employees. The regulations will be based on consultation but they will lay down a proper process and an appropriate timescale for sending it out, receiving back representations and considering those. So this would not be merely a perfunctory activity in which the consultation has had no capacity to change the outcome of any decision that the employer might make.
  I do not know whether that gives my noble friend sufficient assurances. If she wishes to push me further, I would invite her to do so, because I do not know whether I have given her enough comfort. But I believe that the regulations will address the issues she has raised to ensure that the consultation is meaningful. It does not mean that the consultation itself produces a veto on what the employer has done. I was at pains to establish that that would not be the case.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: This is the difficulty that we always have when we have a Bill that
  GC 394
  will probably be on the statute book by the time that we finish the regulations. At the moment, if there is one area where there is much suspicion, it is pensions. I hear what the Minister says, and we can always return to this on Report if we wish. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 249 agreed to.
  7 p.m.
  Clause 250 [Further provisions about regulations relating to consultation]:
  [Amendments Nos. 308A to 310 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 250 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Barker: I apologise for not having been present in the Committee for most of this afternoon. I had good reasons for being elsewhere. However, since I have been here I have listened extremely closely to the exchanges, particularly on the previous few groups of amendments. I refer to a situation that I know only too well, working for an employer who has just consulted on closure of a DB scheme. Therefore, I took to heart much of what the Minister said about consultation and the requirement for it.
  We on these Benches are reaching the view that pensions form a substantial element of overall remuneration packages and therefore it is increasingly right to treat pensions as one would treat other forms of remuneration. I was most interested to hear all that the noble Baroness said. However, Clause 250(2)(g) appears to enable the regulator to waive or relax all the regulations relating to consultation, which appears to constitute a power to drive a coach and horses through all the good practice that the noble Baroness discussed. Perhaps there is a good reason for the measure. I should be delighted to know what that is. If there is no good reason for it, I question why it is there. Why would the regulator wish to have the power to tell people to override good practice?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have obtained advice on under what circumstances Clause 250(2)(g) might come into play. One example is where a company ceases trading when winding-up is taking place. Any requirements for consultation imposed by the regulations would obviously be waived under those circumstances. It is an obvious point but I rather agree with the noble Baroness that it could be expressed differently.
  Baroness Barker: I rather wish that it were. As the noble Baroness knows, I am at the moment fascinated by insolvency. I quite understand that that is exactly what happens in those circumstances. If that is what the measure is intended to provide, it should say so rather than constituting such an open provision.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The regulations will spell it all out. As I say, those regulations will be based on consultation with all the relevant parties. The officials have heard this discussion and they are

  GC 395
  drawing up the regulations. I shall do my best to encourage them to ensure that there is as much transparency as possible.
  Clause 250 agreed to.
  Clause 251 [Modification of subsisting rights]:
  [Amendment No. 310A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 310AA:
  Page 173, line 17, leave out "other entitlement to benefits" and insert "entitlement to the present payment of a pension or other benefit"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendments in this group are extremely technical. I shall speak to them briefly but if any of your Lordships want fuller information I shall be happy to circulate additional information.
  This group of amendments is needed in order to bring clarity to the provisions in Clause 251. Amendments Nos. 310AA—it sounds like a shoe size—and 310AB clarify the meaning of the term "subsisting rights" at New Section 67A.
  Amendments Nos. 310D, 310E and 310F clarify the provisions in new Section 67B(5). New Section 67B sets out the requirements that must be satisfied when a modification is to be made with the consent of each of the affected members.
  Amendment No. 312ZA amends the new Section 67E(2), which covers the action the trustees must have taken before they can agree or consent to a modification being made.
  I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 310AB to 311:
  Page 173, line 23, at end insert—
  "( ) At any time when the pensionable service of a member of an occupational pension scheme is continuing, his subsisting rights are to be determined as if he had opted, immediately before that time, to terminate that service."
  Page 173, line 25, leave out from "as" to end of line 36 and insert "overridden by a relevant legislative provision,
  (b) the relevant legislative provisions, to the extent that they have effect in relation to the scheme and are not reflected in the rules of the scheme, and"
  Page 173, line 41, at end insert—
  "(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7)—

  (a) "relevant legislative provision" means any provision contained in any of the following provisions—

  (i) Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1989 (equal treatment for men and women);

  (ii) Chapters 2 to 5 of Part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (certain protection for early leavers) or regulations made under any of those Chapters;

  GC 396

  (iii) Part 4A of that Act (requirements relating to pension credit benefit) or regulations made under that Part;

  (iv) section 110(1) of that Act (requirement as to resources for annual increase of guaranteed minimum pensions);

  (v) this Part of this Act (occupational pensions) or subordinate legislation made or having effect as if made under this Part;

  (vi) section 31 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (pension debits: reduction of benefit);

  (vii) any provision mentioned in section 292(2) of the Pensions Act 2004:

  (b) a relevant legislative provision is to be taken to override any of the provisions of the scheme if, and only if, it does so by virtue of any of the following provisions—

  (i) paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1989;

  (ii) section 129(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;

  (iii) section 117(1) of this Act;

  (iv) section 31(4) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999;

  (v) section 292(1) of the Pensions Act 2004."

  Page 174, line 37, leave out from beginning to "if in line 40 and insert—
  "(5) If—

  (a) the modification is not a protected modification, and

  (b) before the modification is made the trustees notify an affected member in writing that—

  (i) "
  Page 174, line 43, leave out "(b)" and insert "(ii)"
  Page 174, line 44, at end insert—
  "the trustees are to be taken to have complied with subsection (4)(a)(iv) in respect of him."
  Page 175, line 43, leave out "of a prescribed description" and insert "with prescribed qualifications or experience or who is approved by the Secretary of State"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 312:
  Page 176, line 1, after "rights" insert ", and those of any other person contingently entitled to benefits under the scheme through him."
  The noble Baroness said: Again, this short amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. Clause 67B(8) refers to,
  "the affected member's subsisting rights".
  The amendment would add the words,
  "and those of any other person contingently entitled to benefits under the scheme through him".

  GC 397
  It provides that if anything should happen to the member, his or her next of kin or beneficiaries will be contingently entitled to benefits through the scheme. I gather that my noble friend is concerned that it constitutes inherited rights—I think that that is the point to which she refers. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Dealing narrowly with the noble Baroness's point rather than the wider issue of Section 67, which Members of the Committee may wish to discuss in a stand-part debate, all that I can say is that survivors' benefits are not paid in their own right. In other words, they belong not to the survivor but to the member. While the member who has accrued those rights remains alive, they can be included in the valuation of his or her own subsisting rights. In other words, under the wider discussion that we may go on to have, if the member thinks it appropriate to accept an actuarial equivalence between adjustment to survivor's benefits and, say, accrual rights, it is for that individual to decide. The rights belong to the member of the scheme, not to any potential survivor, who may or may not be married to the member, and who may or may not outlive the member concerned. Given that the rights belong to the member, it is for that individual to determine the acceptability of any changes, looking backwards on accrued rights, which is what Section 67 deals with. This may not be particularly welcome news to my noble friend, but, as I understand it, it is the case in law.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I am not dealing with the wider issues of Section 67; it is just this one simple point. I take the Minister's point, but it is a difficult issue. Over the years, attitudes about who is entitled have changed. For the moment, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 312ZA:
  Page 177, line 11, after "not" insert "a protected modification"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 251, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: One of the complaints that I have made continually in recent times has been that, given the way in which the House of Commons programmes its legislation, the House of Lords is becoming the main scrutiny body. With this clause, however, that would be an unjustifiable criticism. It was introduced at a late stage in Committee in another place and a fairly extensive debate took place on it.
  The clause reflects the recommendations made by Mr Alan Pickering in his review of occupational pension regulations, which was concerned with the difficulty of pension schemes in amending their rules
  GC 398
  and provisions. From time to time that difficulty created a situation whereby employers decided to switch from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme. The Government accepted that argument; I think that they were right to do so. Overall, a measure of simplification will result from the proposed changes, which is to be welcomed.
  These issues have attracted considerable publicity. This morning I read in the Financial Times that we would discuss Section 67. It upset my breakfast because we had already agreed that provision, but it was an understandable mistake because Clause 251 is concerned with the same issues.
  The Chairman of Committees: I am afraid that there is a Division in the House.
  Lord Higgins: How does the noble Baroness think that we should proceed, given that we have started the debate?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would be happy to continue to the end of this debate on what I call Section 67 issues. That may take us past 7.30 p.m. I am in noble Lords' hands.
  Lord Higgins: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and his colleagues have indicated agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has gone. It would seem a shame not to finish a debate that we have started.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, especially given that it concerns the other side of the clauses that we dealt with earlier.
  The Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 7.10 to 7.20 p.m.]
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Grand Committee for agreeing to continue. Since we have started the debate, it seems appropriate that we should conclude it rather than break in the middle and not resume for some weeks.
  I said at the beginning of my remarks that there was an extensive debate in the House of Commons, unusually, on this clause, which was introduced at a comparatively late stage of the Committee stage. The Government introduced the clause in response to Mr Alan Pickering's review of occupational pension regulations; he suggested—and I believe that there is widespread agreement on this—that the difficultly that schemes have in altering their rules in some cases may result in the employer deciding that it is appropriate in those circumstances to move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme. That is something that everyone would like to avoid, as the benefits of one over the other are so clear.

  GC 399
  The Government responded by inserting the clause. Rather surprisingly, it attracted publicity today, as a result of statements made by the Institute of Actuaries and, in particular, the chairman of its pensions board. Actuaries are at the moment a little sensitive, following the comments about the Penrose report. I must say that I agree with those comments. That report was extremely disappointing, to say the least; the ombudsman is investigating the matter further, and there remain serious problems for many pensioners.
  As a result of the report, the actuarial profession has said that it has been criticised for not speaking up when it mattered and that it thought that it ought to speak up with regard to the Bill. That is an entirely desirable development; I am all for actuaries speaking up. I myself made a rather unfortunate remark about them the other day, but most actuaries are expert and progressive people. However, it is true to say that they tend to have an innate—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Conservatism.
  Lord Higgins: "Conservatism", the Minister suggests—with a small "c". In many ways, that is entirely appropriate; it may occasionally be less so—for example, on the question whether one should change the valuation of pension assets to a market-related basis, on which they took a very long time to come to a conclusion. But they are an honourable profession, and they fulfil an important role in relation to all the matters that we have discussed with regard to the Bill.
  The crucial point about the clause is that the Government sought to maintain in the Committee stage of the House of Commons that no one would lose as a result of it. The actuarial profession has said that it is impossible to alter pension provisions without making some people worse off. I believe that that is true. The profession criticised Mr Malcolm Wicks for alleging that there were no losers. I shall not repeat the remarks reported in today's Daily Telegraph but, clearly, the situation is one in which the actuaries are right. There are almost certainly bound to be losers.
  One of the problems that gave rise to the clause in the first place was the fact that the actuaries were unable to approve a particular set of accounts, if anyone happened to lose as a result of the change. The clause seeks to make provision for modification of subsisting rights. There clearly will be losers. The crucial thing is that we should ensure that there is adequate communication with members of the scheme if any such change is to be made and that the members of the scheme should be clear what has been altered. It may be entirely benevolent, nevertheless it is right that they should be told their rights, should know what is being done to the scheme and, therefore, that the actuaries can act appropriately in that context.
  GC 400
  The provisions are basically right, but we need to take account of the fact that some people are likely to lose and of how that is best dealt with. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how the position of those who lose as a result of any change can be protected as far as possible and that it is clear that a decision is taken on a transparent basis. These are not simple matters. The clause runs to a considerable number of pages, but the principles involved are fairly straightforward. The Government are trying to do something that is desirable and it is important that it should be carried out as fairly as possible. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Like the actuarial profession, we also support the policy intention behind Clause 251. Indeed, the restrictions have been too tight on minor amendments to pension fund entitlements over the years, so the principle of the clause is absolutely right.
  Having said that, it is extraordinary that the Government have put themselves in a position where they receive a letter such as that which we have received from actuaries. Actuaries, by their nature are cautious and measured people. I have been watching them closely in my professional life for about 30 years and I never thought that I would live to see the day where the actuarial profession, as a body, accuses the Government of not being entirely open and honest with the public. That is unfortunate. The effect of this issue has been over-spun and over-hyped. It is important for the legislative process that the record is set straight. The points that the actuaries make seem clear. Inevitably mistakes can be made and things can be put in a long Bill which Ministers in the Commons can get wrong. But in that situation it is important to clarify the matter and it is clear that there will be some losers. I am concerned and this is an obvious opportunity for the Minister to set the record straight. I look forward to her doing so.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best. I am mindful of the time. I just wish to say a couple of things about what we are doing in general before dealing with the particular issue of actuarial equivalents, upon which noble Lords have focused.>lb/>
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right in his explanation of the context of this—the Pickering report—particularly where several schemes are amalgamated, but where those similar broad-brush pension schemes have differences in rules which are trying to be aligned for administrative simplicity and to save administrative costs without undermining the level of benefits going to members. If there is an amalgamation of half a dozen schemes which are all fractionally different, then the implications for administration are cumbersome. So there has been widespread acceptance that we need to address the issue.

  GC 401
  As the Committee will know, there are only two big issues: going from a DB to a DC scheme and any sums of money currently in payment to pensioners that are prohibited and for which they have to have individual consent. If 90 per cent of members of a scheme agree to it, then 90 per cent will get it. In the past, two deferred pensioners who were untraceable, out of a scheme of 5,000, could effectively block an entirely sensible and modest change.
  7.30 p.m.
  Members of the Committee have concentrated on the issue of actuarial equivalence. I think that the understanding placed on the words of my honourable friend the Pensions Minister has been inappropriate. Reading the debate as a whole, one cannot take what he has said to imply what the press headlines have suggested.
  At the point at which the change is agreed, there has to be, for the individual member, actuarial equivalence. By definition, that may mean that the individual member is willing to see the benefits for survivors or unmarried partners beefed up at the expense of benefits, possibly even accrual rates, being reduced. But although at that point in time, it is a benefit of actuarial equivalence, it is clear that, over time, that person may lose their partner or spouse. In the longer term, that may not turn out to be the optimum package for the individual member, but when it was decided, it was expected that the actuarial value of each member's accrued rights would be maintained.
  All pension schemes, are, to some degree, a lottery with regard to longevity, age at retirement, age at death, and the age at retirement or death of spouses or partners. Obviously, with hindsight, this will affect whether someone gained or lost. The point was clearly established by my honourable friend in another place: at the point when it was taken up, this was a benefit of actuarial equivalence, which should be acceptable to members.
  I do not want to say that this has been blown out of all proportion, because clearly it is right that there should be no misunderstanding. That was the context in which that debate took place. I am slightly surprised that there should be any ambiguity about it because how much you get from your pension ultimately depends on how long you live, whether you have a survivor and how long that survivor lives. That cannot be determined at the point at which any of these changes are made.
  The way in which we are dealing with issues of consultation and actuarial equivalence has been broadly welcomed. I am sure that this is the right way to proceed, and am glad that these changes have been welcomed across the Committee today.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: We are not here to discuss newspaper headlines but I have here a letter, which I am sure the noble Baroness has read, from the actuarial profession, expressing considerable concern
  GC 402
  about what was said in the other place and the Government's statement that it was designed to rationalise such rules in ways that produce no losers.
  The letter says:
  "In particular we wish to ensure that the Parliamentary debate is fully informed of the important point that individual 'losers' amongst members are bound to arise at times under these proposals".
  Can the noble Baroness confirm that for us? That would then make it quite clear.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thought that that was what I was saying. Although, at the point of accepting this, the individual member should be assured, as best as can be termed, actuarial equivalence, whether he turns out to be a loser or a gainer will often depend on life circumstances, which none of us has any capacity to forecast. By definition, if some of the changes relate to that, such as my example of survivors' benefits being increased or reduced, then it will depend on whether the individual has a survivor at the point of retirement and how long the survivor lasts after his death.
  By definition, one cannot apply hindsight, but in good faith there is meant to be actuarial equivalence when the decision is made. It may advantage some people and not others, but pension schemes as a whole do that, because people cannot predict their own longevity or whether their survivor will enjoy their survivor's benefits. In that sense, I am surprised that the interpretation was given to my honourable friend's remarks, as it is clearly at odds with everything that everyone knows about pensions. But I am happy to give the assurance that the noble Lord seeks. There clearly can be losers, but they are losers that we will know about only at the end of their lives, for the most part—not always, but for the most part—because they are associated with life events.
  Lord Higgins: This has been a helpful debate. I welcome the fact that actuaries, together with any other such organisation, prefer to adopt the more open approach. Rather than do deals with the Government behind closed doors—with the government of whatever party, I stress—it is much better that they make representations to the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, as well as to the Government. That is very much to be welcomed. The other important point is that, when there are specific issues, those people may suggest what amendments could be made—again, not simply dealing with the government of whatever party behind closed doors.
  What the Government are trying to do here, which we support, is to bring about a measure of simplification that will mean that the schemes as a whole work better but that the rights of the individuals are protected. It is important that members must be informed beforehand what the proposals are. The trustees will still have to get a certificate from an actuary, but not in precisely the same way as previously, when he had to say that no one lost. That effectively put a stopper on the whole thing. The

  GC 403
  actuary will sign one that does not say that there are no adverse effects but which contains actuarial equivalents.
  Communication is at the heart of that process. We should consider, given the furore, as it might be described, that has arisen about the clause, whether the exact form in which the clause stands is as good as we can produce. If the actuarial profession or any other body has suggestions for improvement between now and Report stage, it would be appropriate to pursue it
  GC 404
  then. I am sure that the Government would equally wish to take into account any such views. It is important that they are put forward in public—that is very much to be welcomed, and we must see what we can do between now and Report stage.
  Clause 251, as amended, agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 13 October at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Audits of Victims' Groups
  Northern Ireland: Audits of Victims' Groups
  Northern Ireland: Government Departments Expenditure on Consultation Exercises
  Northern Ireland: Government Departments Expenditure on Consultation Exercises
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Africa: Millennium Development Goals
  Africa: Millennium Development Goals
  United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Entente Cordiale: Anglo-French Celebrations
  Entente Cordiale: Anglo-French Celebrations
  NITEworks
  NITEworks
  Clinical Trials: Thrombolysis in Cardiac Arrest Study
  Clinical Trials: Thrombolysis in Cardiac Arrest Study
  Nurse Specialists
  Nurse Specialists
  Strategic Rail Authority: Access Charge Review
  Strategic Rail Authority: Access Charge Review
  Roads: Expenditure
  Roads: Expenditure
  Container Ports
  Container Ports
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Motorway Restaurants
  Motorway Restaurants
  Transport Direct
  Transport Direct
  Air Navigation Services: Common Charging Scheme
  Air Navigation Services: Common Charging Scheme
  A31: Underpass at Hickley's Corner, Farnham
  A31: Underpass at Hickley's Corner, Farnham
  Postal Votes in Scottish Constituencies: 2001 General Election
  Postal Votes in Scottish Constituencies: 2001 General Election

  Hong Kong: Legislative Council Elections
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  We welcome the fact that Legislative Council elections were generally well run. Clearly there were a number of technical problems on the day in some locations and we understand that the SAR Government and the Electoral Affairs Commission will be looking into these. That said, there appears to have been fair treatment for all candidates and we have no reason to question the validity of the outcome.

  Fair Admissions to Higher Education
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Mr Charles Clarke, has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I am delighted today to commend to the House the report from Professor Steven Schwartz, vice-chancellor of Brunel University, on fair admissions to higher education.

  Professor Schwartz and his group have over the past 15 months carried out an extensive and thorough examination of the processes for admission to higher education and have consulted widely on two occasions before presenting their conclusions. I am indebted to Professor Schwartz and all who have worked so diligently with him on this important task.

  Responsibility for admissions to higher education rests firmly with the institutions themselves. They have to be satisfied that the students they admit have the ability and potential to complete their studies successfully. That is right and proper and this report unreservedly maintains that position. It also confirms, on the basis of the evidence, that admissions processes in our universities and colleges of higher education are generally fair. Nevertheless, government have an interest in ensuring that admissions processes also command the confidence of prospective students, their parents, advisers and teachers. That is why I invited Professor Schwartz to identify options for institutions to adopt when assessing the merit, achievement and potential of applicants for their courses.

  The report Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice will stand as a practical guide for institutions as they review and develop their admissions policies, practices and systems. Everyone involved with admissions to higher education has a deep concern to ensure that they are fair and that they are seen to be fair. In pursuit of that
  WS 108
  end, Professor Schwartz has identified five underlying principles that I wholeheartedly endorse as the basis for fair admissions. These principles will support:

  transparency in admissions processes;

  selection for merit, potential and diversity;

  reliability, validity and relevance of assessment methods;

  minimising barriers for applicants; and

  professionalism in all aspects of admissions services.

  Taken together, the five principles provide the bedrock for building fair admissions systems that provide equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations. The implementation guidelines also offered by Professor Schwartz will help institutions in mainstreaming the principles within their own admissions systems. I hope that all universities and colleges will take immediate steps to introduce the principles and guidelines within their own arrangements.

  The report is more than just a guide however. It is also a call for action by higher education institutions and across the wider education establishment including some matters for Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  These include:
  setting up a new centre of expertise on admissions. I can confirm that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will work with Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to see how this centre can be established, perhaps under the umbrella of the HE academy where it would dovetail well with the role for staff development.
  research to assess the feasibility and reliability of a single, national test for potential that is not fully demonstrated by exam results. I support this as an early task for the new centre of expertise on admissions and will look carefully at the outcomes of the study alongside the final report from Mike Tomlinson on 14–19 qualifications reform that is due in the autumn, before deciding on the way forward. What we must not have is tests for tests' sake, but if there is a genuine need, it would be right to explore the opportunity.
  ensuring that consistent levels of advice and guidance are available to all applicants. Similar messages are emerging from Mike Tomlinson's working group as well as from the end to end review of careers education and guidance that my department has undertaken. As part of its work on the youth Green Paper—to be published in the autumn—the department is considering how it can best ensure that all young people are able to access and interpret the information and advice they need to make well informed decisions.
  the introduction of a radically different system for applications to higher education whereby students will not apply for higher education

  WS 109
  courses until they know their exam results. I am concerned that over very many years such a system has acquired the reputation of a holy grail for the HE admissions world—desirable but not achievable. I am aware of the complexity of the practical difficulties that would need to be overcome before a post-qualification application (PQA) system could be introduced, but I remain persuaded by the arguments for PQA which have been endorsed by Professor Schwartz and his group. It must be fairer and more transparent for students to know their final results before making important choices about where and what to study, and this must also aid decision-making by universities. PQA could also help many students, including those from families without a tradition of HE, to feel more confident in applying to our leading universities. I have therefore asked Sir Alan Wilson, the director-general for higher education, and the former vice-chancellor of Leeds University, to lead the work on implementation for PQA. He will be assisted by an implementation group which he will establish. Sir Alan will consult with all interested parties, engaging fully the devolved administrations, and advise me on the arrangements and an appropriate timescale for the introduction of PQA.

  Finally, Professor Schwartz has asked that I initiate a further review of admissions after three years as a means to assess progress in implementing his group's recommendations. I accept that it would be sensible to follow up this initial review and that three years will allow time for some of the more immediate benefits to have been realised and for appropriate action to be under way to secure the longer term ones. I shall commission the further review in due course.

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy and E-Commerce, Mike O'Brien, has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of the 22nd offshore and 12th onshore oil and gas licensing rounds, I am today offering 97 offshore licences (58 of them under "Promote" terms, seven under "Frontier" terms and 32 under the "Traditional" terms) and 26 petroleum and development licences for the onshore area. The companies will have a fixed period in which to accept the offers made.

  This is a very good result and demonstrates the keen interest still being shown in exploiting the United Kingdom's hydrocarbon resources.

  A list of the successful companies in the rounds can be viewed on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk.

  Community Interest Companies: Regulation
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions, Jacqui Smith, has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  To assist discussion of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill in Standing Committee, it may be helpful if I outline how the Government intend the powers of the new regulator of community interest companies (CICs), created by Clause 24 of the Bill, to interact with those of other regulators in particular sectors of activity, and in particular the regulators of registered social landlords (RSLs).

  The consultation paper on CICs which the Government published last year said that the CIC regulator,
  "will work with other companies' regulators, and with any sectoral regulators with relevant competences, to ensure that there is a single interface between CICs and their stakeholders on one hand, and regulators on the other".'

  The consultation confirmed that this is the right approach, and that simplicity of regulation is highly valued by social enterprises. The single most important step in achieving it is to integrate the new regulator with Companies House. The CIC regulator will therefore be located in Companies House, and the processes for setting up a CIC and making annual community interest company reports will he linked to the equivalent processes for all companies.

  The consultation paper referred to "sectoral regulators with relevant competences" because CICs potentially have a wide range of uses. Some CICs may therefore operate in sectors that are already subject to legal and regulatory constraints in matters such as the use of assets. In such cases, the Government are determined that overlapping regulation should be avoided. We have already identified one sector where work is necessary to achieve this. Registered social landlords, or RSLs, are subject to statutory constraints on the use of their assets, and on their activities, under housing legislation. The RSL sector is regulated in England by the Housing Corporation, in Scotland by Communities Scotland, and in Wales by the Housing Directorate of the National Assembly for Wales.

  RSLs currently use a variety of legal forms, and we believe that some may be interested in becoming CICs, or in establishing CIC subsidiaries. The Government are particularly mindful of the need to avoid complicating the regulation of RSLs that choose to use the CIC form, in the light of a recent report on the Housing Corporation by this House's Committee on Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions, which stressed the need to streamline the regulation of RSLs and to avoid duplication.
  WS 111
  We intend to achieve this streamlining for RSLs using the CIC form, by making orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, to enable the CIC regulator to delegate relevant powers to the appropriate RSL regulators in England and Wales. The orders will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. The position is rather different in Scotland because of the devolution settlement, and we are in discussion with the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland about the appropriate way to arrange the delegation of powers.

  The detail of which powers should be delegated to the RSL regulators is being discussed by the Government, the RSL regulators and the devolved administrations. The principle will be that the CIC regulator should delegate those powers that duplicate or overlap with those of the RSL regulators. Regulatory action in respect of RSLs using the CIC form will then normally be the responsibility of the relevant RSL regulator, using either their powers under housing legislation or the powers delegated to them by the CIC regulator.

  The real value of delegating powers in this way is that it will allow the RSL regulators to take the clear lead in regulating RSL CICs. Those CICs can then be confident that the relevant RSL regulator in England, Scotland or Wales is the key body with which they must deal, in respect of their obligations both as RSLs and as CICs. Delegated powers will be exercisable concurrently by the CIC regulator and the sectoral bodies but we expect that the CIC regulator will only have a limited "backroom" role in respect of RSLs using the CIC form, for instance in agreeing their registration as CICs. Clause 39 of this Bill allows the CIC regulator to use his supervisory powers only to the extent necessary to maintain confidence in CICs, and it will not normally be appropriate for him to act where he has delegated those powers to a sectoral regulator.

  1Enterprise for Communities: proposals for a Community Interest Company, para 46, published March 2003, available at www.dti.gov.uk/cics.

  Housing and Planning in the Regions
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce the publication of a consultation paper concerning the merger of the regional housing boards and the regional planning bodies.

  The paper responds to one of the recommendations in Kate Barker's Review of Housing Supply (ISBN 1–84532–010–7) published in March. We have already accepted her recommendation that responsibility for housing and planning regional strategies should be merged. The paper proposes that responsibility should rest with regional assemblies. This is in line with our general policy on devolving decision making and the broadening of the role of assemblies on integrating regional strategies.
  WS 112
  The paper also covers proposals for taking forward Kate Barker's recommendation for the provision of independent advice to the regions to strengthen the evidence base that supports regional housing and planning strategies and increase the transparency of the processes for producing these strategies.

  Consultation will run until 30 November 2004. Copies of the consultation paper have been made available in the Libraries of the House and it is available on the ODPM website.

  Planning Authorities: Improving Poor Performance
  Lord Rooker
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In my Statement of 17 July 2003 (Hansard Vol. 409, col. 57WS) I explained our approach to achieving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreement 6 (PSA6) target. This requires all local planning authorities to complete local development frameworks by 2006 and to perform at or above best value targets for development control (BV 109) by 2006 with interim milestones to be agreed in the service delivery agreement. The revised PSA6 target, announced in July as part of the outcome of the spending review, will require all local planning authorities to sustain this level of performance to 2008.

  We are now one year nearer to the 2006–07 target date and, while local authorities' performance overall has shown encouraging progress, there is still much to be done. I am therefore setting out today ways in which we are working with local planning authorities and strengthening our strategy of engagement with those that are performing poorly in their handling of planning applications.

  We will continue to designate poorly performing authorities as planning standards authorities on an annual basis, as described in my Statement of last year. Where their performance falls below specified thresholds, in terms of the percentage of applications determined within the target time frame, then they are asked to achieve specific performance standards in the following year. In 2004–05 both the thresholds and the standards were raised by 2 to 5 percentage points. This was a relatively modest increase to give local authorities further time to make use of the additional resources available though planning delivery grant. We envisage a more significant ratcheting up of both the thresholds and standards for 2005–06 (by up to 10 percentage points) as a necessary step towards meeting the targets in 2006–07, as follows:

  Percentage of applications determined within time

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Major

  Threshold

  28

  30

  40

  50

  Standard to be met

  50

  52

  57

  60

  Minor

  Threshold

  37

  40

  50

  55

  Standard to be met

  55

  58

  63

  65

  WS 113

  Percentage of applications determined within time

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Other

  Threshold

  55

  60

  65

  70

  Standard to be met

  70

  73

  75

  80

  Threshold = performance below this level at previous year ending June would qualify authority for standard

  Standard = percentage achievement required within 13 weeks for major and eight weeks for minor and other applications.

  We will encourage authorities to draw up trajectories and improvement plans as soon as they are identified as potential standards authorities, and will review their progress against trajectories shortly after they are designated. Help in this process will be made available, including support from the new Planning Advisory Service that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has invited the Improvement and Development Agency to host. Further support comes in the form of continued funding through the planning delivery grant after 2005–06, as announced in July following the spending review.

  In the course of the year for which an authority has been designated as a standards authority, my officials will contact the authority's planning service to collect information on what steps have been taken or will be taken to improve its planning performance. This will be assessed to determine if further action will be needed to support performance improvements. Regard will be given to authorities' progress towards the specific performance standards they were set and, in the longer term, authorities' ability to reach the targets set out in ODPM's public service agreement 6 (PSA6).

  Engagement with an authority will be reviewed at the end of the year for which it has been designated as a standards authority in light of whether it has achieved the standards specified in the best value order and any demonstrable sustained improvement in performance over the period. We will remain engaged with authorities until we are confident that a sustainable level of improvement has been achieved, with the level of engagement proportionate to the risk of failure.

  Authorities causing serious concern will be asked to self-assess their performance against trajectories and draw up improvement plans to share with the relevant Government Office for the Regions, who in turn will report on progress to ODPM on a quarterly basis. If performance continues to deteriorate then we will consider the case for further more direct intervention. In doing so we would adopt the proportionate approach outlined in my earlier statement and would have regard to the authorities' CPA status.

  Authorities causing a lesser degree of concern will be asked to self-assess performance against trajectories and share their conclusions with the relevant Government Office for the Regions on a quarterly basis. Government Offices will report to ODPM by exception, where performance shows significant deterioration.
  WS 114
  I will consider the case for relaxing the intensity of engagement or for disengagement with other authorities where the annualised performance in all three categories of application is on or above the relevant planning standard and the authority's own trajectory for two consecutive quarters.

  Over the past year 39 planning standards authorities were found to have made significant improvements in performance, and outstanding improvements in a number of cases. I congratulate them all on their success in improving their performance and I expect to see them making further rapid progress towards meeting and exceeding the national targets. The 39 authorities were:

  Bedford District Council

  London Borough of Brent

  Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority

  Bristol City Council

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Canterbury City Council

  Chichester District Council

  Durham City Council

  London Borough of Ealing

  East Cambridgeshire District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  Epsom & Ewell District Council

  Fareham District Council

  Forest Heath District Council

  Gloucester District Council

  Havant District Council

  Isle of Wight Unitary Authority

  Kerrier District Council

  London Borough of Lambeth

  Leeds City Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Unitary Authority

  Milton Keynes Unitary Authority

  North Devon District Council

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Reading Borough Council

  Reigate & Banstead District Council

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  Rossendale District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Spelthorne District Council

  Taunton Deane District Council

  Three Rivers District Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Wear Valley District Council

  West Lindsey District Council

  Weymouth & Portland District Council

  Worcester District Council

  The new Planning Advisory Service (PAS) will play an important role in supporting local planning authorities. This includes through a newly developed improvement planning programme. Already the PAS has held an introductory event on improvement planning which will be followed up with a series of

  WS 115
  regional workshops and other ongoing support. Also as part of the PAS a new Advisory Panel on Large Applications is now gearing up to assist a number of local planning authorities in the high demand regions of London and the wider south-east.

  The PSA6 targets are challenging but we believe they are achievable. We will continue to monitor progress and to keep our strategy for engagement under review as we approach the target year of 2006–07.

  North-East Regional Assembly: Constituencies
  Lord Rooker
  The Government are today publishing a consultation paper on draft guidance to the Electoral Commission on drawing up the constituencies for a north-east regional assembly.

  If, following a Yes vote in the referendum on the establishment of a regional assembly in the north-east, the Secretary of State proposes that a regional assembly should be established, the Government will direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on the drawing up of the electoral areas for a north-east
  WS 116
  regional assembly. This direction will be accompanied by statutory guidance on what the Electoral Commission should take into account in preparing its advice. It is this guidance on which we are consulting.

  The consultation paper includes a full draft of the guidance the Secretary of State proposes to issue. The Secretary of State proposes to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on:

  the number of electoral areas;

  the electoral areas into which the north-east is to be divided; and

  the name by which these electoral areas are to be known.

  Therefore, the draft guidance sets out the matters the Government feel that the Electoral Commission should take into account when preparing its advice. The Secretary of State is not proposing to seek the commission's advice on the total number of members for a north-east assembly.

  A copy of this consultation paper will be available in the House of Lords Library and in the "Regions" section of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. The end date for the consultation is 22 October 2004.