1. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. (74952)

I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues.

As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, sadly, a small number of football fans bring sectarianism on to the football ground. Will he join me in congratulating the fans of Celtic and Rangers, who at the last old firm game unfurled a banner condemning sectarianism? What can we do, as Members of Parliament, to assist the Scottish Labour party’s anti-sectarianism campaign?

I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s sentiments. The First Minister has rightly addressed the issue of sectarianism in recent years. He has shown real political courage in raising it and ensuring that it has been discussed throughout Scottish society. I believe that, along with all other members of Scottish society, Members of Parliament have a role to play in ensuring that sectarianism has no place in modern Scotland.

2. Whether the introduction of identity cards in Scotland will differ from that in the rest of the UK. (74953)

The introduction of identity cards is a reserved matter. The procedures for issuing them will be the same in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

What discussions has the Minister had with the First Minister and the Scottish Executive about the extent to which the Scottish Executive will have access to the national identity register?

It may help if I explain the constitutional position. Because the legislation involves an issue of identity and nationality, it is an entirely reserved issue, and has been introduced as such. Decisions much further down the line—as and when the cards become compulsory following a further Act of Parliament—on what services can be accessed will be for the House of Commons in respect of reserved matters and for the Scottish Executive in respect of matters that are devolved to them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Scotland deserve the same level of protection against terrorism and identity fraud as their fellow citizens in England and Wales?

My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. It often amuses me when others seek to represent the people of Scotland as being wholly opposed to identity cards. I have never seen any evidence of that. Identity cards have been introduced because there has been a big increase in identity theft and fraud, because 30 per cent. of terrorist suspects have been using false identities, and because of ongoing problems of illegal immigration. That move will be welcomed in Scotland, as it will be throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State’s predecessor told the House on 28 March that most people in Scotland supported identity cards because they would be linked to social security payments in Scotland. Can he confirm that that will be the case?

Any introduction of identity cards, as and when they are made compulsory and as and when it is necessary to use them to gain access to social security benefits, will apply uniformly throughout the United Kingdom, because issues relating to social security payments are reserved.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating our colleagues in the Scottish Executive on doing their bit to resist the creeping Big Brother state by declaring that identity cards will not be required for access to devolved services in Scotland?

It is entirely within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to make whatever arrangements it sees fit for access to services that the House of Commons has devolved to it. On the issue of identity cards, I note that the hon. Lady did not mention anything to do with terrorism, illegal immigration or fighting crime—which is hardly surprising, coming from a Liberal Democrat.

3. What discussions he has had with the First Minister on the disposal of nuclear waste in Scotland. (74955)

I continue to discuss a wide range of matters with Scotland’s First Minister.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that expansive answer. The lack of solutions on the disposal of nuclear waste has been used by opponents for as long as I can remember. He will be aware that CORWM is to publish an extensive report at the end of July. Will he ensure that the findings are published in full and that the issues raised by the report will be debated in an adult and sensible way and not for short-term politics? Some parties seem to spout off without knowing what they are talking about.

I thank my hon. Friend for his gracious thanks for my earlier answer. I make it clear that the CORWM process, which has been marked by an open and consultative approach, will continue in that vein. CORWM will publish the final report in full in due course. However, I cannot take responsibility for how other parties choose to respond to what I believe will be a substantial and significant work.

The west of Ireland is protected from being used as a nuclear dump, as Ireland is a successful nation and independent from Westminster. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the west coast of Scotland and, indeed, the rest of Scotland are similarly protected?

The first thing that I should make clear is that I will not indulge in ill-informed scare tactics. People in the Western Isles and the west of Scotland deserve better from some of their elected representatives. The establishment of CORWM was a joint initiative by Scottish Executive Ministers and the UK Government, and it is clear that there has been a serious and substantial attempt by both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to address the important issue of legacy nuclear waste. In terms of the prospect of further steps being taken in the future, let us be categorically clear that planning restrictions and the treatment of nuclear waste are both devolved matters, which are appropriately dealt with by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the chief executive of the Met Office warned yesterday that the UK’s nuclear power stations, many of which are on the coast, could be in particular danger if climate change leads to more severe storms and increased coastal flooding. Will he assure the House that we can have an adult and mature debate on what that means for the cost of dealing with nuclear waste and the cost of eventual decommissioning of existing and perhaps future nuclear power stations?

My hon. Friend makes my case that it is important that this matter is dealt with in a serious fashion. That is why we have brought together leading academics and a range of voices in the CORWM process. It is why it is important that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government have worked together effectively to access the best knowledge and learning on what is a huge challenge, not just for one part of the UK but, given the legacy of nuclear waste that has accumulated, the whole of the UK.

It would be helpful if the Secretary of State confirmed what he said earlier—that the final decision on the burial of nuclear waste in Scotland will lie with the Scottish Executive. Is that correct?

I confirm that, post devolution, both the disposal of radioactive waste and the planning that would be required in order for such a disposal site to be established lies within the list of competences of the Scottish Parliament, rather than the UK Government.

That is a helpful answer and puts into context some of the activity in the Scottish political climate at the moment. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning those politicians who run around Scotland claiming that it will be turned into a nuclear dump, when it is the case that, whatever the final decision on new nuclear power stations, we will still have to deal with legacy nuclear waste? Those who fail to face up to that reality or who pretend otherwise are unfit to govern Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman makes clear the risk of prewritten questions in Scottish questions. I made it clear just a few seconds ago that I condemn those politicians who choose opportunistically to raise fears rather than deal with facts on this issue. I am happy to confirm that. However, in light of the rather desperate attempts by the Scottish Conservatives in recent days to find coalition partners in the Scottish Parliament, I am not very keen to join the hon. Gentleman in any invitation that is extended to me.

4. What the most recent figures are for the number of young people in Scotland who have found employment through the New Deal. (74956)

The latest figures published at the end of April show that 77,580 young people in Scotland have found employment through the new deal.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The new deal has been important to thousands of youngsters in Scotland and it is important that it continues. We are lucky in the city of Aberdeen because we have relatively low unemployment, but we do have an employment problem at the moment. We have young people who are still looking for jobs. Many of them have had problems in their lives and are getting special assistance from voluntary organisations such as Aberdeen Foyer in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). At the other end of the spectrum, we have a boom in the oil industry and an ageing work force. We need additional resources to assist with training and to achieve synergy between the young people who are looking for jobs and an industry that is desperate to employ people. Is that an area that he will discuss with his colleagues in the Cabinet to see what can be done?

I am certainly happy to raise with colleagues the points that my hon. Friend has made, but it is important to keep in context the challenge that he describes. Long-term youth unemployment in Scotland has been virtually eradicated—it is 90 per cent. lower than in 1997. Secondly, 1,120 young people in his own Aberdeen, North constituency have been helped into work by the new deal. On his first assertion—that the new deal has been hugely significant—I am afraid that that is not a consensual view in all parts of the House. The Conservatives opposed the new deal and would abolish it, the Liberal Democrats never supported it, and the Scottish National party did not bother to turn up to vote in favour of it.

The Secretary of State will be aware that many young people who find work through the new deal or otherwise are on relatively low wages. Does he therefore agree that it is absurd that the Department of Trade and Industry has withdrawn support for the minimum wage helpline run by the Scottish Low Pay Unit, which has helped thousands of Scots on low wages? As a result, the helpline is due to close at the end of the month. Will he demand that the DTI reverse its decision and continue to provide the relatively small amount of finance needed to keep this valuable service in operation?

What I will demand is an explanation from a party that failed to turn up to vote not only for the new deal, but for the minimum wage.

Given the enormous success of the new deal for young people, despite opposition from Opposition Members, will my right hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see how best the new deal can be extended to include other groups of unemployed people in areas of high unemployment such as, sadly, many parts of the city of Glasgow?

I am of course happy to give an undertaking to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Although more than 200,000 people have found work in Scotland since 1997, I fully recognise that in the great city of Glasgow, and particularly in its east end, considerable challenges are being faced. I pay particular tribute to the work undertaken recently at the Forge, where young people have been taken on, training has been provided and a very effective public-private partnership has been established to address the urban regeneration issues that my hon. Friend is seeking to deal with in his constituency. The new deal has not only been successful in tackling the first tranche of unemployment that we encountered—since then, it has become an innovative and imaginative tool in our efforts to ensure that we further extend the number of people in work in our economy.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the youth unemployment figures were on a downward trend before 1997, and that that has continued subsequently? Will he also confirm that whereas the new deal for young people is available at the very early stages of unemployment, the new deal for the over-50s is not available for the first six months? Will he review that arrangement and ensure that that age group, among whom unemployment is growing, benefits from the new deal at the earliest possible stage?

I am glad that the question that has been asked seems to reflect a continuation of Conservative policy, which is an instinctive knee-jerk hostility to effective measures to address some of the challenges that we face in the labour market. If it is as easy as the hon. Lady suggests to drive down unemployment, there are genuine questions to be asked about why we now have the highest level of employment in many decades, contrary to the position during the boom-bust years of the Conservatives.

My right hon. Friend will know that unemployment is the single most important determinant of policy. Although we have made great advances through the new deal for young people in each of our Scottish constituencies, there are still 7,000 people on benefit in my constituency, which makes it the joint 41st highest in the United Kingdom in that regard. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that pathways to work and other innovative projects are maintained in constituencies such as mine, so that we can get young people who are unemployed for six months for more, in particular, into work?

I have taken a very close interest in this issue in my constituency. Renfrewshire was one of the first pathfinders for pathways to work, and by meeting Jobcentre Plus staff I saw for myself the innovative approaches that are being taken to ensure that genuine assistance is provided to people who may have issues such as drug dependency, literacy or numeracy difficulties that have inhibited them from entering the labour market. I believe that pathways to work represents the way forward in terms of innovative labour market strategies, which is why I am glad that it is being extended to my right hon. Friend’s constituency.

5. What discussions he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on how to increase awareness of pension credit in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. (74957)

My right hon. Friend discusses a wide range of issues with ministerial colleagues. As my hon. Friend will be aware, tackling pensioner poverty is one of our key priorities and some 280,000 households in Scotland are in receipt of pension credit.

My hon. Friend has already said how many people in Scotland receive pension credit and, in my constituency, 5,650 people are in receipt of that benefit, which has been a huge help in providing many of my constituents with a route out of poverty. It has been a very effective policy from this Government, although some people have still not applied for it. Will he join me in encouraging those who are entitled to the credit to apply for it? Pensions are one of the big challenges that we face, and although the White Paper that has just been published is part of the long-term solution, pension credit is essential now to help pensioners.

My hon. Friend is right and I pay tribute to what she has done in her constituency to publicise the pension credit, which has led to the great take-up levels that she has mentioned. People talk a lot about the pensions crisis, but there was a genuine pensions crisis when we came to office—the crisis of pensioner poverty, which was at unprecedented levels and grew throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Pension credit has helped to tackle the appalling level of pensioner poverty that we inherited and we will continue to combat it.

When we consider the reasons why people do not take up pension credit, can we look at how Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is operating? From my recent constituency correspondence, especially in relation to overpayment of other tax credits, that department is rapidly becoming as dysfunctional as the Child Support Agency.

Pension credit is not paid by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but by the Pension Service.

6. If he will make a statement on funding for potential sources of renewable energy in Scotland. (74958)

The Government and the Scottish Executive continue to support expanding use of renewable energy in Scotland through the renewables obligation and other forms of assistance.

The Minister will be aware of the recent announcement by the Deputy First Minister of £20 million to be spent in Scotland over the next two years on renewable energy. Does he agree that that points to a marked contrast between the Administration in Holyrood, where the Liberal Democrats have an influence, and down here in Westminster, where the Labour Government seem to have abandoned all hope of green electricity?

I am happy to welcome the £20 million of assistance announced by the Scottish Executive, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the current five-year period this Government are investing £500 million in renewable and other low-carbon technologies. Much of that investment is being spent in Scotland, including at the maritime centre in Orkney, which I am sure is welcomed by the local Member of Parliament. This is far too important an issue to play such party politics with. This Government have put massive amounts of additional resources into promoting renewable energy, which is why we are on target to meet our Kyoto obligations six years early, when many other countries either did not—regrettably—sign up to Kyoto or are miles behind their targets. We have a very proud record on the issue.

Does the Minister agree that there are many similarities between Shropshire and Scotland, not least in the scores of farmers who want to help the Government to reach their climate change targets through biomass and biofuels? However, there are no tax incentives, capital grants or other carrots offered to farmers—just stick and punishment. When will the Government get serious about incentivising farmers and people in rural industries, in Scotland and in Shropshire, to help to reach their climate change targets?

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point—[Interruption.] Yes, he does. That was hardly a vote of confidence from his Front-Bench colleague. The simple question is how we can provide the energy that our country needs without wrecking the planet in the process, and biofuels will play an important part in answering it. I suspect that when we bring forward the results of the energy review next month, they will include a considerable amount on that issue, including what we can do to encourage biodiversity.

7. When he last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the Scottish economy. (74959)

I meet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor regularly to discuss a range of issues.

Does the Secretary of State recall the last time that he was in charge of the Labour party campaign in Scotland, when he said that he wanted to engender fear in the Scottish population? Is he aware that the leading Labour economist, Mr. John McLaren, recently published an index of success for the Federation of Small Businesses? It gives Scotland a middle ranking among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, but places it only 10th out of the 10 small countries to which it refers. Can the right hon. Gentleman supply any reason why Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark and Austria should all be above Scotland in the index, save that they are independent countries where it would be difficult to engender fear?

I am fascinated that, today of all days, the hon. Gentleman should choose to raise the issue of the leadership of campaigns for the Scottish Parliament, given that his party has just announced that its 2007 campaign will be led by a Westminster MP. That seems to be the criterion for leadership in the Scottish National party.

The hon. Gentleman asked a substantive question about Scotland’s economic performance. He mentioned the OECD, and I refer him to that organisation’s economic survey of the UK. It described the UK as a “paragon of stability” and stated that that was

“a testament to the strength of the institutional arrangements for setting monetary and fiscal policy”.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk seriously about the state of the Scottish economy, I suggest that he looks at the report published this month in Scottish Engineering’s quarterly review. In his statement accompanying that report, Dr. Peter Hughes, Scottish Engineering’s respected chief executive, said:

“It is particularly gratifying to see our industry performing well in so many areas. Our home markets remain healthy and exports continue to grow.”

If things are as bad as the hon. Gentleman says, why does everyone accept that they are so good?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a remarkable transformation of the economy in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill under this Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he rejoice with me that we have the lowest unemployment, the highest employment and the lowest youth unemployment in a generation? Inflation is at its lowest level that many of us can remember, and mortgages are at their lowest level for a very long time. That gives our young people unprecedented prosperity, with new homes and new opportunity—

Order. I hope that the Secretary of State can give a brief reply.

Of course, the Scottish economy is in a strong position. Economic growth in Scotland last year exceeded that of the major European economies, and our employment rate is higher than in the rest of the UK and almost all other European countries. My right hon. Friend raises a specific constituency point, and I know that he has been a tireless campaigner for the interests of Lanarkshire and his community for many years. Representing Paisley as I do, I am fully aware that it is exactly the maintenance of economic growth over so many years that means that prosperity is reaching even those parts of Scotland that were left behind by the temporary economic booms of past decades. That is why I am unyielding in my admiration for the work of this Government in securing economic prosperity for all parts of Scotland.

Does the Secretary of State agree that when it comes to measuring the Scottish economy, one problem is the disparity between statistics for Scotland, the UK as a whole and for England? When he next meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Scottish Executive, will he see what can be done to bring into harmony the statistics for the UK provided by the Office for National Statistics and by the chief statistician for Scotland?

I am not convinced of the hon. Gentleman’s case. If one looks across the range of indicators, it is clear that the Scottish economy is strong. There is no doubt that we have had sustained economic growth for a number of years, and that levels of employment have risen as a consequence.

8. What plans he has to meet the leader of Glasgow city council to discuss regeneration of the city. (74960)

I have met the leader of Glasgow city council on many occasions and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be delighted to meet him formally, as the occasion arises.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the substantial progress achieved by Glasgow city council in regenerating the city and increasing employment. However, does he agree that we need the closest possible partnership between the council, the Scottish Executive and Whitehall, as well as a Government who are fully committed to providing the additional extra resources needed to continue the good progress and achieve full employment for the city?

First, I wish to correct an earlier comment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the leader of Glasgow city council two weeks ago.

Anyone who has visited Glasgow in recent years will have seen the remarkable renaissance that Glasgow has been through. It is absolutely booming. A lot of that has to do with the tremendous leadership that has been shown by successive leaders of Glasgow city council, including Councillor Purcell. What must now happen is that the wealth that has been generated in the centre of Glasgow be spread out to the outlying districts. That work is being taken forward through such initiatives as the welfare-to-work forum. The council plays a large part in making such initiatives relevant to all parts of Glasgow.

10. What assessment he has made of the effect on people in Scotland of the recent Law Lords decision on compensation payments to those affected by asbestos. (74962)

The Government have profound sympathy for people suffering from asbestos-related illness and their families. However, we need to consider carefully whether, in order to ensure fair compensation, we should respond to this judgment. I can assure the House that Ministers are studying the reasons for the decision very carefully, with this in mind.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that literally thousands of former shipyard workers, particularly on the Clyde, will be deeply disappointed with the Law Lords’ decision. Does he agree that Clydeside Action on Asbestos is doing a wonderful job in supporting those people? I hope that the Government can support them by adding something to the compensation Bill that will reverse the decision taken by the Law Lords.

I know from my experience of the neighbouring constituency just how many people are afflicted by this series of terrible conditions. I know that many families in the west of Scotland have direct concerns about these issues. Equally, I know of the efforts of the Clydebank group to raise the profile of the issue. That is why Ministers are studying carefully the reasons for the decision.

Let me add, in no way diminishing the significance of my answer, my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on the announcement only today of 300 new jobs in Erskine, which I am sure will continue the economic development of that part of Scotland.

16. What the timetable is for the introduction of home information packs. (74893)

18. What the timetable is for the introduction of home information packs. (74896)

The timetable for the introduction of home information packs has been set out. It will be introduced from June 2007.

I am grateful for that answer. In November 2004, the Government promised to road-test home information packs in a specific geographical area in England and Wales to see how effective they were. Can the Minister let us know when that road test will take place and in which geographical area?

What we said during the passage of the Housing Act 2004, when the packs were extensively discussed both in this and the other place, was that we would properly test the components of the home information pack. We shall do so. Already, many providers are starting to supply home information packs and will do so on a more extensive basis from the autumn, when the certification schemes are in place. We will set in place detailed testing and research arrangements to monitor progress. The industry was clear with us that it did not want a geographically isolated pilot, but wanted a scheme that tested the programme more widely across the country.

Surely not enough testing has taken place. What was promised as a dry run has really been just a sham. Which independent body will audit the testing? How will it be judged whether the packs are a success or a failure? It seems to me that the Government just wanted to railroad this ahead without serious consideration of how it would operate.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. One hundred and fifty organisations keen to be involved in the dry run have now approached the Department. They wish to work with us on testing the various elements of home information packs. We will set out an independent testing and research process to ensure that we properly monitor the dry run as it unfolds. It is important to remember that we are introducing reforms that are strongly backed by the Consumers Association, and it is right that we should introduce them to make big improvements for people buying and selling their homes.

There appears to be some discrepancy between estimates of the cost of HIPs. They range from £1,000 recently cited in an early-day motion to £700 cited by HIP providers. Will my hon. Friend assure the House, especially the sceptics, that the cost is more likely to be at the £700 end, and that the cost will not be duplicated further up the chain? Does she agree that encouragement of those fears is irresponsible?

My hon. Friend is right. The cost and price of the home information packs will be set by the market. There is huge potential for considerable competition to bring down costs in various areas of home buying and selling. She may be interested to know that some providers have already said that they intend to reduce the price of home information packs. One has even said that it would offer them to consumers for free. We assess that the current average costs of the component parts of the home information pack under the current process amount to somewhere between £600 and £700—most of those are costs that are already paid in the current process. We will transfer the cost from buyers to sellers. Most of us are sellers and buyers so it will not make any odds to us, but it will make a really big difference to first-time buyers, because they will get home information packs for free.

Does my hon. Friend agree that mixed messages are coming from the Conservative party? The Conservatives say that they support first-time buyers, but they will not support a measure that will reduce the cost to first-time buyers—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry I was distracted—those matters have nothing to do with the Secretary of State.

There is a significant mismatch in Upminster between relatively low local income levels and very high property prices. Does the Minister share my concern that sellers are likely to add the cost of the home information pack to the asking price, making the cost of properties even higher and less affordable for local people?

No, but the hon. Lady is right to say that there are pressures on affordability. In particular, there are pressures on first-time buyers in terms of getting into the housing market. That is why there are strong benefits from transferring the costs from buyer to sellers because that gives first-time buyers the chance to get into the housing market in the first place. Many of the providers have said that they would not charge for the home information packs up front. We think that this is a huge opportunity to improve the efficiency of the market and cut waste—something that the Consumers Association has long argued for.

As the Minister will know, there are large numbers of last-ditch opponents to home information packs—and not just on the Conservative Benches. Two of the points that lawyers and estate agents who are trying to protect their privileged position make is that there will not be enough home inspectors and that HIPs will have a negative effect on the housing market. Will she reassure us that neither criticism is valid?

On home inspectors, more than 4,000 people are already in training to become home inspectors. Their work will begin in the autumn and we expect that, therefore, the process of people completing their training will accelerate around that time. My hon. Friend spoke about the impact on the market. In Denmark, where a version of home information packs has been introduced, the Danish chief executive of the estate agents organisation believes that home information packs did not have any negative impact on the market at all and that they have been extremely good for buyers and sellers in Denmark.

The Minister is all too well aware that every industry expert insists on the need for an appropriate dry run before we press ahead with this intervention in the marketplace. However, so far only 200 of the 4,000 promised home inspectors have actually qualified; no specific geographical areas have yet been earmarked for dry runs, despite what her predecessor as the Minister for Housing and Planning promised in 2004; and we have no clear, unambiguous and independently audited criteria for judging the success of those dry runs. Can the Minister tell us what the benchmark for success in the dry runs will be, or will Ministers simply award themselves a pass mark irrespective of the results?

The hon. Gentleman has long been an advocate for those in the property industry who are opposed to the introduction of home information packs because, frankly, they make money out of the existing system. The advocate on behalf of buyers and sellers, the Consumers Association, is strongly in favour of home information packs. I caution the hon. Gentleman against becoming the parliamentary spokesperson for the National Association of Estate Agents, which might have its own interests in the process.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the dry run. We have made it clear for many months that we will have a dry run throughout the country so that we can test the component parts of home information packs. It is important that buyers and sellers are able to see improvements being made to the existing system and more efficiency. Conservative Members can hide as much as they like behind the questions that they ask, but we know that they have opposed the scheme from the beginning. We will set out proper research, as I said in an earlier reply to which the hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I caution him that he, like the Consumers Association and buyers and sellers throughout the country, should recognise the importance of home information packs. The scheme is all about buyers and sellers throughout the country because they are wasting loads of money due to the existing system, and I do not think that that is fair.

17. What future reform she is proposing regarding planning gain in respect of retail development. (74894)

At the pre-Budget report 2005, the Government published a consultation document setting out their proposals for a planning gain supplement, which was designed to capture a proportion of the increase in land value that arises when planning permission is granted. The proposed planning gain supplement, which would not be introduced before 2008, would apply to all types of development, including retail.

Although I welcome the proposals, big developers will be able to use the planning system until 2008 to maximise their profits without putting anything back into local communities. Tesco obtained planning permission for a huge superstore in the northern part of my constituency, but has put nothing back into the local community by way of planning gain and has forced several small retailers out of business. What steps does my hon. Friend propose to take to ensure that that situation is not repeated in other areas?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in informing me of the subject. I have indeed looked into the proposed store in Hamilton. As well as introducing the planning gain supplement in 2008—the Government will be responding to the consultation on that in due course—we will shortly be issuing guidance on good practice to try to improve the way in which negotiations take place under the existing system and thus create more consistency across local authorities.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has set the framework for me. The Minister will be well aware that major retail developments often create difficulties for local communities because they lose their diversity of shopping and sometimes jobs as well, not to mention experiencing problems due to congestion. Will he undertake to talk to the Chancellor to ensure that when the planning gain supplement comes along, the money will not simply fill the Treasury’s pockets, but will be sent back directly to local authorities so that they can spend it on saving their communities from the congestion and economic and environmental damage with which such major developments leave them?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and, indeed, I can give him such an assurance. There was a joint consultation between my Department and the Treasury—indeed, Revenue and Customs. We intend that the bulk of the money should be beneficial—[Interruption.] Let me just clarify the situation before the cynics in the Chamber get too suspicious. The bulk of the money will go to the local authority concerned. The intention in the consultation—we are yet to respond to it—is that there will be a top slice to allow infrastructure investment that does not fall specifically in the local authority area that is directly involved, but from which it will benefit. However, the bulk of the money will go to the council, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Will my hon. Friend explain to me and the House how the proposal will vary from the existing section 106 agreements?

I am grateful for the opportunity to do exactly that. Under existing practice involving section 106, more than 79 per cent. of all retail developments make no contribution through planning obligations. Again, with the proviso that the consultation response is yet to be published, the proposal in the consultation is that the planning gain supplement should be universal to all types of development, including those of one or more dwellings.

The Minister can propose whatever adjustments he likes to the process for delivering infrastructure through taxation and paying for it that way, but even he cannot invent the basic raw material that is needed for some parts of our infrastructure if it does not already exist. Why should the public have any confidence in the planning and decision-making processes of the Government if it they cannot find out the adequate water supply that is needed to sustain their development programme in the south-east of England? Is it not the case, to paraphrase the old Sunday school song, that the wise Minister builds his house not only upon the rock, but one with an adequate water table, given that the rains no longer come a-tumbling down as they did?

We hear yet again a perpetuation of a myth. The last time that I looked into this matter it was people who used water, not bricks and mortar. Housing improvements and increases in housing numbers are driven not by population increases but by changes in demography—more single people, people living longer and changes in family life. That is why the accusation made by the hon. Gentleman and by others on the Opposition Benches is based on a false premise. Independent studies have shown that the amount of extra water required for the additional homes will account for an increase in demand of less than 1 per cent., and its supply is not related to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

19. When she will announce the decision on funding for the Rushenden link road. (74897)

I am pleased to announce today that £12 million of Thames Gateway programme funding will be made available for the Rushenden link road in Kent. This will unlock new development sites by linking those to the new Swale crossing, which has had more than £100 million of Government investment to upgrade the local transport infrastructure.

The full scheme will provide over 2,000 new homes and more than 500 new jobs, and will be a milestone in the regeneration of the local area, as part of the Thames Gateway programme.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is not every day that I get a question answered in the House that gives me a big smile on my face, but the £12 million for Rushenden and Queenborough citizens has been wanted since 1945. On top of the new hospital in 2001 and the new bridge that opens next month, costing £100 million, that £12 million will be the most welcome news for those two communities, so I thank the Minister very much.

I am delighted to put a smile on my hon. Friend’s face. [Interruption.] There are some things that always get the House excited.

My hon. Friend has always been a tireless and persistent campaigner on this issue. Had he not consistently raised the matter and pushed for the project, he may not have received that news today. He has constantly highlighted the value of the project, and he should take some pride in his achievement.

rose—

Order. The link road is far too far away from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

20. How much funding has been allocated to improving social housing in Halifax since 2000. (74898)

Halifax homes have seen major refurbishment as part of the Government’s decent homes programme. Since 2000-01, Calderdale metropolitan borough council has invested £4.3 million on improving its council homes, the majority of which has come from Government. Since the stock transfer, it has had an annual average investment of more than £14 million.

I am grateful for that reply. I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to a recent editorial in the Halifax Evening Courier, which praised Pennine Housing 2000 for the way that it managed social housing in Halifax. Will she join me in congratulating Trans-Pennine on completing a £150 million five-year investment programme, which has helped to improve the lives of many tenants in my constituency?

I certainly will congratulate Trans-Pennine Housing, which has done a fantastic job. As I am sure that many hon. Members are aware, Trans-Pennine Housing has recently received top inspection marks for doing a superb job, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend takes back to it my wholehearted congratulations.

First, may I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new post. What a legacy! I am sure that the voters of Halifax will be as surprised as I was that in the open letter from the Prime Minister to the right hon. Lady upon her appointment there was no mention of social housing or homelessness. Does that mean that in addition to the loss of Dorneywood, the Department has also lost its social conscience?

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s thanks. I have a fantastic, wide-ranging brief. The Deputy Prime Minister and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) left a superb legacy, particularly the number of social homes that have been refurbished since 1997. I remind the hon. Lady that her Government left a £19 billion backlog of repairs, which the Government have started to put right. That is quite right—we need to build more houses.

Like we did.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is what the Tories did, but anyone who casts their mind back to the 1990s will remember the days when land values were low, when houses—

Order.

21. If she will make a statement on the effects of the Equality Act 2006 on lesbian and gay rights. (74899)

We published a consultation paper in March setting out proposals for regulations that will prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual discrimination in the provision of goods and services. The consultation period ended yesterday, and the proposed regulations will be made using the power in part 3 of the Equality Act 2006.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she believe that the principles and membership of an organisation such as Opus Dei can be reconciled with the delivery of lesbian and gay rights in the Act?

The whole of this Government have a proud record on gay and lesbian rights; the equalisation of the age of consent; the repeal of the abhorrent section 28, which was introduced by the Opposition when they were in power; the introduction of civil partnerships; and the introduction in 2003 of regulations that make sexual orientation discrimination unlawful in the workplace. That is what I am answering for—this Government and nothing else.

What a delight it is to see my hon. Friend in her new job, as she holds those issues close to her heart. Does she accept that it is as important to oppose the prejudice of some people against Catholicism as it is to oppose prejudice against homosexual people? Will she make sure that when the regulations are finally laid before the House they do not include wide-ranging exemptions for faith-based organisations, as many Labour Members would find that difficult to stomach?

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. He will know that the Equality Act introduced regulations to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, as the Government believe that that discrimination should be outlawed too. The two sets of regulations will be introduced together, as requested by many Government Members in our debate on the issue. As for exemptions, the consultation paper proposes that activities closely linked to religious observance or practices arising from the basic doctrine of a faith should be exempted from the regulations, but we do not propose to exempt activities provided by an organisation relating to religion or belief where the sole or the main purpose of the organisation offering the service is commercial.

I call Mr. Loughton.

Not here.

I believe that Mr. Loughton’s question was withdrawn.

24. How many copies of council tax bills were sent to her Department and its predecessor in the last 12 months. (74904)

The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have received approximately 4,600 copies of council tax bills in the past 12 months as part of the campaign correspondence.

What response has the Minister made to the 4,000 people who have written to him? Now that the croquet team has gone, what plans does he have to abandon its proposed rebanding exercise?

A rebanding exercise was never proposed. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] A rebanding exercise was never proposed, despite the myths and speculation. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about what has been done to reply to correspondence, obviously if an individual name and address is supplied, we reply directly, but some of the postcards in the campaign did not include an address, so we could not respond directly.

25. If she will make a statement on industrial relations in the Hertfordshire fire service. (74905)

Industrial relations in the Hertfordshire fire and rescue service are primarily a subject for the attention of Hertfordshire county council, acting in its capacity as the designated fire and rescue authority for the county. It is not the direct responsibility of the Department, but during the current dispute I have been in contact with Hertfordshire’s chief fire officer, the county council and the Fire Brigades Union.

Will my hon. Friend have a discussion with the chief fire officer for Hertfordshire to ask him to look again at his integrated risk management plan, which proposes the closure of two fire stations, Bovingdon and Radlett, and the loss of 39 firefighter posts? Many of the firefighters in Hertfordshire who voted for industrial action played an important role in dealing with the emergency at Buncefield last year, as well as the rail tragedies at Potters Bar and Hatfield and the frequent crashes on the M1. Hertfordshire makes great demands on the fire service. Will my hon. Friend talk to the chief fire officer to get him to review his IRMP, and will she meet a delegation from the FBU parliamentary group to discuss the matter further?

That was rather a long question, but I shall do my best to answer the points that my hon. Friend made. I can assure him that I have been in regular contact with the chief fire officer and have spoken to the Fire Brigades Union as well. The chief fire officer’s assessment of the plan that he has made is a professional assessment, and I would not try to second-guess or change that assessment. It takes account of the risks today and tomorrow in Hertfordshire and the response that the fire and rescue services should make. In response to my hon. Friend’s comment about Buncefield, I can assure him that in major incidents gold command kicks in, and the Fire Brigades Union and others ensure that there is proper and adequate cover. We all want to ensure that the industrial action ends as soon as possible. A key role that I have played is ensuring that talks can take place. I have encouraged the FBU, the chief fire officer and Hertfordshire county council consistently to talk in order to find a way through the current difficulties.

26. What plans she has to review the definition of brownfield land. (74906)

The brownfield definition has not changed for 20 years. We have not proposed any changes in the new draft planning guidance, but we are considering the responses to the consultation on draft planning policy statement 3 on planning for housing.

In the past few years in areas like mine, Solihull, lovely old houses have been knocked down. Because of the planning rules, blocks of flats and other unsuitable properties can then be built on people’s back gardens. Conservative Members and I have tabled early-day motions on the subject and I have tabled a ten-minute Bill. Will the Minister please urgently consider the implications of this development, which is ruining our leafy suburbs in England?

As I said, we are considering the responses to the consultation. The hon. Lady should raise the matter with her local council if she thinks inappropriate planning permissions are being granted. Local authorities have considerable powers to resist inappropriate development. They have powers to resist on the basis of design, and they can consider a wide range of issues if they think the development is inappropriate. We think it is right to promote new development on brownfield land. Such development has increased from 57 per cent. in 1997 to 72 per cent. now. That is important because it allows us to build more homes for the next generation, which we desperately need, while also protecting greenfield land and green belt land so that we can safeguard the countryside for the next generation.

May I invite the Minister to amplify her reference to draft planning guidance 3, and what she said in reply to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), by stating that the Government presume and intend that in the Thames Gateway there will be building on derelict or brownfield land, not on green belt land? The scaremongering by the Conservative party in and around Essex to the effect that there will be wholesale development and building on the green belt is false and unnecessary—

But there will.

The shrill voice from the Conservatives is the reason why I am inviting the Minister to set the record straight by saying that the Government are proud of the green belt that they created, that they intend to protect it, and that there will be building on land that requires it—brownfield and derelict land.

My hon. Friend is right. The opportunity in the Thames Gateway is not only to regenerate an area that has suffered significant deprivation over a long period and to bring new jobs to the area, but to build on brownfield land—derelict industrial land—to provide new homes for the next generation. Conservative Members need to face up to what may for them be a difficult truth—that their party’s policy is now apparently to support the building of new homes for the next generation. They also have to face up to where those homes are going to be built. They do not want them on the green belt, they do not want them on brownfield land, they do not want them anywhere in the south—in fact, it is not clear that they want them anywhere. We need new homes for the next generation, and this Government are committed to delivering them.