—Michael Walton Bates, Esquire, having been created Baron Bates, of Langbaurgh in the County of North Yorkshire, for life, was introduced between the Lord Henley and the Lord Ryder of Wensum.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the review Time out of Cell, published by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons in June 2008.

My Lords, time out of cell is an essential component of an effective regime. We will keep the matters addressed in the report under close review. The development of a new collation system and improved guidance will address some of the main concerns raised in the report.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he accept that it is a serious situation when the Government’s own chief inspector says that the prisons are reporting that they get prisoners out of their cells, on average, 10 hours a day on a weekday, and it is not true? In fact, the chief inspector says that one-third of prisoners in local prisons are locked up for 22 hours a day in an overcrowded cell? Does the Minister agree with me that the chances of prisons being a rehabilitative experience in these circumstances are nil and that basically there are just too many people in prison who do not need to be there?

No, my Lords, I do not agree with all the points raised by the noble Baroness. Clearly, the high level of population in our prison estate at the moment presents considerable challenges to the Prison Service in relation to its programmes and in the activities that we wish prisoners to engage in, including employment. I agree with the noble Baroness that we must do more to make sure that the figures are as accurate as possible. However, she should not ignore the great progress that has also been made in investment in offender management and in employment programmes. The picture is not as bleak as the noble Baroness has suggested.

My Lords, the chief inspector reports that one in five young people in young offender institutions is out of their cell for less than two hours a day. What are the Government planning to do to address this situation in order to improve the lot of these young offenders?

My Lords, the priority in young offender institutions is the educational and work activities because of the impact that those can have in reducing reoffending in the future. That can sometimes have a knock-on impact on other activities. However, it is worth making the point that in terms of the investment in offender learning and skills, the average number of hours delivered per young person per week in YOIs has risen from seven hours in 2000 to 26.2 hours in 2006-07 in secure children’s homes, with similar additions in secure training centres.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, raises an important question about curtailment within the prison regime. Who monitors the impact of such a policy? What is its effect on the rehabilitation of offenders, which is the primary objective of the Prison Service, and what is its effect on prisoners who suffer from poor mental health?

My Lords, we are indebted to Her Majesty’s chief inspector for her independent reports, which are an important tool to enable us to judge performance in the Prison Service. It is the responsibility of the Prison Service itself to look at the figures and make sure that they are being developed correctly. The new approach to that, starting this April, lays emphasis on audit by the area managers. On the general question, despite the challenges that that presents, in the past few years we have seen considerable additional investment in the kind of programmes referred to by the noble Lord.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the general public’s concern is not so much for the welfare of prisoners, who are, after all, volunteers in the justice system, but for the welfare of victims who are often thrust into the justice system through no fault of their own?

My Lords, I well understand the public’s concern to get the balance right, and we are getting that balance right within our prison establishment. Prison clearly needs to be used effectively for those offenders who need to be there, but while they are in prison it is important to ensure that activities, offender programmes and training are available in order to prevent reoffending in the future.

My Lords, given the dangers of time in cell for prisoners with poor mental health and those at risk of self harm, will the Government accept the recommendation of the chief inspector not only to increase time out of cell but to offer in-cell activities to provide mental stimulation and positive purpose?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to the chief inspector's report in relation to in-cell activities. I understand that each prison governor carries out a risk assessment to determine the type of facilities that ought to be within the possession of a prisoner. Most prisoners are allowed educational material, books, magazines, newspapers and material related to in-cell hobbies. As for the mental health issue, the right reverend Prelate will know that my noble friend Lord Bradley is conducting a review of the impact on mental health of diversion, which is clearly critical to the point that he has just raised.

My Lords, two weeks ago, we debated the need for some outside scrutiny of the management of the prison system. Also some two weeks ago, the prisons and probation ombudsman resigned from a public inquiry into the treatment of a 17 year-old girl in prison because of undue interference from Prison Service headquarters. Is the Minister satisfied that Prison Service headquarters should so interfere with a public inquiry, which is, after all, a government remit?

My Lords, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to respond to the specific point on that specific inquiry. However, I would say that we have mechanisms in place, including the post holder to whom the noble Lord referred and Her Majesty's inspector, both of which are very effective external mechanisms. In addition, we expect the Prison Service to have an effective monitoring service as well. I would also mention the independent monitoring boards which exist for each establishment and embrace volunteers from the local community, who have a very positive impact in ensuring that an outside light is shone within those establishments.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that drugs are a serious problem in our prisons and that the problems identified in this report will do nothing to help? What are the Government doing to tackle the drugs problem?

My Lords, the noble Lord may well know that the Blakey review has just come out with important recommendations. Prison establishments have clearly done much in recent years, including mandatory testing and discovering and looking at all the areas where drugs can be introduced into prisons. We understand that this is an important priority alongside the rehabilitative programmes, and we shall redouble our efforts in this area.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest: I am chairman of an insurance organisation and a former director of the British Insurance Brokers Association.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to the police and the insurance industry to tackle the increasing occurrence of insurance fraud.

My Lords, the recent cross-Whitehall fraud review led to the allocation of £29 million in new money over the next three years to establish the National Fraud Strategic Authority, a National Fraud Reporting Centre and a national lead force for fraud investigation. These developments will help provide support to the police and the insurance industry in their efforts to tackle insurance fraud.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The NFSA does not have statutory authority. Would it be possible for it to have statutory powers?

My Lords, I will have to get back to the noble Lord in writing on the specifics of that. As he well knows—his interest in this area is well known and he has done some very useful work here—the whole aim of the authority is to drive forward a strategy; to assess the scale of the problem, and we appreciate that it is a huge problem; to set priority areas; and to work with stakeholders. It is an important unit. I mentioned the other three main areas where work is going on, and we should be able to establish two of them shortly.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that cash-for-crash scams—staged accidents—are on the increase, and that they are dangerous to the public and to the insurance companies? Does he believe that the new arrangements he has just announced can deal with this issue, particularly when criminal activity seems to be part of it?

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important point. In these sorts of accidents people will, for example, fix their brake lights so that they do not actually show and then slam on their brakes in front of someone who runs into them, and then claim for fictitious passengers. The assessed cost of this over the past year is about £250 million. The measures we have put in place are tackling this. I also congratulate the insurance companies themselves; organisations such as the Insurance Fraud Bureau have had huge success. The fact that we have seen a slight reduction rather than an increase shows that the measures are working.

My Lords, perhaps I may follow up on that question. When a question on cash-for-crash was asked in another place last month, the Minister there said that it was a matter of concern that had to be monitored closely. In view of the scale of the problem, does the noble Lord agree that it is not just a question of monitoring, but that we need action by the police and by a combination of the police and the insurance companies to make drivers aware that these kinds of scams are increasingly common?

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. With the setting up of the National Fraud Reporting Centre—a powerful intelligence tool—what has been done by the industry itself and the fact that this sort of crime is now on the SOCA UK threat assessment, there is greater understanding of it. We are getting that message across, and I hope that that will make people more aware. The impact of some of the prosecutions taking place has been a reduction in the levels of this crime.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s explanation of progress since the fraud review, while declaring an interest as a Minister involved in it. I suggest to him that, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, the strategic fraud authority will not need its own statutory powers because it is setting strategy, whereas implementing bodies such as the police and the prosecuting authorities have ample statutory power to implement it.

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why the Fraud Act, which came into force last year, was widely welcomed by the industry. However, I fear that I will still have to answer the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, in writing as there may be other points to address.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Government believe that there is an increasing occurrence of insurance fraud?

My Lords, as I said a moment ago, we are now getting to grips with this. We have established that SOCA is looking at it in great detail. We have the reporting centre and the lead force—the City of London force—established, which is able to draw on all the expertise in this area, and the National Fraud Strategic Authority, as mentioned. We are seeing a reduction.

I am not saying that the Government do not take this seriously. Overall, fraud costs this nation about £13.9 billion a year across the whole gamut; it is absolutely appalling. I found it interesting when I lost some stuff and talked to the assessors. They said, “We might give you a bit more because you seem honest”, as if to say that an awful lot of the people do not seem honest. I was rather shocked by this. We take fraud seriously, and are doing a lot to confront it.

My Lords, to follow on from the noble Lord’s answer, does not the extra cost incurred by fraud fall on each and every one of us, in that we must pay higher insurance premiums? A lot of fraud is minor, about which people will sometimes boast. Is it not incumbent on each of us to say that we do not approve?

My Lords, I could not agree more. There is a feeling among some people that this somehow does not affect us—“Lucky old them for getting away with it”. It is criminal and should be addressed as such. We all pay; it adds between 5 and 8 per cent to all of our insurance policies.

My Lords, to what extent is the problem made worse by the activities of no-win no-fee lawyers and the intense advertising encouraging people to make claims which, if not fraudulent, are, shall we say, a little iffy?

My Lords, I have my own views about these. However, it is possibly not a good idea for me to express them on the Floor of the House; I am bound to get into trouble.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What steps they have taken to provide information on new legislation and policies to the devolved Administrations.

My Lords, the Government have long-standing liaison arrangements with the devolved Administrations. We aim to adhere as closely as possible to the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding governing relations with them, which stresses close co-operation and communication. The Joint Ministerial Committee, which met last month in plenary form for the first time since 2002, offers further opportunities for exchanges of information and views with devolved Ministers.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that Answer. We hear in this House of strategic plans for England. To what extent is the noble Baroness satisfied that the devolved Administrations are able to share in these plans and, if they so desire, adopt them in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is there sufficient funding available if they decide to take that step?

My Lords, on funding, I refer the noble Lord to Treasury documents that I have here and which I am happy to make available to him and to any other noble Lord. They go into great detail on how funding is allocated—not just through the Barnett formula but way beyond that; the noble Lord might find that useful.

On the general discussions, Ministers of the UK Government talk to the devolved Administrations in a whole range of ways; from phone calls and regular meetings to plans set out between the Leader of the House of Commons and the Administrations when looking at the draft legislative programme. They range across everything the noble Lord can think of, but are working, as far as we can see, quite effectively.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us that the Joint Ministerial Committee has met once since 2002. Is it due to meet again? How often will it meet? Will the Government publish the agenda and the minutes of those meetings?

My Lords, the committee meets under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Wales. The Prime Minister has just asked him to undertake a series of meetings. I do not yet know how many there will be. That will depend partly on the agenda. This is part of trying to ensure that as we go forward with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations we do this properly. I understand that the minutes will not be published because they are part of the Cabinet sub-committee route. If I am wrong about that, I shall correct it.

My Lords, what is the Government’s current thinking on English devolution? Does the noble Baroness not see a danger that opportunistic parties might play on resentments if it is thought that English regions are being treated less favourably than the devolved nations?

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, last July we published the sub-national economic development and regeneration review, the purpose of which was to think more strategically about an integrated regional strategy which looks at regional development agency work and the need to link it more closely to local authorities. We have consulted on those issues and I understand that we shall report in September. That may form part of legislation that will be introduced next year.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the devolved Administrations do not include just Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but the Greater London Authority, which has substantial devolved powers? Will she ask why Mayor Boris Johnson has abandoned his plan to hold an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the departure of Deputy Mayor Ray Lewis? Is it because he is afraid of what such an inquiry might reveal? Will she ask him to think again?

My Lords, I cannot pretend to understand the Mayor’s mind. Perhaps noble Lords opposite are better able to answer my noble friend’s questions.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness assist the House by placing in the Printed Paper Office copies of the record of any proceedings that may have taken place in the devolved Administrations on significant clauses in United Kingdom Bills which relate to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking whether we are able to give more information about the response that the devolved Administrations may have given to legislation which affects them. I hope that we do that when preparing Bills. We certainly do so in the pre-legislative scrutiny and on the Floor of the House. I shall certainly consider the matter because it is very important that those conversations take place. Suffice to say that legislation that reaches your Lordships' House which affects the devolved Administrations has been through that whole process. However, as I say, I am certainly happy to look at this.

My Lords, will the Minister clarify the situation with regard to the Crown territories? Are they informed of new legislation and new policies? Are they then allowed—as it sometimes seems—to pick and choose which ones they apply and which they do not, or is there clear guidance from the Ministry of Justice, which I think is responsible for this, on which ones they should implement and which they are allowed to opt out of?

My Lords, as the noble Lord would expect, the relations with the Crown territories are complicated, depending on which they are and what the relationship is. This process is often carried out through Orders in Council, and I have the privilege to be the president of the Privy Council. It would be better for the Ministry of Justice to set this out more clearly rather than my trying to give a detailed explanation of what happens from my memory of when I had responsibility for this area of policy. Of course, the Ministry of Justice talks appropriately to those Administrations about legislation that could, or would, affect them.

My Lords, the Question refers to providing information on legislation, but is there also a process of consultation? Do these devolved Administrations have an opportunity to have an input before things are fully decided?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise that point. The current processes vary between the different Administrations. Taking Wales as an example, as it was the origin of the Question, there are bi-weekly telephone calls between the Ministers; weekly meetings between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister in Wales; when legislation is proposed, there are opportunities for the Welsh Assembly to discuss the issues, if it so wishes; and there are ways in which we keep the dialogue going between officials all the time. It is an ongoing relationship with the different Administrations, depending upon which legislation will directly affect them. For our proposed programme, 14 out of 18 Bills will apply wholly or in part to Scotland, 17 out of 18 will apply wholly or in part to Wales and 13 out of 18 will apply wholly or in part to Northern Ireland.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their assessment of the efficacy of the defence procurement process.

My Lords, the defence procurement process provides our Armed Forces with the equipment and wider support that they need to conduct military operations worldwide. The department recognises that it must always continue to improve its performance, not least to reflect rapidly changing threats and the fast pace of technological change.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In procurement for Afghanistan, why was there a shortage of helicopters and why were vehicles open to considerable danger? Is the position now satisfactorily sustained with regard not only to sufficient helicopters of each type but also to armoured vehicles that are resistant to roadside bombs?

My Lords, overall, we have spent £10 billion from the core budget on front-line equipment provision in the past three years. On top of that, £3.5 billion has been spent on urgent operational requirements. That has included upgrading our helicopters and making them safer, providing more protected vehicles and increasing protection for individuals. On helicopters, a number of initiatives have been taken. We are trying to concentrate one type of helicopter in one theatre in order to maximise what we can do and, over the past year, the number of flying hours of helicopters in Afghanistan has increased by 30 per cent. Improvements have been made. We have provided new types of protected vehicles, such as Mastiff, while others, such as Ridgeback, are on the way. It is not possible to protect all vehicles to the same extent and it is up to commanders on the ground to decide which kind of vehicle is appropriate for which operation.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the light of the recent French defence White Paper and President Sarkozy’s pronouncements on assuming the French presidency, there is enormous merit in co-ordinating defence procurement policy with our French colleagues and with others in the European Union the better to find savings and provide greater resources for British services?

My Lords, it is true that there is scope for co-operation on quite a number of projects. However, co-operation is not the universal answer, because it will work only if countries have similar requirements on similar timescales and have similar budgets available. We are co-operating with the United States and some of our European partners on a variety of projects but, as I say, it is not the universal answer.

My Lords, with the establishment of the shipbuilding joint venture, BAE is now increasingly the dominant supplier to all three services. While a prosperous and profitable BAE is in everybody’s interest and in the national interest, does the MoD operate any mechanism for some form of overriding financial rebate or similar, calculated on the totality of the huge annual overall MoD spend with BAE, as would apply in a similar private sector situation?

My Lords, we look at each contract separately. It is true that BAE has a significant role, not least because it has taken over some of the other companies, which were ripe for that at the time. We do not operate the overall approach described by the noble Lord, but significant improvements have been made in MoD assessment and its commercial position, not least by the appointment of the defence commercial director, which is a relatively new, but wise, development in the MoD.

My Lords, we very much welcome the signature last week on the order for the two new carriers. Can the Minister bring the House up to date on the progress of the Joint Strike Fighter? Is there any truth in reports that there are further delays?

My Lords, it is still early days for the Joint Strike Fighter. The STOVL version—the one in which we are interested—has made its first flight with a British pilot, although not in STOVL mode. Assessments are still going on. I have visited the people involved, who are making plans about production, but nothing is finalised and we will not have to make decisions until next year.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of VT Group. Can the Minister say whether there will be a further iteration of the defence industrial strategy brought in by her predecessor last year and, if so, when that might happen?

My Lords, the defence industrial strategy has been significant, not least in bringing about some of the changes that led to the formation of the VT Group in shipbuilding, which underpinned the carrier contract. We are pushing ahead with the defence industrial strategy mark 2, if you like. We have frequent discussions with industry about this and it is keen that we should not publish the strategy until we have completed the equipment examination that we are undertaking. However, we are not stopping work on this. We have had workshops with industry on such issues as the defence marketplace and operational sovereignty. The MoD and industry are working together closely in order to make our way forward to the publication of the new version.

My Lords, my noble friend said, when she answered a question about the Joint Strike Fighter, that it was “still early days”. I remember that in 2001 we came to an agreement with our friends in the United States to go ahead with the Joint Strike Fighter. Does not the phrase “still early days” for the project illustrate all too vividly the problem with defence procurement, which is the inordinate time that it takes to procure anything?

My Lords, I could not agree more. It takes an inordinate time to procure certain things, anyway. If you are talking about a new venture at the cutting edge of technological development, which the JSF certainly is, it is not surprising, once you get into the detail, that these things take so long. To the outsider, it is always amazing how long they take. The further you get inside, it is less surprising but still extremely frustrating. The time delays on a lot of decisions are among the problems that probably many occupants of my position have shared.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Rooker will repeat a Statement on bovine TB at a convenient point around 7 pm. This may be a timely opportunity to remind the House of the guidance offered in the Companion that, although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, Statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate. Shorter interventions of course mean that there are opportunities for more noble Lords to pose questions to the Minister within the allotted 20 minutes.

My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 9 and 11 June be approved. 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Considered in Grand Committee on 2 July.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the six Motions standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Vadera.

Moved, That the draft order and draft regulations laid before the House on 2, 4 and 9 June be approved. 21st and 22nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Considered in Grand Committee on 2 July.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, any new readers would be quite baffled. I must thank the noble Baroness for responding to my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who also raised points that are covered in this group of amendments. Before I ask questions on the amendments, I should like to make a general point, which I will not make again despite the considerable number of government amendments still to come. These are technical amendments. Some of them respond to what happened at the previous stage, but most are tabled in order to get the Bill right.

The Bill spent a lot of time in the Commons and we spent nine days on it in Committee. We are now at the penultimate stage. I should like to make absolutely clear that I cast no blame at the door of the noble Baroness, but this possibly consolidates what I have noticed over the years; namely, that in June and July, the Government do not have the resources to deal with this sort of thing in the way that they should. There has always seemed to be a shortage of parliamentary counsel, which, no doubt, has been felt at earlier stages. It is a bit of a poor show that we get all this at this stage. I have said it now, got it off my chest and I will not say it again—well, not today.

Amendment No. 69 refers to regional development agencies. The Minister has given us one example of how the provision could be used. I suspect that that example is why we have the amendment, but it is much wider than the example and I would be grateful if she could tell the House whether the Government have anything else in mind that would require an amendment of this sort. Amendment No. 79 refers to planning. As the noble Baroness said, we were concerned about that at the previous stage. I do not oppose this amendment because, although I very much oppose the Government’s planning proposals, which we will come to in the next group, we do not seek to get rid of them entirely.

When I saw Amendment No. 82 I wrote, “Please translate”, which the Minister has done. I am also grateful to have had sight of the Minister’s speaking notes on these amendments, which have made life a great deal easier. Finally, Amendment No. 89, which would apply to Clause 69, states:

“The Secretary of State may by order make further provision in respect of a function … (which may, in particular, include provision for the function to cease to be exercisable)”.

I would be much happier if the amended clause simply stated that the Secretary of State could order a function to cease to be exercisable. That is what the Minister’s note, which was circulated to noble Lords last week, said. However, the amendment is wider and it is not clear whether the further provision referred to is yet another provision, whether it is covered by Clause 69(1), or whether something more is in mind. That is one example of a generality followed by a particularity, and it is the particularity that concerns the Government, but it is cast in a much wider context. Last week, the noble Baroness described me as cynical—inevitably, cynics like me will wonder about the wider intention.

My Lords, in accordance with the customs of the House, I remind noble Lords of the declarations of interest I made at Second Reading.

There is not much to say to this group of amendments except a general comment. The noble Baroness is correct to say that the amendments are largely technical. They indicate an increasing tendency to manage by legislation, although I am not sure that this Government are the exclusive progenitor of the practice; we all build on what our predecessors have done. The management of public bodies is more detailed and prescribed, and of course anyone working for such a body can always say, “Ah, but the law says this”. One of the side effects, of which this group is a classic example, is that the capacity for initiative is removed from people employed by something such as the Homes and Communities Agency. Increasingly, jobs in the local government sector are prescribed and defined in legislation. No doubt we have played a part in that, but it is a trend that we need to worry about. Jobs in the public service will become increasingly less worth doing and satisfying as the result of fewer opportunities for people to do things that really can help their communities because the law does not permit them and they dare not do anything without that permission.

My Lords, what can I say to the noble Baroness except that it is a fair cop? I would have much preferred not to have had to bring back so many technical amendments, but it is extremely important to get a Bill of this size and complexity right. I also address those remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. A great weight of responsibility will rest on the agency with its enormous funding powers and ability to take action, so I am grateful to noble Lords for helping to achieve that accuracy. Where possible I have made my speaking notes available to noble Lords opposite because it is a fair way to proceed when technical amendments are brought forward late. It is quite right and proper that they should form part of our scrutiny.

The noble Baroness put two questions to me. The Bill refers to all regional development agencies, but she has spotted that when we talked about the ASC we were just talking about the transfer from the Yorkshire and Humberside RDA, Yorkshire Forward—the grandfather body, as it were. The need to refer to all RDAs rather than just specify that one is, I understand, to avoid a hybrid Bill procedure and provide flexibility should transfers of property or other assets be required in the future. We have no plans to do that, but wish to ensure the necessary flexibility. I cannot add much to that explanation when we come to government Amendment No. 89. We are advised that flexibility is important here but, similarly, we have no plans to make use of it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 and 15 in my name are also in this group. I find myself at something of a procedural disadvantage. Under Report stage rules, I have no right to sum up at the end of the debate on this group. That might mean that then I have some difficulty, depending on what the Minister has said. I make that observation now because it also will depend on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has to say at the end.

The Homes and Communities Agency is not a body to which we object in principle. As the Minister has explained, it is an amalgamation of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships. Of course, the nigger in the woodpile, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already pointed out, is that it still incorporates what I call the hangover of the new towns legislation. If it were not for that, we would have little difficulty with the foundation of this agency. However, the historical hangover of those planning powers in this age of participation and consultation where everyone works together is a considerable anachronism and I do not like it.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he used a phrase about a woodpile. If your Lordships’ House were happy, I think it would perhaps be helpful if the wording of the phrase were revised.

I apologise, my Lords; I left my brains behind. I apologise to the House.

My Lords, in welcoming my noble friend’s amendments, I would like to ask her two questions. Could I first say that I have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to create more of a centre of excellence in planning and design skills? I look forward to my noble friend's comments on that proposal. In fact, my question bears on the same point. On my noble friend's Amendment No. 20, I would like to ask her whether the words,

“the effectiveness with which the functions of the local planning authority”

include good design—the local planning authority’s responsibility to ensure that the design is up to standard. Does “matters relevant to functions” in subsection (4)(b) of the new clause of her Amendment No. 34 again refer to the importance of good, high quality design?

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. It is impossible to believe that social housing will appear in suitable quantity unless there is close co-operation. Any powers that put the HCA in the driving seat will therefore arouse resentment and will not be welcomed. During the passage of the Bill, I have not yet heard any evidence that anybody wants the HCA to, as they might express it, usurp the planning powers of any local authority. If you look at the market share of the HCA, its power rests on people knowing that it has money in its pocket; they go looking for that money to support an area of housing in which there is comparative market failure. However, that is only a relatively small proportion of the total housing market and of all matters that come before planning authorities.

If the Government set up an agency over which they have, by virtue of the Bill’s language, close control, and use it to do things which will not be welcome to local authorities, whichever way you look at it the proceedings will fail. The intent of the Bill will not be met. The pledges and promises about the number of houses that we can expect over the next few years will not be fulfilled and there will be no improvement in the situation. I strongly believe that these overriding powers should not be in the Bill.

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment nor those of the noble Lord, although I articulated some sympathy with their sentiments in Committee. I have two or three important points to make. In the valuable debate we had in Committee, we all understood how strongly views were held on planning powers. I say to the noble Viscount that some evidence suggests that these planning powers have been used entirely benignly and in a positive way over the past five years. It is useful to remember that we are not putting in the Bill the kind of culture, organisation and wide, sweeping powers that we saw in the New Towns Act 1946. We do the Minister’s hard work and her amendments a disservice if we suggest that the HCA’s planning powers would be used in that way.

I remind noble Lords of the example that I used in Committee, when I explained that English Partnerships has had these powers throughout its existence. We no longer look to the old model of new towns or other urban development corporations, where an organisation was set up entirely detached from local democracy and local authorities. Rather, we should look to delivery vehicles set up in the past five years, such as the Milton Keynes Partnership—with a progressive, intelligent, local authority—which has been a joint venture between local authority members, English Partnership board members and members of the local community, who now comprise the local planning authority. That authority has an independent chair, a person with a strong Milton Keynes track record. Evidence for this can be found in the amount of high quality development infrastructure that has been delivered in Milton Keynes compared to the rather arid scene of 10 years earlier.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who tabled these amendments. This has been an excellent debate, as it was in Committee. Although we consider that these amendments are not necessary, that does not mean that they are not important in prompting debate and enabling us to reconsider our response. I am also grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lady Ford, who speaks with such clarity and authority; there is no substitute for practical experience. Although I shall do my best to persuade the House that we have responded to concerns with integrity and care—I accept that there are deep concerns about this issue—the fact that my noble friend was able to explain the circumstances under which exceptional powers are used in partnership was extremely helpful to everyone. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, also commented on the matter.

What we want the HCA to achieve—this is certainly true of the chief executive, Sir Bob Kerslake—could not be realised unless the entire organisation was completely committed to partnership with the agencies, especially local authorities, which will build the houses. The HCA’s task is to ensure that all parts of the complex system for planning, regeneration and housebuilding work in harmony and to the best effect. That is what we want the HCA to achieve. Therefore, I completely concur with everything that noble Lords have said across this range of amendments about the need for partnership and a close working relationship. As Bob Kerslake says, the HCA will be the best and closest partner for local authorities. I hope that I will exemplify that in my response to these amendments.

I completely understand the intention behind Amendment No. 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I cannot accept it because it would be too restrictive. Where the Secretary of State uses her powers to designate an area and confer planning functions on the HCA, the amendment would require it to exercise those functions by means of a committee. It specifies that the committee should meet in the local area within which any designated land lies. The noble Baroness spoke eloquently about the need to work closely with and listen to the local community, a matter that I shall return to when I discuss my amendments.

We believe that this amendment is too restrictive. The amendments that I will bring forward in respect of Clauses 13 and 14 provide that the HCA may set up a committee or sub-committee for the purpose of exercising planning functions, which would be a likely option. If it does so, it must inform every local authority for the designated area and invite them to suggest one or more candidates for membership of such a committee. However, I do not think that that is the only possibility or that we should stipulate in the Bill that it would be the only possibility for exercising functions.

The noble Baroness and I agree that it is important that the HCA, when acting as the local planning authority for a designated area, should be properly accountable to those living in and around that area. One way in which that might be achieved would be if the HCA exercised planning functions in meetings that were open to the public. When we come to the noble Baroness’s amendment that deals with that point, in relation to Schedule 8, I will undertake to consider it. I am happy to help that amendment along. However, this amendment would restrict the ability of the HCA to exercise its functions as it sees fit.

Amendment No. 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, relates to working through the planning system. The noble Lord was eloquent in his concern and his conviction that the HCA will work only if it is within the planning system. He is right about that. We support everything that he says. In his attempt to ensure that the HCA works in partnership, he uses the term “co-operating”. The language does not matter so much as the intent and what is to be achieved. His amendment refers to co-operating with local authorities and any other body involved in any activities related to its objects. He argued that, without express provision that the HCA must work through the planning system, it could be used to circumvent the system and local opinion to drive through unwanted development that is not in accordance with the development plan. He also argued that, without a requirement in the Bill compelling the HCA to co-operate with local authorities and other groups already working towards the achievement of its objects, the agency will be a top-down leviathan with no knowledge of or sensitivity to local concerns.

I cannot agree. There are a number of ways of interpreting the difference between co-operation and partnership. Co-operation is a slightly lower test than partnership, but the effect would be the same. It is simply not the case that the Bill as drafted in any way enables the HCA to circumvent any part of the planning system. Even in the unlikely event that the Secretary of State designates an area and confers responsibility for preparing and maintaining all or part of the local development framework for the designated area on the HCA, that in no way exempts the HCA from having to go through the same process as any other local planning authority to amend the plans for the area, including consultation and examination in public. If it is involved with a development that requires planning permission, that must be applied for and obtained in the normal fashion. There are no short cuts for the HCA. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this is a major undertaking. These plans are complex to make and amend. They will not be undertaken lightly. Nothing in the Bill in any way exempts the agency from abiding by the laws of the land, including on the development and use of land.

As for the HCA being centrally driven, it will work with local communities to determine the best way of delivering national objects locally. We have included the HCA as a body that will be a statutory partner authority for the local area agreement and local improvement targets. The agency will support local partners to deliver the new homes and regeneration projects that their communities need, which will have been identified at a local level. The agency will be working closely with local authorities and regional partners to identify the best way of delivering their priorities. The remainder of what I want to say about how this will work is best left until I address my amendments, because that will pick up the argument. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will leave his amendment there.

Amendment No. 9, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is about the support that the HCA may provide to local planning authorities. The debate on that was quite lively. I am happy to give an assurance that the HCA will indeed share its planning knowledge and expertise with local planning authorities. I have said at different stages of the Bill that it is very much our intention that the HCA should become a one-stop shop for local partners who need to seek advice, guidance, skills or funding support. We have made provision for that in the Bill. For example, Clause 22 provides that the HCA may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, give financial assistance to any person. Clauses 41 to 43 and 47 empower the HCA to provide information services, advice, education, training, guidance and support services to those who need them, within its objects. To pick up the noble Baroness’s language, the HCA will indeed be a centre of excellence and will put its expertise at the disposal of local authorities.

It is worth highlighting the excellent work of the existing organisations that will make up the agency. They are already working to provide support and improve knowledge and skills. For example, the Advisory Team for Large Applications, ATLAS, provides an independent advisory service to local planning authorities. It works with local authorities and the private sector to deliver large-scale development. ATLAS is sponsored by my department and is hosted by English Partnerships, as part of the Planning Advisory Service. As my noble friend said, that service already does an excellent job in assisting planning authorities in practical ways. However, these services should not be restricted to planning authorities. The Housing Corporation’s good practice programme aims to encourage the development and testing of new ideas to generate and promote good practice in the delivery of social housing.

Within the centre of excellence is another resource of which I have great expectations: the Academy of Sustainable Communities. The academy has, for two or three years now, been applying itself to raising the skills and expectations of building communities, in terms not just of physical infrastructure but of what is needed in the social infrastructure of communities. The academy aims to inspire, motivate and influence people across many sectors to create sustainable communities. For example, its first priority was to work with schools. It works with people with leadership roles in the communities and with professionals. It will be a source of growing more planners. The academy is an exciting and innovative group of people. The HCA will be enriched, and it will enrich and expand its work, because of that. These are some of the tools currently at our disposal. I hope that they demonstrate our intentions for how the HCA will work to improve places and to grow the skills that we need.

Amendments Nos. 16, 21, 27, 35 to 38, 80, 81, 83, 85 and 192 are a group of miscellaneous government amendments. This is a sort of trailer for the more important amendments that I shall address in a minute. All these amendments are related and go some way towards responding to points raised by noble Lords in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, specifically asked for these amendments to be made. I gave him an undertaking to consider these clauses further, to determine whether they were necessary to the success of the HCA’s operations and to return to them on Report. It was a useful exercise because, after consideration, we decided that the clauses were not needed and, therefore, we now seek to remove them from the Bill.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have shown such perception and care about these provisions. If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall deal with a few points in the order of my notes rather than the order of importance. On Amendment No. 9, clearly I did not make myself clear enough to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I am seeking to keep people as consultants in the public sector, not to the use the HCA as a training ground. I do not intend to push this matter further. I also am very grateful to the noble Viscount. To the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, I say that I do not dispute that there could be benign intent. Noble Lords in this Chamber are angels, but I cannot think of an amendment which says that this will apply only when everyone’s intentions are benign.

The Milton Keynes example has been prayed in aid frequently because it is the only example available, but it is not one that can be applied directly to all the circumstances. It was a partnership which the local authority was happy to join; it was not an imposition and, indeed, it was an exception. Moreover, I think that my amendments are consistent with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, even though she said that she did not agree with them.

On Amendment No. 4, I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would like to see these important notions spelt out, but they are more about the how than the what, and this clause is about the what. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, once paid me the compliment of saying that I was not a lawyer—he meant that I was not a barrister—but I have a lawyer’s mind, which sees things progressing in sequence in the way described by the Minister. This amendment talks about the HCA working “through the planning system”, but we could not have had more assurances that that is the case. I liked the Minister’s comment that co-operation is of a lesser order than partnership. I am a little embarrassed and I am not arguing against the noble Lord, but I think his concerns are addressed.

I do not want to take too much time. I agree that the protocol with the local government world through the LGA is important, but it does not address the basic premise of whether it is right philosophically for an agency to take these planning powers. The comment that, in the past, urban development corporations have had difficulties when plans are not up to the mark should be answered by the HCA’s ability, along with everyone else, to make representations during the construction of development plans and their modifications.

The noble Baroness has offered to consider so many of my amendments that it would not be appropriate for me to seek to take them further today. Although time is quite short, I hope that there will be an opportunity for us to discuss what the Government might bring forward, and I do not give any undertakings about not dividing the House in a week’s time. A discussion about how we take these notions forward could cover one or two of the points that at this stage the noble Baroness has rejected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 3:

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. At Second Reading, I drew attention—at col. 83 of Hansard on 28 April—to some highlights of briefing that had been provided to certainly a number of us and perhaps to all of us by RADAR, Care and Repair England and the Habinteg Housing Association pointing out some pretty shameful facts about the inaccessibility of so much housing and the entirely unsatisfactory conditions in which too many disabled people are still expected to live.

I know that the Government are very serious in their intentions to do very much better in this regard. They have, of course, made their commitment that by 2011 all public housing will be built to lifetime home standards. I hope that my noble friend may be able to say something about the Government’s intentions in regard to other housing—not public housing but housing that is provided privately on the commercial market, although that may be outside the direct remit of the Homes and Communities Agency and this Bill. If she did say something, the House would appreciate that. She may also reasonably say—I do not know—that disability discrimination legislation will enable us cumulatively to make an impact on this problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested, accessibility is a very important subset of the broader principle of good design, which we are about to debate. I endorse the spirit in which the noble Lord has tabled and moved the amendment. I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.

My Lords, I also support the amendment. I was not sure how important it was until I had lunch earlier today with people from the housebuilding industry. Some of them said that, in these straitened times, when several housebuilders are going to the wall and difficulties prevail, we will have to rein in some of the regulation that has cluttered the housing system. In particular, they drew attention to the fact that the accessibility standards of lifetime homes were being imposed upon new buildings. I had not quite appreciated that the Homes and Communities Agency may find itself under pressure, if not to renege on the progress we have made so far, not to make rapid progress to the final stages of incorporating all the lifetime home standards into new developments. This sent a shudder through me.

Accessibility is a key issue. We must make all homes in the future accessible not only to people with disabilities but to all kinds of families in all stages of life. Making the home an easier place to live in is a key part of design which adds little to the cost of each home, although it does add something. This essential ingredient could now be jeopardised by the straitened times in which the house-building industry finds itself. Strengthening the arm of the Homes and Communities Agency to resist any diminution in the existing strength of feeling for greater accessibility would be of great significance. Suddenly I have realised the importance of the amendment and I give it my heartiest support.

My Lords, I associate these Benches with all the previous remarks. I hope the Minister will assure the House that her Amendment No. 7, which adds the objective of good design, not only covers aesthetics, which are very important, but extends to all the other elements of design, including accessibility.

My Lords, it is obvious that the House is united in the view that this is an issue of serious importance. It is certainly close to my heart. I argued in Committee that we have an ageing population. By definition, that means that we will have more people living longer with greater disabilities and we have to accommodate and plan for that in the most positive and proactive way.

Two of the ways in which we conceive the HCA working will address this issue. First, the HCA already has the object to improve the supply and quality of housing in England with a view to meeting the needs of people living in England. It could not be much clearer than that. It certainly goes wide enough to account for issues of accessibility. How can we interpret the notion of need unless we think about people whose needs are different and have to be met? Secondly, design includes matters such as accessibility. One of my particular preoccupations has been that we tend to think of accessible housing and housing for disabled people as having no design function, whereas we should be piloting the highest standards of design for people who have difficulty in accessing their homes, furniture and so on. So, yes, design includes accessibility.

The HCA will be focused on ensuring that the various needs of a diverse community are catered for by providing housing of different tenors and types, now and in the future. That means more accessible housing and more family housing; it means sustainable housing. Another thing about the way the HCA will work is that, like the Housing Corporation, it will respond to what local authorities tell it are their local needs. We have a cross-government public service agreement, which identifies four vulnerable groups in the community who have particular needs, not least for accommodation. One of those groups is people with learning difficulties; another is care leavers. We are looking to ensure that the Housing Corporation and the HCA, when it makes its allocations in discussion with local authorities, are well aware of the needs of these groups of vulnerable people.

We have ways and means of meeting needs, but I understand what the noble Lord has said. I am reluctant to single out a strand of housing that would entail a specific object being placed on the agency, no matter how much we all think it is important; it is not entirely wise to emphasise one particular type of housing in primary legislation. The Bill is trying to enable the HCA to meet all its challenges with sufficient flexibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised the issue of lifetime homes. He knows how committed he and I are to making that a reality in the timescales that we have given. We have made a commitment that by 2011 all public sector-funded homes will be developed as lifetime homes, and we will work with the industry to ensure that all homes are built to that standard by 2013.

I know that the housing market is in difficult times. Frankly, though, one of the arguments I would put to the housebuilders is that there is a market for homes for elderly people, who have proportionally far more wealth than they have had before, with the equity in their existing homes, but who do not move home because choices are not available to them. I say to those housebuilders: think about that market, and about the social homes you could build that would appeal to people who at the moment are stuck in larger, inappropriate houses. I do not buy the argument that this is not an economic benefit to housebuilders themselves.

Having said that, I will take the argument away and think some more about it. I cannot promise to come back with a solution at Third Reading, but I have heard what the House has said. I will think about whether there is some way that we can accommodate the principle.

I cannot say the same for inclusive housing, I am afraid, because it raises other major issues—not least that the HCA will simply not be doing its job if it is not conscious of the need to build inclusive communities, and that means communities that work. Communities work only if they offer a home and an environment to people who have a diverse variety of needs, such as we all know our society contains. It will be a requirement upon the HCA to succeed in doing that, and it will work closely with local authorities to achieve it. We all want to see confident and cohesive communities. The HCA will be subject to appropriate equality duties as well, and it will have to comply with the DDA.

The other problem I have with the term “inclusive” is that it can mean a lot of very different things. It would be a challenge, to say the least, to arrive at a definition that satisfied everyone. I hope that noble Lords will accept that I am doing my best and listening closely to what they are saying about accessible homes, but I cannot promise to take the “inclusive” amendment away.

My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has just said, but she placed her emphasis on the Government’s intentions with regard to the provision of new housing. Will she say a little more about the Government’s thinking about the upgrading of existing homes? I understand that when the Government have fulfilled their pledge of increasing disabled facilities grants by 31 per cent, they will still be spending only £166 million on those grants. That does not take us very far, given the scale of the problem—particularly if, as I understand it, the concomitant duty on local authorities to provide funding is to be relaxed. The HCA will have important responsibilities with regard to regeneration, and perhaps therefore to the upgrading of existing houses. Will the Minister say what powers and resources it will be able to use for that purpose?

My Lords, I do not like to interrupt noble Lords when they are in full flow, but I ought to draw attention to paragraph 7.134 of the Companion, which governs how we respond on Report. We should not really make further interventions once the Minister has sat down. Questions should be asked only for elucidation.

My Lords, I am very happy to write to my noble friend and will certainly answer his questions with pleasure.

My Lords, I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, when he first intervened; the second time, I regret to say that it caused my eyebrows to twitch. Anyway, it was good to have his support and to know that we also have the support of RADAR. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his remarks on lifetime homes, particularly regarding the immediate pressure which appears to be coming from the industry to relax our standards for what is, as I think we all hope and pray, no more than a relatively short-term difficulty. I am sure we would all agree that, however long this problem in the housing market lasts, it will be too long. Even if it goes on longer than any of us would like, I see no reason why we should not continue to aim to set very high standards, particularly in this area. As the Minister said, so many people now live in a handicapped way in homes that are simply unsuitable because there is no way for them to go anywhere else.

I am aware that lifetime homes will be taken care of, when it comes to building new homes, in a relatively short timescale. But if we do not keep this in our mind whenever renovations and redevelopment of existing housing are undertaken, we will miss a golden opportunity and might inadvertently condemn some people to problems which they would rather avoid. After all, it is not a question of making every door in a house wheelchair-accessible, but of making the house and perhaps the ground floor wheelchair-accessible, if not upstairs. This is not an unreasonable ambition.

I am most grateful to the Minister for what she had to say. I accept the problem of emphasising only one aspect, but if you do not continue to mention the smaller aspects, it is all too easy to neglect them. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say if she writes to me. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 7:

My Lords, what can I say? What can we all say to my noble friend but “Thank you”? She is adding to the objects of the HCA an explicit object that it shall contribute to the achievement of good design in England. She accepted the essential spirit and purpose of a number of amendments that we debated in Grand Committee. It was important that there was all-party support for the spirit and purpose of those amendments. I particularly appreciate the support of my noble friend Lady Whitaker. She is, by herself, worth an army.

This is a civilised and proper thing that the Government are doing, which will improve the quality of life in this country. I absolutely accept what my noble friend just said—that it is greatly preferable that this duty and the benefits that will flow from it should not be confined to housing and individual buildings but cover development, which the HCA is able to influence more broadly, so that the spaces between and around buildings will be of better design, the infrastructure that we develop will be better designed and the whole process of regeneration will be characterised by a commitment to good design.

It may be a statement of the obvious that we ought to be committed to good design, but by writing it explicitly into the legislation, we have very valuably gone beyond the relatively vague and generalised terms that were already in the Bill such as quality and well-being. That there will be a statutory duty for the HCA to promote good design will make all the difference. Amid the welter of other duties and pressures that will be on the HCA, design might have fallen by the wayside. Indeed, notwithstanding the positive commitment and substantial achievements of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships in relation to design in recent years, there is a longer melancholy history of a failure to pay sufficient attention to good design. The HCA will now have fully to heed best practice, the best advice that it can obtain from CABE, the professional institutes, academia and the best practitioners, and from the DCLG itself.

The key, as we noted in Grand Committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made this point powerfully—is that there should be an understanding of the nature of good design and a commitment to it deeply imbued in the institutional culture of the HCA. I still think that it would be no bad thing if one of the members of the board of the HCA had experience and capacity in design matters. However, what will matter infinitely more is the leadership given to the HCA by its chief executive, Sir Bob Kerslake. There is every indication that he will personally take this responsibility very seriously indeed, and I look forward to the newly appointed chair, Robert Napier, doing likewise.

I have a handful of questions to ask my noble friend. If she cannot answer them today perhaps she will write to us before Third Reading.

What means does the department expect the HCA actually to use to promote good design, and what will the department itself be doing alongside to support the normalisation of good design and to create a supportive context?

What will the department's wider strategy be? We know and welcome very much that the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears, has told CABE that she wants people to live in beautiful homes, but I emphasise, as my noble friend just did, that design goes well beyond questions of aesthetics. We are not looking to the DCLG, and certainly not to the HCA, to be a kind of central taste police. There are many matters other than aesthetics entailed in good design. We talked just in the last debate about the importance of lifetime homes, accessibility and adaptability. There is also the requirement that new homes and new buildings should be carbon-neutral in a certain space of time. There is also much experience with such familiar concepts as designing out crime and ensuring that provision of transport services and facilities does not dehumanise communities.

I have some specific questions for my noble friend. Do the Government intend to introduce minimum space standards? If they themselves do not do so, will they endorse the HCA if it introduces minimum space standards in those areas that it can control? Does she expect that the Government will make building regulations more substantial and better able themselves to promote good design, and do more to ensure that building regulations are taken seriously and are well enforced? Will the Government seek to generalise the use of the Building for Life standards? What is now the state of the Government's thinking on new design quality metrics, which were adumbrated in the Green Paper, and a possible design quality assurance scheme, which would enable developments to proceed faster if they met certain criteria of design?

How does my noble friend expect CABE to relate to the HCA? It is particularly important that CABE should be able to offer its expertise and judgment because, after all, we will never achieve good design by formulaic methods or bureaucratic devices. What is the Government's thinking now on housing and planning delivery grant and whether it should reward quality as well as quantity in the provision of new homes? Do the Government intend energetically to use their influence to ensure that design review facilities and pre-application discussion are available appropriately throughout the country and, at the other end of the process—this was the subject of an amendment that we debated in Committee—will the Government encourage the HCA itself to use “post-occupancy analysis”? That rather forbidding jargon term actually means asking people who will live in these homes whether they consider that their homes are well designed.

What do the Government intend to do about education and training? Will they work with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and with the Higher Education Funding Council for England as well as with those in RIBA, in the RTPI and in the Urban Design Alliance who are seeking to develop a common foundation curriculum for students who are going to become architects, surveyors, planners, highway engineers and landscape designers, so that all of them should be educated in good design and should at least speak a common language and understand each other? I remind the House of my declaration of interest as an honorary fellow of RIBA.

My noble friend spoke very helpfully just now about the Academy for Sustainable Communities and the work that it is expected to do to remedy the deficiencies of skills. She has told us, in one of the helpful pieces of correspondence which she sent to Members of the Committee, about the funding that will be available for the Academy for Sustainable Communities from 2008-09 to 2010-11. It would certainly be helpful if she could say rather more about the expectations that the Government have of the academy.

Does my noble friend expect the Homes and Communities Agency to report in its annual report on what it has done in the previous year and what it plans to do in the following year in fulfilment of its statutory object to contribute to the achievement of good design in England? How will the DCLG monitor the overall performance of the HCA in regard to its design responsibilities, in a sensible relationship of course, without breathing down its neck and second-guessing it all the time? How will it satisfy itself that the HCA will fulfil our best hopes for design?

We can shortly return to some of these themes and issues in the Planning Bill. Meanwhile, I welcome the amendment. It will lead to better design, directly in social housing and more indirectly through the HCA’s influence on the volume housebuilders, where it is assembling land and is a key player in regeneration. Not only homes but all sorts of buildings will be better designed on land that the HCA makes available. The amendment means that the lives of many people will be improved in the years ahead.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words; I agree with everything else that he said. I also congratulate the Minister on her imaginative response to our debates on design. All our communities will be the better for it.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. I take slight issue with one aspect of what my noble friend Lord Howarth said. He listed a whole range of organisations on whose advice the Homes and Communities Agency should rely: CABE, the professions and so on. Later, he mentioned “post-occupancy analysis”. I have no idea what that is, but I suspect that it is a question of asking people what is wrong with new developments after they are in them; they will be quick to tell you. In supporting the amendment, I say to the noble Lord that I hope that the Homes and Communities Agency talks to real people from time to time, before it listens to architects and a whole range of other professionals who, although no doubt well intentioned, do not always get it right. We do not have to look much further than the current arguments around Robin Hood Gardens in London, where almost every eminent architect has rolled up to say what a marvellous place it is, and, almost without exception, every resident has said that it is a living hell. In not being too unkind to the professions, I gently suggest—no, I insist—that we tell the Homes and Communities Agency to listen to real people before, not after, the event.

My Lords, in welcoming the amendment, I put myself into the minds of the HCA management and address their need always to get their priorities right, and to know what they can and cannot do. Bearing in mind that one person’s good design is another’s white elephant, it is probably quite good to be cautious. The wording of the amendment is, happily, quite cautious; if I were part of the HCA management, I could live with it. They contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and good design in England. That is a limited duty, and I would be happy to find it so were I involved in the HCA.

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the amendment has received. One of the first things that Sir Bob Kerslake should do when setting up the committee, or Joint Committee—perhaps with CABE—is to read your Lordships’ debate. He will find an agenda for his first meeting and some important principles for how he and the agency should best proceed to make a success of this challenging new agenda.

It is a new agenda: it is the first time that we have ever required a public agency to address design issues in this way. That is important and quite radical. The HCA is a new organisation. I cannot second-guess how it will work, nor would I want to. I can only pledge that it will work as closely as possible with CLG and CABE. We look forward to the inspiration that it will offer the department in raising our own already high standards in the attention and priority we give design in all our work, whether it is new build, new development or regeneration.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not answer his detailed questions this evening, although I could. It would be better to write to him and set out the full responses his questions deserve. They are complex, and cross more than just my department; for example, on education and training. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I assure him that yet another letter is coming his way.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 8:

My Lords, I have great sympathy for the case that was so ably made in Committee and this evening. I do not think anyone disputes that there is an urgent need to provide more affordable urban housing. The case can also be made that there is an urgent need to provide affordable housing in non-urban communities. The stance you adopt on the issue depends on your background, where you live and the area that you have represented as a politician. Many areas in my former constituency and on Tyneside, where I was born, could also make out a very good case for special treatment.

The Government’s response to the amendment in Committee was sympathetic and I have no doubt that it will be reiterated tonight. They said that the body that will have responsibility for this matter will be best able to judge the appropriate balance in this regard. The noble Earl properly made the case for the housing needs of rural communities to be taken into account. However, he ought to ask himself why they appear to have greater needs than urban areas in that regard. It is a sad fact that much of the housing that was provided by previous Labour and Conservative Governments and by Labour and Conservative county councils was sold off to people who were desperate for housing. The building of affordable council housing in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was the salvation of those people. They were grateful for the opportunity to live in that housing as they were able to rent affordable homes in nice areas. However, they were especially grateful to the Government who at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s gave them the right to buy. Initially, I did not think much of people who, having been grateful to local and national government for providing them with a council house, then bought that home. However, I realised that it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for many people to buy a house. They took that opportunity and repaid those who gave them the right to buy by supporting them politically. However, 30 years later there is a price to be paid in rural and urban areas for allowing that housing to be bought. The Minister and her colleagues will have to try to repair the damage caused to affordable housing, which was dealt that body blow some 30 years ago.

I sympathise with those who live in rural areas and have difficulty finding homes, but it is a matter of joining the queue in this regard. There are such queues all over the place, although not where I live in Loughton—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, knows Loughton better than me—which is a salubrious, well-heeled area. It has council housing, although I have not traced which Government were responsible for providing it. There is affordable housing all over the place. Having been the chairman of a housing committee, I know that trying to ensure that the housing that is available goes to those who need it is a thankless task. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the HCA will be the best body to judge this matter, bearing in mind its responsibility to treat fairly all those who need homes. I would not complain if it decided that most of the housing should be built in rural areas, as that would mean housing would be provided in the places where it considered there was greatest need, and that is where it should be provided. I congratulate the noble Earl on his compassion in raising this issue. However, I believe that we should not include a specific provision in the Bill but rather should trust the highly qualified people who will be appointed—none of whom I know, of course—to provide housing for all those in need wherever they may live.

My Lords, I have lived and worked in rural areas for well over 50 years and have spoken about rural housing and asked Questions in your Lordships' House on a good many occasions. I initiated a debate on the Duke of Edinburgh’s special inquiry committee into rural housing quite a number of years ago. I therefore strongly welcome this amendment, and I am delighted that its wording contains a reference to balance between rural and urban areas. I ask the Government to look at it extremely carefully. I do not think it is sufficient just to rely on trust. All government policies are supposed to be rural-proofed, and this is an area where that is particularly needed.

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to another point. We are in discussions about eco-towns. It is not always right to think in terms of houses going where people need them. It is sometimes difficult to find places and opportunities to build houses where people need them immediately, but that does not go against the provision of more affordable housing because nowadays people move about. If there are better opportunities to provide the houses in places where people do not yet live, those houses will be best provided. I am sure that one aspect of what will happen in the market is that people will move to the houses because they will find good reasons to live somewhere other than where they started. In our society as a whole, the number of people who live in a different place from where they started is rising every year.

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. It is great to have another champion of rural housing in your Lordships' House alongside the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has been a champion of rural housing for all these years. I should know because I was secretary to the Duke of Edinburgh’s inquiry in 1976, which reported on this matter. The noble Lord spoke shortly after we reported on that issue.

Why should rural housing get a special mention in the duties placed upon the HCA? For the past 34 years, not least from your Lordships' House but from other quarters as well, the Housing Corporation has been constantly reminded that this small corner of the total housing picture deserves some special, extra attention. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made the important point that the right to buy has had a special influence in rural areas. People have bought their homes in rural areas to a greater degree than in urban areas. I could take noble Lords to a very pleasant village in Dorset that had 17 council houses on its edge. They have all now been sold and there are no social housing homes in that village. The right to buy can wipe out all the social housing in certain places. The constant reminder to the HCA that this is a part of the scene that needs a bit of attention is important.

The new agency brings together the powerful English Partnerships and the extra powers from the Department for Communities and Local Government, almost all of which concern urban issues; for example, the Thames Gateway, urban development companies, the regeneration agenda and the housing market renewal pathfinders in the north. Those are all urban issues. Rural housing has already been a difficult part of the housing scene to hang on to. There is a danger of it being watered down unless there is a reminder that it is part of the duties that the Homes and Communities Agency must take into account.

My Lords, I had a problem with this amendment in the previous stage because of the phrase “in particular”. I used the term “balance” then. I am pleased to see that that notion has been taken forward in this amendment. In Committee, I was persuaded by the descriptions given by the noble Lord, Lord Best, of the difficulties of achieving housing in rural areas. I think he mentioned Cerne Abbas then. He might have roamed around the whole of Dorset; I do not know whether it is the same Dorset village. Over the years, I have slowly been coming to the realisation that it is necessary to pay—I shall use the term—particular attention to achieving housing in rural areas because, in some ways, it is much more difficult. It is not just a question of numbers here or there. Ensuring the success of rural communities is a major objective. As the debate has gone on, that qualitative distinction of rural areas has been brought out.

This is not intended as a cavil but like, I dare say, many noble Lords, I am more urban than I am rural, but I am probably suburban. That may be a bit middle-aged and boring, but an awful lot of people live in the suburbs. Many of them are pretty good places. When the noble Earl sums up, I hope he can assure me that suburban is within his term “urban”.

During the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the predecessor amendment was unnecessary, and he may be about to say something similar today, but I hope he will address whether it is wrong.

My Lords, I am not able to support the noble Earl’s amendment, but not because I do not think the spirit of what he described is right. We all understand that the fragility of services in rural communities has a direct relationship to the critical mass of hamlets and villages, and the inability to maintain basic services—education, local schools and so on—is critically dependant on the provision of proper housing and housing for young families. We all understand how difficult it is for young families to be able to stay near grandparents and to have the kind of social network that would come from being able to access to affordable or market housing close to where they grew up. My objection to the amendment is that, as it stands, I do not think it achieves what the noble Earl would like to do.

In Committee and today, we have talked a lot about the need to respect local authorities’ say-so over the plans in their area. One of their particular responsibilities is to express the housing need in their area and the Homes and Communities Agency responds to that. That has always been the way in which the national affordable housing programme has been invested over the years. We cannot on the one hand say it is for local authorities to articulate that and for the HCA to respond and on the other hand say that the HCA is to do that. As I read the noble Earl’s amendment—and he may correct me if I am wrong—it would not achieve the intention he sets out, however much support there is for it around the House.

My Lords, I support the amendment. Indeed, I had a great deal of sympathy with the similar amendment tabled in Grand Committee. I will not rehearse the statistics; we heard ample statistics in Grand Committee on the extent to which rural communities have different growth trajectories for social housing and those statistics are on the record. I shall make two or three simple points on why the availability of more affordable housing in rural communities is a matter of concern and why, therefore, it should be addressed through this amendment.

First, the principle is simple. There are people who either choose to live outside cities or simply cannot afford to live in cities, but that does not mean that they should not have a voice. There is the idea of being part of a community. Indeed, we now have the Department for Communities and Local Government. The idea of communities is at the heart of what this Government believe should be a tool for regeneration, for reinvigoration and for making people have shared endeavour and shared purpose. Therefore, it is extremely important that those people should have a voice, although they may well be small in number and are not for whatever reason—whether choice or affordability—part of the larger urban or suburban landscape. However, because of the unfortunate figures and the changes in trends on the amount of social housing available, those people are losing their voice.

Secondly, democracy is part of the shared endeavour. The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, rightly argued that there should be local decisions and so on, but you can diminish democracy. The HCA will have considerable powers and resources. Should there be in the Bill a duty on the HCA to take account of rural communities? That democratic voice would be far more to the forefront if the amendment were made. It is as simple as that.

We go for champions in other areas of life. We recognise the need for ethnic minorities and women to be represented on boards and so on. Ideally, I would have liked to see a champion, but I accept that that is not where we are. Even if we do not have a champion to speak for rural communities, the amendment would concentrate peoples’ minds, not necessarily when they are making clear-cut decisions on the allocation of resources and so on, but when they are making decisions in the grey area where there are conflicting priorities—and there are many priorities. That is when such a duty would make a difference. It would be assessable, because we would be able to see the extent to which rural aspects had been brought to the fore.

Finally, on something more topical in relation to what the Prime Minister said today in Japan at the G8 summit, we are considering exhortations that we need to live more environmentally coherent lives—for example, that we need to conserve energy and, more recently, the supply of food. We will achieve those longer-term environmental objectives only if we recognise that a lot of the policies that we undertake today will impact on those objectives. We should make provision for smaller numbers of people from minority groups who choose to live near where they were born or where their parents live—not people such as me who have come from half way across the world, or my siblings, but people who want to be within 15 miles of where they were born when they die. It is important to recognise that the longer-term environmental objectives that we want to achieve may well be served by giving voice to those people and catering for their needs. That objective may well be among the intentions of the noble Baroness, but it is not in the Bill and it would be most helpful to see it there.

My Lords, this has been one of those extraordinary debates where we have gone from the local to the global. We have scaled the history of housing with input from my noble friend, who talked about the long-term impact of council house sales, and we heard heartfelt pleas from the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for people who live in rural communities. He added his important voice to a debate that has continued in your Lordships’ House for some decades. We have benefited from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has great experience in this field.

We are talking about the creation of the HCA, an important agency, to address many of these issues. As the noble Earl reminded us, this issue has caught our attention at all stages of our important deliberations on the Bill. The observation of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the rural community in Dorset reminded me of my rural roots. I mentioned previously that I grew up on a rural council estate in Great Bentley. Much of that estate of some 50 houses and bungalows was sold off as part of the right-to-buy process. Most of those homes were built for people working on the land just after the war and for people who worked in offices and factories in Colchester or Clacton. Those homes provided an important service for lower-income earners. I well understand the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart.

The noble Earl’s earlier amendment used the term “particular”. At the end of our deliberations in Committee, there was an understanding, best enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that “particular” did not work well in the context of the noble Earl’s amendment. I carefully read this amendment, which asks that,

“the HCA shall balance the needs for affordable housing in urban and non-urban communities”.

The amendment does not make precise reference to rural communities; it describes anything that is not urban as “non-urban” and it talks about balancing the needs. I have difficulty with the amendment, because the call to balance could arguably end up as some imbalance. There is a problem with the wording. I do not know how much the noble Earl tested out the amendment before tabling it, but there are technical difficulties in what he is trying, understandably, to achieve.

I want further to address the issues before I conclude my comments, because some things are worth putting on the record. I entirely agree that more affordable homes need to be built in communities that most need them. There is undoubtedly a backlog of need in some rural communities for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Best, enunciated. Others have also given voice to that. There is no question but that one of the central tasks of the new Homes and Communities Agency will be to deliver more affordable housing where that need is greatest. The agency will focus on delivering more new affordable homes across all tenures, in mixed and sustainable communities, and it will drive and invest in regeneration and revitalising existing communities.

To do this, the HCA will support local partners that will deliver the new homes and regeneration projects and it will provide advice and support for innovative new approaches to delivery—for example, through new local housing companies or community land trusts, which have had a great deal of support during our discussions. It will also help to drive more effective joint working with the emerging private sector partners. In taking over the affordable housing programme from the Housing Corporation, it will secure the delivery of 70,000 new affordable homes per year by 2010-11. In the current market conditions, this role becomes ever more important and the agency’s ability to act innovatively and in partnership to respond to new challenges becomes vital.

Therefore, the noble Earl’s concerns will be met by the new agency focusing on delivering affordable housing across all our communities. The amendment is not essential to ensure that; the Bill’s clauses are already clear on this point. Indeed, with its reference to housing needs assessment, the amendment seems unhelpfully to require the HCA to replicate functions already carried out by local authorities, so there is also a difficulty with it in that respect. Local authorities are already required to undertake housing needs assessments and it would be an unnecessary waste of resources to require the HCA to carry out a similar exercise. Indeed, local authorities are far better able to assess the housing needs in their area than a national agency such as the HCA. I imagine that, with his background experience in a rural local authority, the noble Earl would appreciate that more than most.

The other issue raised by the amendment is the importance of affordable housing in both urban and non-urban communities. I have already explained that the agency will work with local authorities across the country, supporting rural and urban authorities in meeting the needs of their communities. Local authorities will identify those needs and the agency will have the resources to help to meet them where it is practical for it to do so.

As we have said many times before, we see the agency as being local authorities’ best delivery partner. To help to strengthen that message, the draft protocol between the HCA and local authorities—I am sure that the noble Earl has seen it—demonstrates the commitment of both central government and the LGA to working together to meet today’s and the future’s housing and regeneration challenges.

I know that the House takes this issue seriously. As I think was acknowledged in my noble friend’s letter, at earlier stages we set out in some detail exactly how government are responding to challenges in rural areas and how the Homes and Communities Agency will help local authorities to respond to the needs of their communities in the rural context.

I extend an offer to noble Lords to hear in more detail about the work of the agency at a meeting on this important issue with the chief executive designate, Sir Bob Kerslake, and the chair designate, Robert Napier. I think that noble Lords would find it helpful to have the opportunity to discuss what the agency can do in practice and to raise any concerns that they have. My noble friend Lady Andrews and I will be happy to arrange that discussion and more than happy to ensure that colleagues who are particularly exercised by the import of rural communities take part in it. I know that Sir Bob Kerslake recognises that the agency will have a key role in supporting rural communities, including focusing on the provision of affordable rural housing. I know also that he has met Matthew Taylor MP to discuss his review of the rural economy and affordable housing and that he has seen, and commented on, his draft report. He also recently met the All-Party Group on Rural Affordable Housing and intends to meet the Rural Housing Advisory Group on Thursday this week. Therefore, much is going on with regard to this policy area. Of course, the Rural Housing Advisory Group will act as an advisory body to the HCA to ensure that rural housing issues are seen very much as part of its focus and remit.

As I said at the outset, I do not think that the amendment works entirely well. There are technical problems with it and I do not think that it would work as well as the noble Earl might wish. I know that he is pressing his case and that he has a lot of support in your Lordships’ House. I hope that I have reassured him but I place one final commitment on the record. If the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment this evening, we will be happy to have further discussions with him to see whether we can meet his concerns and those of others before we return to debate the Bill at Third Reading.

There is a genuine problem with the amendment and I am not sure that it is the most appropriate way to deal with this issue. However, we are certainly happy to explore it further because there is clearly a consensus that we need to ensure that the HCA focuses not just on urban areas, although that has never been our intention. We need to ensure that the HCA is understood to have the widest possible remit and that it addresses the real concerns relating to rural poverty and, as some have seen it, the rundown of the provision of affordable housing in some rural communities. I have given some fairly firm commitments and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment. We are happy to continue discussion on this issue before Third Reading.

My Lords, that was a useful debate and I thank all—or nearly all—Members for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked why rural housing should get a special mention. I think that that was a rhetorical question because he then went on to explain exactly why it should get a special mention. In the same vein, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked why there was a greater need for help in rural as opposed to urban communities. I listened carefully to his contribution but I could not make up my mind about it. At times, he seemed to support the amendment and at others he seemed to speak against it.

I shall tell the House why rural communities need greater help. In the five years from 2001 to 2005, the Commission for Rural Communities highlighted a gap, in that the amount of affordable housing built in predominantly rural districts increased by only 3 per cent compared with 22 per cent in predominantly urban districts. That is why rural areas have been falling behind and why in future there needs to be a balance between the urban and rural areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether suburbia was included in urban or non-urban areas. The point is that it is up to you. You can decide whether it is urban or suburban; it has to be one or the other. In the earlier letter to which I referred, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, tried to confuse the matter slightly by asking about district and coastal towns. Rather than trying to be precise in this amendment by putting in “rural” and having that same ball batted back at me, I thought that we would refer to “urban and non-urban communities”. The board of the HCA has to balance what it will do between urban and non-urban areas. It is up to it, so it is not confusing at all. The Minister said that he had a problem with the word “balance”, but it is up to the HCA to work out how to balance needs.

I do not buy the Minister’s argument that there is a technical problem. The problem is that non-urban areas desperately need a better balance of resources. They have not had that for a number of years—I shall not specify the number. The balance needs to be redressed. The amendment is not trying to be prescriptive by saying that for every £4 spent in urban areas we must spend £1 in rural areas or that for every four houses built in urban areas we must build one in a rural area. It says that it is up to the HCA board to balance the needs for affordable housing in urban and non-urban areas. It is for the HCA to work it out.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, kindly offered a promise of a talk. He did not promise anything for the Bill. Whereas a talk might be valuable, we really need something—

My Lords, perhaps I was being Delphic, but when I referred to a discussion I did not mean about nothing. It was to see whether there was some substance with which to aid the process. The offer was that; it was not to talk about nothing. I am happy to discuss wording with the noble Earl.

My Lords, I take that to mean that the Minister will discuss doing something of substance with the words of the amendment, such as including “rural housing”, “balancing rural housing”, or whatever words are required. I suggested in Committee that the Minister should do that but nothing was done then, so it does no harm to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 10:

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I had the pleasure and privilege of going to the conference arranged by the Association of British Insurers. I am not sure whether either of the Ministers present were there on that occasion, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was sitting immediately in front of me, for which I gave him extremely good marks and with whom I exchanged an occasional word.

Anyone who was there would have been aware of the nature of the unhappiness, not with God or the flooding arrangements, but with the degree of human suffering that occurs as a consequence of flooding. I simply say to the government Front Bench that, were there not to be a sympathetic response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, a lot of people at that conference would wonder whether the Government were as serious as they suggested.

My Lords, at the previous stage, my noble friend Lord Greaves said that the important words were “resilient” and “resistant”. That is right. It seems that, increasingly, we will have to plan to adapt to flooding and be resilient to it because it cannot be wholly avoided.

I would say that the HCA’s work on flooding would need to go rather wider than I read the amendment. It now seems to be generally accepted that it is important, when we are talking about flooding from rivers, to allow—to use layman’s terms—for a river to expand and to leave space for that. That is also the case when laying permeable hard surfaces in a development. I distinguish between the two because, in a sense, this is a development that is not a development. That is the point.

Moreover—this is very much an urban reaction—this is not only about flooding as we know it but about the lack of capacity in our sewerage systems to deal particularly with the rather different monsoon-type weather that we get now, with its very heavy bursts of rain rather than the more gentle sort that fills up the aquifers and keeps us all happy through every season. This is hugely important. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who looks as though he is about to respond, will tell us that the HCA must carry out these barrier assessments as well as lots of other things, but an acknowledgment of it all would certainly be appropriate.

My Lords, simply and briefly, when the HCA brings forward developments, it will obviously have to go through the planning system and then engage as part of the statutory consultation process where appropriate. In the exceptional circumstances in which it had to use its own planning powers, it would still be doing so within the overall framework of the Town and Country Planning Acts and would have to go through exactly the same process, so the fact that it was using those powers in exceptional circumstances would not exempt it—far from it—from having to go through the statutory consultation with the Environment Agency.

In addition, I reassure noble Lords that, following the flooding of New Orleans two or three years ago, the board of English Partnerships immediately instructed officials to review all our land holdings and carry out a detailed flood risk assessment, not because we needed to statutorily but because we felt that it was correct in the circumstances to ensure that we fully understood the risks associated with the land holdings that we were stewarding on behalf of government. If we had needed to take action at that time, we would most certainly have done so.

My Lords, the amendment is almost the same as the one that noble Lords opposite tabled in Committee. I know that the noble Earl will be a little disappointed, but my response in general will be pretty much the same as the one that we gave then. That is not because I do not recognise the importance of the issues. I certainly acknowledge the real distress that flooding has caused people in many communities in the past few years when places have become susceptible to it. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, valuably reminded us of that. Some people are still in straitened circumstances as a product of some of the floods last year, so we are all very conscious of these issues. We should be reassured by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, who obviously acted quickly following the New Orleans floods to ensure that her own organisation at least tried to analyse and understand the essential impacts within the context of our own housing.

The amendment would require the Homes and Communities Agency, prior to undertaking any activities in relation to land, regeneration, development or infrastructure, to carry out various assessments of flood risks. No one can dispute the importance of proper consideration of flood prevention and reduction measures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, said, that work continues and has renewed importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, echoed that. Last summer’s events vividly reminded us of that and brought the point home.

My Lords, the noble Lord says that the amendment would require the HCA to carry out flood assessments for any development. That is exactly what it would require the HCA to do. All the amendment says is that the HCA must,

“assess fully the risk of flooding to any new development”.

We hope that that is already done, but the noble Lord should try telling that to the 5,000 people who still cannot get back into their houses.

The amendment then says that the HCA must,

“assess fully the impact of any new development on downstream risks”.

The Bill is in front of us. The aim is to build 3 million new houses by 2020. There is nothing in the Bill about flooding, which we are told will affect more of us as the years go by because of climate change. We know that a good percentage of these new homes will be built in flood risk areas on flood plains. There should be something in the Bill. The Minister also says that the Government will intervene when local authorities go against environmental advice. Flooding happened 21 times in one year, yet the developments continued. This is a very important issue. We are running out of good areas on which to build new housing and will rely more on flood plains because they are an easy option.

My Lords, the noble Earl’s amendment deals with new development, but he is speaking very much about the existing situation. No one would dispute the problems that he has described, but can he marry that to his amendment?

My Lords, in the past, we have had problems with flooding and we are told by everyone that they will not go away. The more we build, the more flooding problems we will have. This Bill deals with 3 million new homes in England. That is how the past and future marry. We will be building a great deal more houses and there is nothing in this Bill on flooding and flood assessments. I am slightly reassured that the Minister, or perhaps it was the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, said that if the HCA takes over any planning it will be required to do flood assessments in the normal course of events. It would have to do flood assessments anyway because that is what the planner is required to do.

I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to accept this amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 [Acquisition of land]:

moved Amendment No. 11:

My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Government’s plans for tackling bovine TB in England. In doing so, I thank the EFRA Select Committee both for its comprehensive and thoughtful report and for allowing me additional time to respond to it, which I have now done. I am also grateful to Professor Bourne and the members of the Independent Scientific Group for their thorough scientific study.

“Bovine TB is not a new problem. For over 70 years, successive Governments have implemented cattle controls based on surveillance, testing and slaughter of reactors. These have been designed to protect public health, to reduce the economic impact of the disease on farmers and, more recently, to comply with our obligations under European legislation.

“By the mid-1970s, the incidence of TB in cattle had reached an all-time low. However, since the 1980s, disease incidence has increased again, with a significant rise following the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. Last year, nearly 3,200 new TB incidents were recorded and 18,543 reactor cattle were slaughtered in England.

“Bovine TB is a serious problem, particularly in the south-west and the Midlands. Although over 90 per cent of herds are TB free at any one time and some significant cattle farming areas are largely without the disease, I know from listening to farmers living with it just how difficult it is. For those who are most seriously affected, the economic and human consequences are simply devastating. That is why we should take the right decisions to help.

“Bovine TB is transmitted between cattle, and between cattle and badgers, but what has dominated debate is whether badger culling could be effective in controlling the disease. The 10-year randomised badger culling trial, overseen by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB—the ISG—culled some 11,000 badgers to discover what impact that would have. The ISG’s final report, published last year, concluded that reactive culling—killing badgers in areas where there had been local TB breakdowns—made the problem worse and that proactive culling, which means taking an area of about 100 square kilometres and repeatedly culling badgers over a number of years, produced only marginal benefits because, although TB was reduced in the area, it increased outside because of the disturbance and movement of badgers.

“While scientists agree that a prolonged and effective cull over even larger areas—some 250 to 300 square kilometres—could reduce the incidence of bovine TB, the ISG’s judgment was that the practicality and cost of delivering a cull on this scale meant that badger culling could not meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB.

“Having listened carefully to a wide range of views from scientists, from farming, veterinary and wildlife organisations, and from many others, and having considered all the evidence, I have decided that while such a cull might work, it might also not work. It could end up making the disease worse if it was not sustained over time or delivered effectively, and public opposition, including the unwillingness of some landowners to take part, would render this more difficult.

“I do not think that it would be right to take this risk. Therefore, and in line with the advice that I have received from the Independent Scientific Group, our policy will be not to issue any licences to farmers to cull badgers for TB control, although we remain open to the possibility of revisiting this policy under exceptional circumstances or if new scientific evidence were to become available.

“This has been a very difficult decision to take and I know that some farmers who are affected will be disappointed and angry. We all want the same thing, which is to beat this terrible disease. But I have had to reach a view about what will be effective in doing so, guided by the science and practicality of delivering a cull. Having made a commitment to farmers and others that I will take a decision, I believe that, now that it has been made, we need to put all our efforts into working together to take action that can work in all affected areas.

“I have therefore also decided to make vaccination a priority as recommended by the Select Committee. Effective vaccines could in future provide a viable way of tackling disease in both badgers and cattle. We have invested £18 million in the past 10 years in vaccine development, which has delivered good results, including providing evidence that vaccinating young calves is effective, making progress towards developing a test to differentiate infected from vaccinated cattle, showing that injectable BCG can protect badgers and developing oral badger vaccine baits.

“I now intend to increase significantly our spending on vaccines by putting £20 million into this over the next three years to strengthen our chances of successfully developing them. I will also provide additional funding to set up and run a practical project to prepare for deploying vaccines in the future.

“It could be some time before an oral vaccine for badgers, or a cattle vaccine, becomes available, so for now we must reduce the spread of the disease and try to prevent it from becoming established in new areas. We have cattle controls in place to tackle TB and have strengthened them in recent years with the introduction of pre-movement testing and the targeted use of the more sensitive gamma interferon test. But the action that individual farmers take, in particular to deal with the risk of importing disease into their herd, will also remain critical.

“Disease control is not just a matter for the Government, notwithstanding the considerable cost. Farmers have the main interest—the burden of controls falls most heavily on them—and they must be involved in working out how we go forward. It would be possible to tighten cattle measures still further, as recommended in the Independent Scientific Group report, but this would come at a high cost and whether it would be worth while is as much, if not more, a question for the industry as it is for the Government. There is a choice to be made.

“That is why I have also decided to set up a bovine TB partnership group with the industry to develop a joint plan for tackling bovine TB. We will discuss with the industry who should be on the group and how it should work, and I want to get started as quickly as possible. The group will have full access to information on the TB budget and will be able to make recommendations about its use. It will be able to propose further practical steps to tackle the disease, including whether, for example, there should be tighter cattle controls. It will help to reach decisions about the injectable vaccine deployment project and it will be able to look at ways of helping farmers to manage the impact of living under disease restrictions, such as by providing incentives for biosecurity or maximising the opportunities to market their cattle by looking again at the restrictions around red markets and encouraging the establishment of more exempt and approved finishing units. I am prepared to make additional funding available to support such initiatives if the group makes a strong case for doing so.

“The House is united in its determination to overcome bovine TB and, as much as we would all wish it, there is no quick or easy way of doing so. Our best chance is to work together and therefore I hope that the industry will respond to the proposals that I have made so that we can get on with it”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place. Three months ago, the Minister told this House that the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee that outlined the need to address the reservoir of TB in badgers was “absolutely first class”. Today he has announced that the Government are ignoring its central recommendations. What has changed? Certainly not the increasing evidence of the devastating impact of bovine TB.

The figures are alarming. In 1997, 3,963 cattle were slaughtered under bovine TB control measures. Last year, that figure had risen to over 28,000. Will the Minister confirm that, on current trends, over 40,000 cattle will be slaughtered this year? All this comes at great cost not only to farmers but to the taxpayer, who has borne costs now exceeding £600 million since 1997. As the Minister has previously acknowledged, the cost is unsustainable. What is his forecast for expenditure on bovine TB control measures over the current Comprehensive Spending Review period? In the absence of any new estimate, can we assume that the 2004 Defra paper, Preparing for a New GB Strategy on Bovine Tuberculosis, is still accurate and that costs to the taxpayer will rise to over £300 million per annum by 2012-13?

The Opposition have consistently called for a comprehensive package of measures to tackle this dreadful disease. Simply targeting badgers is not the solution, but even Professor Bourne has said that the disease cannot be eradicated without addressing infection in wildlife, which is, after all, responsible for the majority of TB breakdowns. However, it is clear that the Government are pinning their hopes on a vaccine. We have been here before. In 1998, the Government set out their five-point plan, one point of which was developing a vaccine. In 2005, the five-point plan was updated and the search for a vaccine “actively continued”. Of course we welcome the extra resources on vaccine development, but can the Minister give the House any indication of when an oral vaccine for badgers or a cattle vaccine might become available? What happens in the mean time?

I want briefly to give the Minister an opportunity to answer some of the questions that the Secretary of State in another place ducked. Is he satisfied that pre-movement testing is cost-effective and that farmers are not moving stock without tests? What steps are being taken to examine other factors, such as the role of maize and possible trace element deficiencies in the spread of TB? Does he believe that the current frequency of testing is adequate, especially in areas adjacent to infected areas? Has he discussed this Statement with the European Commission to see whether it believes that it has any hope of success, or are we at risk of infraction proceedings?

Is nothing to be done to rid the badger population of TB, because badgers with TB die a painful and prolonged death? The decision to ignore the clear role of badgers goes against not only the demands of farmers and the recommendation of the Select Committee but the advice of Sir David King and even the evidence collected by the ISG. Did not that evidence show clearly that the removal of badgers in hotspot areas was associated with a reduction in the number of TB breakdowns by 23 per cent and has not the continued monitoring of those areas since the final report now shown a reduction of some 53 per cent?

The Statement failed to mention the polymerase chain reaction test. Would not the suggested areas in north Devon have been an opportunity to validate the use of the PCR test to establish whether setts contain infected animals? If it could be shown that removal was primarily of infected animals, would that not make it more acceptable and in the interests of badgers as well as cattle? PCR may not be 100 per cent accurate, but neither is the test that is used as the basis to slaughter tens of thousands of cattle.

To conclude, surely it is in the interests of a healthy badger population as well as a healthy cattle population that we tackle this disease from all angles. It is clear from the Statement today that the Government are not prepared to do so.

My Lords, I apologise for missing the start of the Statement, which caught me quite by surprise. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement because I know that this is a difficult subject. It is unfortunate if we make too many comments about the Government not understanding the problem or doing virtually nothing. I understand the problem and I know that the Minister has listened to many farmers on the subject, which is a matter that has aroused a great deal of anger within the industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that we always talk about bovine TB as if badgers do not suffer with the disease and are just carriers. Of course that is not the case; indeed, one of the issues is that most people would say that a cull would be unfair on badgers. The problem, of course, is that as bovine TB spreads through the hotspots, the badger population itself is more likely to contract TB. Happily, I come from an area without TB and we have badgers mixing with cattle quite happily. However, if bovine TB turns up, it will not be just cattle that suffer; the badger population will, too.

The Minister talked about the vaccine process. Many of us have heard about the progress that is being made. I understand that, because of the science behind it, the process is a long, slow and laborious one that needs to be done in methodical way. Is there any indication of when we will be able to start field-trialling injectable TB vaccine for cattle and oral vaccine for badgers?

The Minister has now stated again that no further cull will be undertaken, against the advice put forward by EFRA. The problem with a cull is that, if it is not handled properly, you might well get a spread of disease. The Minister will groan when I say this, but we have had a problem culling grey squirrels. When you wipe out a large proportion of the population and leave just a few, you find that those few grey squirrels move off into areas that they have not entered before looking for other squirrels. That behaviour spreads squirrel pox and of course there is a problem with TB being spread in the same manner. However, we should take into account the fact that mapping the spread of bovine TB into new areas over the past 10 years has shown that there has been a gradual increase.

The Statement says that the Government will take new evidence into consideration. However, as they have decided not to undertake any culling, what basis would that new evidence have? I note that there is to be a targeted cull in Wales, which is, of course, a devolved matter for the Welsh. I hope that as much scientific information as possible can be taken from the Welsh experience.

Like the Minister and everyone who has dealt with farmers over the past few years, I understand the anger that farmers feel about this. Having your whole herd annihilated by a disease that you think could be preventable has a devastating effect. The bovine TB partnership could be a useful tool—it could act as a halfway house between the Government and farmers, especially because a number of farmers might, after the Government’s decision, decide to take the law into their own hands, which would be an unfortunate consequence of the Statement.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for those responses. I confirm the trends that were referred to. I cannot estimate the cost of this. As I have repeatedly said, this is the single biggest disease that we deal with and it costs Defra some £80 million to £90 million a year. That is taxpayers’ expenditure and it is our cost—it is the cost on farmers. I cannot estimate what the cost will be in 2012-13 because I do not know whether the disease will continue to spread as it is currently doing.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about vaccines. The earliest projected date for the widespread use of a BCG cattle vaccine is mid to late 2015. The earliest projected date for the widespread use of a badger vaccine is 2014 for oral badger vaccines; injectable BCG badger vaccines may be available in 2010 but they are not expected to be widely used because of the cost and practical issues involved. One has to ask, “Who will pay for it?”. The taxpayer will not do so.

It is illegal to vaccinate cattle against TB. Therefore, European Union rules and law have to be changed. When we have a vaccine that seems to work—one that is efficacious—we will make proposals to the EU. These things are not just around the corner.

I come to the second set of questions from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. He listed a series of questions that he said that the Secretary of State had refused to answer and he expected me to answer them. Frankly, I will not do that; I simply will not do so. He was wrong on one count: the Secretary of State indicated in answer to a question this afternoon that he discussed the issue and informed the EU commissioner this morning. I have nothing further to add to what the Secretary of State said.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I declare my interest as a partner in a small mixed farm, where we have 18 or 19 beef cattle. Does the Minister agree that the accuracy of testing is vital? Will the agony felt by farmers, who may lose their valuable stock, not be ratcheted up by doubts? What will the Government do to ensure that testing is done accurately and by skilled people? That is very important. He mentioned the EU. Negotiations there take a long time. Does he agree that now is the time to start opening negotiations with the EU to get the rules changed? We cannot proceed with the vaccination until the rules have been changed and we want to be able to proceed as soon as the vaccine is passed.

The Minister mentioned the bovine TB partnership group. Will he ask his right honourable friend to ensure that pure and applied scientists—veterinary surgeons and medical practitioners who have a lot of experience with TB—are incorporated into the group? We have heard about stress from the perturbation of badgers. Does he agree that there is also stress with moving cattle and mixing cattle in new herds? A lot of herds have been wiped out by TB and the cattle have been replaced because there is no other way of maintaining the countryside, as steep hillsides and so on have to be grazed. Is there no way in which cattle can be kept on the ground that they are already on? If they are obviously ill, they should be disposed of, but if they are not ill, they could be kept there until such time as they are ill, to save bringing on to farms new animals and infecting them.

My Lords, I cannot answer all the noble Countess’s questions. On her last point, as was said in the other place, this is not a question of moving cattle on and off farms—closed herds are going down where no cattle are being moved. There has to be a reason for that. The Secretary of State made it clear that there would be wide discussion of membership of the partnership group. He said that we will approach the European Union only after we have a vaccine that works. Tests are conducted by skilled people but the fact is that they are not 100 per cent anyway. That is part of the issue. We are using gamma interferon more, but that gives a different result because it looks at the potential of the disease earlier than the skin test does; one is therefore looking at the age of the disease, perhaps, in the cattle at a different time. We are using that test, which is more expensive. Neither test is 100 per cent perfect.

My Lords, will the animal health laboratory at Pirbright be involved? If so, will it be made absolutely clear that enough money must be properly invested so that we do not have a repeat of the fiasco that occurred over foot and mouth? I must declare an interest: I am a landowner, I have cattle on my property and I am vice-president of the Surrey county agricultural show. Will the noble Lord please make sure that there is no repeat of the Pirbright incompetence over foot and mouth?

My Lords, it is for the noble Earl to ask his own questions but that is an incredibly unfair one. Pirbright has nothing to do with TB. The Veterinary Laboratories Agency at Weybridge is the reference laboratory for TB; that is where the work goes on. Pirbright is a world reference laboratory for foot and mouth and other diseases. So far as I know, it is not involved in TB, although there may be some ancillary work. The main work is at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which is a Defra executive agency; it is under the control of Defra, unlike Pirbright, which is not a Defra laboratory.

My Lords, I have previously declared my interest as the owner of a dairy herd that has suffered severely from bovine TB, which is very prevalent where I live in east Somerset. I confess that I found reading the Statement extremely depressing in view of the huge cost to the taxpayer and the serious losses falling on farming—not just dairy but also beef and maybe sheep, too. Why has no consideration apparently been given to serious and rigorous culling in isolated, compact areas such as the Isle of Wight or the west of Cornwall, which is surrounded by sea on three—if not more—sides? Other areas may be found, such as land surrounded by motorways or water barriers. What thought has been given to that? Why is the experience of Ireland, which has conducted extensive and rigorous badger culling, not relevant to England when it has markedly reduced TB in cattle? I support what has been said about Wales and I hope that some useful lessons will be learnt from there. On vaccination, my understanding—I am quite likely wrong—is that several continental countries have been vaccinating their cattle for years. The result of that may well be that there is a low level of TB infection in the whole of their cattle population. I do not know the answer; perhaps the Minister does. It has taken us 10 years not to find a suitable vaccine. That is 10 years too long and I hope that something can be learnt from the continental experience.

My Lords, I could be completely wrong, but I do not think we have anything to learn from the continental experience because the Continent does not have bovine TB. It is almost unique to the United Kingdom, although Scotland and parts of northern England are virtually exempt. As the Statement said, it is very much a regionalised issue. No one on the Continent is vaccinating cattle against TB. It would be illegal if such were the case. It is only in the UK and the Republic of Ireland where serious issues of bovine TB arise. Other areas have had the disease, New Zealand in particular, but that was a wildlife issue thought to be related to the possum, so it was a different situation. I do not think we have anything to learn about vaccination.

The Secretary of State read out some figures in the other place about what has happened in the Republic of Ireland, as culling has been used. These show that the incidence has gone up and down. The point he made is that there is no direct link. As to the noble Lord’s initial question, the Secretary of State fully considered all the issues, what was said by the people to whom he had spoken and the written reports about culling in hot spots. He was not prepared to countenance that on the grounds of practicality and because the science did not support it.

My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that public acceptability was introduced as a criterion in determining policy and, if so, why? He will remember that when he was a Minister in the department way back in the 1990s when the Government were dealing with BSE, the criterion was purely science driven with recognition of a risk assessment. Surely science and a risk assessment is a better way of dealing with these issues than introducing the concept of public acceptability, which is extremely woolly.

My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend said about science. The analogy with BSE does not quite square. Even today, we still do not know the incubation period of new variant CJD. That is why many of the BSE controls are still in force. It is a supreme public health issue on which the precautionary principle weighs incredibly hard.

On bovine TB, the milk was always used because it was pasteurised—Louis Pasteur gave us the answer—but in early 2006 it was decided at European Union level that the milk of reactors could not be used. The carcass meat goes into the food chain minus the lesions. That is a fact and there is no new announcement in respect of that. My right honourable friend also took into account other matters put to him by the public.

My Lords, I lived through the virtual elimination of TB and was involved in searching the countryside for TB-free cattle. It was eliminated county by county. Indeed, we used to go up to Castle Douglas in Scotland to get TB-free heifers. I had a badger sett on my smallholding in the 1980s, but there was no TB around and so I did not tell anyone that I had it. But the situation now is totally different.

The deputy chief vet in Ireland says that its culling policy saves up to 15,000 cattle a year at present and he challenges some of the decisions that have been made this side of the border. I do not expect the Minister to give the show away, but is there a difference of opinion between government vets and Defra?

My Lords, the Secretary of State received veterinary advice from experts within Defra, who advised him that without addressing the reservoir of infection in badgers it would not be possible to eradicate bovine TB in endemic areas. The Secretary of State took this into account alongside other considerations when reaching his decision not to allow licences to be issued to cull badgers.

My Lords, the Statement repeated by my noble friend says that bovine TB is transmitted between cattle and between cattle and badgers. Is it not correct that it is also transmitted between badgers? It goes on to say that what has dominated the debate is whether badger culling would be effective in controlling the disease. Surely what has dominated it is whether this problem can be solved by tackling the disease solely in cattle and not in both cattle and badgers.

In deciding not to issue any licences to cull badgers for TB control, why have the Government dismissed the recommendations of the EFRA Select Committee in another place, together with the scientific evidence of a more practical control area put forward by the ISG report and the advice of the scientific adviser at the time, Sir David King?

Everyone accepts that vaccination will be the answer, but a vaccine has always been years away and is more a function of time than money. My noble friend is aware of the frustration felt in livestock areas at the paucity of progress in tackling TB. I speak as a dairy farmer in Cheshire. I am, fortunately, not under any disease control restriction, but a near neighbour two miles away is one of the 1,826 new herd test breakdowns between January and April this year, with confirmed premises 15 per cent up on last year’s figure. Surely the pre-movement regime should eliminate all cattle-to-cattle transmission.

The Statement refers to risk management. Can my noble friend state who is taking the risk in the countryside? A judicial review case is pending on the discriminating and unfair system of tabular evaluation, yet the Holstein-Friesian cattle society put forward a reasoned, independently assessable schedule of value. Why has this system not been accepted? The number of false positives taken under the gamma interferon blood test has also caused extreme distress to livestock families because the cost of error falls on the farmer. I fear many farmers may well say that it is not right for them to take this risk.

My Lords, my noble friend asked too many questions for me to answer in the time available. I cannot say anything about compensation because of the judicial review that is under way. My right honourable friend in the other place made it clear that he was grateful to the EFRA Select Committee for its report. He also made it abundantly clear that he took the view that, from a practical point of view, a culling operation would not succeed and could make matters even worse.

My noble friend is quite right that badger-to-badger transfer takes place in large setts with more badgers and more food. Living in crowded conditions was how human beings caught TB in the first place. Badger-to-cattle transmission is heavy; I understand that it accounts for about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of cases and that cattle-to-cattle transmission accounts for about 10 per cent of cases. It is difficult to be precise. Of course, if you have a closed herd, you have a real problem if it contracts TB.

My Lords, am I wrong in recalling that, in his valedictory address at the most recent Parliamentary and Scientific Committee lunch, the previous chief scientific adviser to the Government urged a badger cull, and am I right in inferring from what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said that the successor agrees with his predecessor?

My Lords, I gather the noble Lord was talking about the government chief scientific advisers. Sir David King’s view was much maligned because he agreed with the conclusions of the independent scientific group; I heard him saying to Professor Bourne, alongside whom he was sitting, that he agreed with him. He went on to say, however, that he thought that in the circumstances a widespread regulated cull could make a significant contribution to the reduction of TB, and that was the advice he gave the Government. Just before we received the ISG report, the former Secretary of State, David Miliband, asked Sir David to give us a view. He put together a group of independent people who had not been involved in the studies over the year, and they gave us a view and a report that was published last year, regrettably later than intended because of foot and mouth delays. I do not know the views of Sir David’s successor, although I understand that he disagrees with his predecessor.

My Lords, the Report stage of the Housing and Regeneration Bill will resume immediately at the end of the dinner-time business. We will not be adjourning for pleasure.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 June be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a requirement that I confirm to the House that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am happy to do so.

These regulations are made under Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, and they provide the conditions that must apply before a lump-sum payment under the mesothelioma scheme 2008 can be awarded.

During the debate in Grand Committee on the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was keen that we debate the regulations coming out of what was then Clause 44, dealing with the conditions of entitlement, as well as having a debate on Clause 43, dealing with lump-sum payments, which the Bill already provided for. The debate on these regulations deals with both lump-sum payments and conditions of entitlement.

The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 currently provides lump-sum compensation payments to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, or their dependants, who are unable to pursue civil action because their former employers have ceased to carry on business. Mesothelioma is one of the diseases covered by the 1979 Act; it is a fatal disease caused by exposure to asbestos. It is a sad fact that it is now the most common cause of work-related death. It is estimated that one out of every 100 men born between 1940 and 1950 will die of the disease.

Some sufferers of mesothelioma are not entitled to a lump-sum payment under the 1979 Act because, for instance, they were not directly exposed to asbestos in the workplace but were exposed through a relative who worked with asbestos. Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 introduces a new scheme that breaks the link to workplace exposure to asbestos, and provides up-front financial support within around six weeks to those people who are not currently eligible for help from the Government.

The amount of money that will be paid as a lump sum under the new scheme to a person with mesothelioma is set out in Regulation 5 and table 1 in the schedule to these regulations. The amount paid will vary for different people, based on the age at which they were diagnosed with the disease. Those diagnosed earlier in life will receive more. It is estimated that up to 600 people who do not currently receive help from the Government will receive, on average, £10,000 each during the first two years of operation of the new scheme.

While no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by mesothelioma, those who are suffering deserve some form of monetary compensation. It is essential that the sufferer should receive some level of compensation before it is too late. That is why we will pay more to sufferers in life, to encourage them to claim in life. A claim can, however, be made by dependants after the death of the person with mesothelioma if that person did not make a claim in life. Regulation 5 and table 2 in the schedule provide for those payments. The amount awarded to a dependant depends on the age of their relative at the time of their death from mesothelioma.

Regulation 4 makes it a condition of entitlement to a lump-sum payment that a person must have been exposed to asbestos in the UK. It is not right to extend responsibilities to those who were exposed abroad only, with different work practices and regulatory regimes for asbestos handling.

The Act specifies that if a person receives certain payments from elsewhere for their mesothelioma, they will not qualify for a payment under the 2008 Act. Regulation 2 specifies further payments from elsewhere that, if applicable, will mean that a person is not entitled to a lump-sum payment from the new mesothelioma scheme. It is right that people are not compensated twice for the same condition so, if they have received another payment, they will not receive one from the 2008 Act. I should clarify, however, that if a lump-sum payment under the new mesothelioma scheme, or the 1979 Act, is made in error and is liable to be made, Regulation 3 provides that that erroneous payment will not prevent a second award of a lump-sum payment to which a person may be properly entitled.

For the sake of completeness, I should add that if a lump-sum payment is made under the new mesothelioma scheme and it is subsequently discovered that a higher payment under the 1979 Act was appropriate, Regulation 6 provides for a balancing payment to be made so that overall the person receives the higher amount.

As noble Lords will know, the scheme is self-financing. It is being financed by recovering payments made under the 1979 Act and, eventually, payments made under the new 2008 Act from any civil damages that may be awarded later. That device also means that people are not compensated twice for the same condition but, in addition, uniquely provides the funding for the much-needed scheme. Because the 2008 Act is self-financing, the level of payments for the first two years will be what can be afforded out of the recoveries from civil damages. We estimate that by the third year of the operation of the 2008 Act, we will be making payments at the same level as those of the 1979 Act. Once that happens, I am happy to say that the level of payments will then be uprated in line with those of the 1979 Act. A person with mesothelioma will then receive exactly the same amount, whether they receive it from the 1979 Act or the 2008 Act.

Overall, the regulations provide for the scheme to be as simple as possible: simple for people to understand, simple to make a claim, and simple for administrators so payments can be made within six weeks of a claim being made. Lung cancer nurse specialists across the country have been sent copies of our leaflet Help and Advice for People with Mesothelioma, which we have asked them to give to people newly diagnosed with the disease. The leaflet gives advice on claiming help from the Department for Work and Pensions as well as claiming compensation from employers. To receive a payment from the DWP, a person must complete an application form and send proof of a diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma. Provided that the person was exposed to asbestos in the UK and they have not already received a payment from elsewhere in respect of their mesothelioma, they will receive a payment.

I am sure we all agree that no amount of money will ever compensate these sufferers or their families. However, the regulations will help us ensure that people receive a lump-sum payment quickly and, wherever possible, in life. I commend the regulations to noble Lords and ask approval to implement them.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 June be approved. 23rd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Minister for introducing the order so fully and caringly. I accept his original implied criticism that I brought this debate upon myself and upon the House. I would add, though, that I have had more than a little help from around your Lordships’ House in so doing.

Mesothelioma is, as he almost said, a particularly horrible form of cancer, almost invariably caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibres. It has been compensated for, if necessary by the state, for many years under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which, through annual uprating orders, has provided a certain level of compensation to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases who are unable to pursue a civil claim because their former employers have gone out of business. Clearly, it would be quite wrong for such people to receive compensation through the courts from insurance companies, which remain liable for the years in which premiums are paid, even though that may no longer be paid at the time of the claim. At least, I believe that to be the case, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm this. Whether I am right or wrong, double compensation was prevented by the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997.

More recently, as the Minister said, we have had the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act, which came on to the statute book earlier this year, and from which these regulations flow. This extended the scheme away from employment and covers any United Kingdom sufferer of mesothelioma, which may have been caused by workmen in a private house removing asbestos so carelessly as to cause the owner to inhale asbestos fibres. He will be eligible for a payment, provided he has not received compensation under either the 1979 or the 1997 Acts.

The regulations provide for how and when a claim must be made. I understand that some 600 people stand to benefit from a payment of £10,000 over the next two years. The department is to be congratulated on combining the claim for this payment with the one for industrial benefits.

However, there are some serious questions to be asked. First, my research threw up a curious anomaly, which I had not registered before. According to the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, of seven European countries, we have the highest incidence of mesothelioma, at 39 per million people, while the lowest is in Germany, with only 16 per million. Can the Minister tell me why this is?

When will the sufferers, who will receive this new benefit within six weeks of application, start to receive the payment? It is clear that this will depend on the amount of advertising that the department undertakes. I believe that only a press release is currently contemplated, but I noted that the Minister said that this was to be issued to lung cancer centres around the country. Is he confident that that will be sufficient? Will the press release be sent to GPs’ surgeries and put on jobcentre and public library notice boards? Whatever the answer to these questions, as long as the Government keep their promises, we most certainly approve the order, as we did the policy on Second Reading of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act.

My Lords, I, too, welcome this new mesothelioma scheme, which, as the Minister said, is expected to help up to 600 people who do not currently receive help from the Government, with a payment estimated at £10,000 during the first two years of the scheme’s operation.

My two questions are very much like those of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I was struck by the note in the Explanatory Memorandum that a press release was to be issued. That did not seem to me to be enough. Would it not be worth mounting a press advertising campaign to ensure that everyone entitled to claim has the opportunity to do so? However, I, too, noted the Minister’s further explanation of how this would be sent to lung cancer centres.

My second question relates to the same part of the Explanatory Memorandum, where it tells us that the department’s leaflet, Help and Advice for People with Mesothelioma, will be updated by early 2009 to contain references to the new scheme. Why will it take so long? Surely a new leaflet should be made available by the end of this summer at the latest.

My Lords, I am most grateful for the support for these measures from both opposition Benches. I shall try and deal with the points raised.

I am afraid I do not have to hand the comparison with the Finnish occupational health data, but I shall see what the department has and will revert to that. However, these are often very long latency diseases; we are dealing now with the consequences of exposure decades ago—40 years or sometimes even longer.

That must apply equally to other countries, my Lords.

Indeed, my Lords. My point was that one has to look at the industrial conditions that prevailed at the time, not now. However, I will see what information I can get for the noble Lord.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked whether the publicity we are putting out will be enough. The key thing is to reach people at the point of diagnosis so that they know that they can contact the DWP. They are invariably advised to contact a lawyer to seek civil compensation as well. As I explained in my opening remarks, that happens routinely at the moment. I am sure that more can be done, and I am happy to take back the message about doing things more generally and centrally.

The noble Lord asked whether one could be compensated for this only once. The answer is yes. As I explained, and I think he is aware, we are funding this through compensation recovery. Typically, in a civil claim, the compensators deduct from that the benefit paid by the state. This is putting the onus back on them.

I cannot tell the noble Baroness off the top of my head why it is taking so long to update the literature, but I will have it looked into. We want to do this as quickly as we can. We are confident that there are effective means by which to reach people who are diagnosed with this terrible disease so that we can help them to the fullest extent possible. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14 May be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are being introduced for jobseeker’s allowance and income support so that single students with children will be entitled to claim the appropriate benefit during the summer vacation of their course.

Benefit provision is not usually available for full-time students during an advanced course of education because they are funded through educational maintenance channels. It is available during the summer vacation for certain students with children. This includes couples with children, where both members of the couple are full-time students. They can claim jobseeker’s allowance or income support during the summer vacation of their course, provided they meet all other conditions of entitlement for the benefits. There is presently no such provision for single students with children or a dependent young person to claim jobseeker’s allowance during the summer vacation.

Single students with children aged under 16 can claim income support throughout their course of study on the basis of being a lone parent. Once their child reaches the age of 16, they are not classed as a lone parent and cannot claim income support. In contrast, couples who are both full-time students and have a dependent child or young person are entitled to claim income support in specific circumstances during the summer vacation.

By making this change to the jobseeker’s allowance and income support regulations, we will remove disparity of treatment between single and couple students and we will prevent putting the children of single students at risk of child poverty. This change removes the present discriminatory effect of these regulations and is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

I hope noble Lords will support the regulations and agree that the changes are worth while and necessary to ensure that all students with children have the same opportunity to claim jobseeker’s allowance or income support during the summer vacation of their course. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14 May be approved. 20th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

My Lords, I regret that I cannot be quite as quick as the Minister has been in responding to what he has said. None the less, we are again grateful to him for explaining the regulations to us. They add another exception to the jobseeker’s allowance rules as far as students with children and young persons are concerned. From now on, they will also be deemed available for work during vacations and will therefore be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance, even though they may be unavailable for work.

Rather curiously, the regulations also allow the vacationing student with a child or young person to claim income support. I may have got my ideas in a slight muddle, but I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me how this juxtaposition will work. Has the general rule that no two benefits can be claimed for the same reason been broken, or is it just the additional child income support that is claimable? Or is it to be one or the other? During our discussions on the Pensions Bill, the Minister uttered the expression “it isn't fair” more than once. I am afraid that he will say it again in response to my comment that the Government are set to miss their target on the number attending university courses. Rather than half the young adult population attending such courses, new figures from the DIUS tell us that the proportion in higher education has scarcely risen over the past eight years—39.8 per cent of 18 to 30 year-olds were at university eight years ago compared with 39.2 per cent in 1999-2000. At that rate, it will take more than a century to achieve the Government's objective. In any event, thousands are not suitable for such courses, so how was the target arrived at?

I suppose that the regulations will help a little in encouraging some students either to start or continue at university, which cannot be a bad thing. But how many of them does the Minister anticipate taking up jobseeker’s allowance with or without income support? By how much will the 39.8 figure rise? Does the Minister anticipate any of them actually coming into employment during their vacations? The Minister must surely agree that all Jobcentre Plus operational staff and decision-makers must be made aware of the changes made by these regulations. How does he intend to achieve that? Indeed, given that the regulations are an anti-discrimination measure pointed out by an appeals tribunal because student couples with the care of children and young persons already get the advantages now being given to single students in the same position, has the Minister calculated how many student couples under the existing regime have been able to start or continue their studies?

My last thoughts on the regulations, welcome as they will be for some, is that the new deal for young people is not very successful. Frank Field MP even went so far as to describe it as “woeful,” no doubt because half of them end up back on benefit within the year—the so-called revolving door syndrome. The regulations will do nothing to help the situation. Indeed, they will make it slightly worse, so how do the Government intend to correct that depressing fact?

My Lords, from these Benches we welcome this change to the student regulations, which removes the discriminatory element in jobseeker’s allowance and income support available during the summer vacation so that single people who are students with responsibility for a child or young person are not treated differently from student couples in the same circumstances.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, will all Jobcentre Plus frontline staff be issued with guidance and training to ensure that the change can be made available to students as soon as possible? Secondly, will Jobcentre Plus contact university welfare services to notify them of the change? Thirdly, will the changes be made in time for students to take advantage of them for the upcoming summer vacation?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was fairly wide ranging in his contribution. It went somewhat outside the bounds of the specific and, I hope, welcome regulation that we are dealing with tonight. He asked about duplication of benefits. Most single students will claim income support if they have a child. If they are not able to claim income support, they can now claim jobseeker's allowance provided that they meet all the conditions for the benefit, but it is not a duplication of benefit. They cannot have both.

The noble Lord asked about conditions for claiming jobseeker's allowance. Claimants need to be available for work to claim jobseeker’s allowance during a vacation, which is an important condition. They obviously need to meet the other normal conditions of entitlement. He referred to the new deal for young people. We could debate that endlessly, but if you look at the data you will see that the new deal for young people, together with other labour market policies and economic policies of the Government, have meant that youth long-term unemployment is at an all-time low and has dropped dramatically, so the new deal has worked for young people. It is right that the new deal is refreshed, which is why the focus is now on a flexible new deal which focuses much more individually on the needs and support of the young and not-so young, particularly in matching the skills that they need. But I do not accept the criticism that the new deal for young people has not worked.

The noble Lord asked how many student couples have benefited from the current arrangements.

My Lords, not quite: I asked how many couples had ended up in work, which is a rather different question.

My Lords, again, I do not have the data to hand. I will see what is available from the DWP and write to the noble Lord. In terms of the provisions before us, we believe that the number of students who will be affected by this change is very small. The number of single students receiving a parental grant for the academic year 2006 was 16,200. That figure was used in the Social Security Commissioner's decision. Information from the labour market survey on the number of full-time students with responsibility for a child or young person is under 10,000 and is therefore not reported because it is likely to be unreliable. It is estimated that the numbers for which this change will apply is small at less than 0.1 per cent of all single students with responsibility for a child or young person.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked whether all Jobcentre Plus staff will know what is happening. The answer is yes. They will be provided with information and support. On whether Jobcentre Plus staff will contact university welfare staff, the answer is yes. Student unions are already aware of the change. She asked whether the changes will be available for this summer vacation and the answer, I am pleased to say, is also yes. I hope that that has dealt with the relevant points noble Lords have made. Again, I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 June be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that the Financial Assistance Scheme, or FAS, offers help to certain people whose defined benefit occupational pension schemes have not provided them with the pension that they were expecting. The draft regulations before us contain further changes to bring about the reforms to the FAS that we announced last December. Noble Lords will recall considering regulations to bring in some of the changes in May and those are now being implemented. In those regulations, we included measures which would raise the assistance level from 80 to 90 per cent, and begin payments from an individual’s normal retirement age rather than age 65. I am pleased to say that increased FAS payments at 90 per cent began to be made on 21 June and we have made 1,257 top-up payments at the 90 per cent level as at the end of June. In the draft regulations now before the House, we include some significant measures which could not be included in the previous set because the policy needed more time in development and consideration.

On the early payments for those members unable to work due to ill health, the draft regulations provide for ill-health payments for members of FAS qualifying schemes, where the FAS scheme manager is satisfied that those members are not able to work due to ill health and are likely to continue to be unable to do so until their normal retirement age. The ill-health payments can be made from five years before the member’s normal retirement age, so that, for example, where the NRA is 62, eligibility would begin from age 57. We continue to discuss with stakeholders issues around the ill-health provision, but it is important that we get this enhancement to the FAS in place as soon as we can in order to get help to those affected.

On extending the FAS to members of schemes which wound up underfunded with a solvent employer, the draft regulations also include provisions to make members of certain pension schemes with solvent employers eligible for FAS. Our intention here is to enable pension schemes that started winding up with a solvent employer after 1 January 1997 but before the employer was required to meet the full buy-out cost to qualify for the FAS.

The Government would expect trustees to recover any debt they can from the employer before turning to the FAS for assistance. Given this, the regulations require the employer to have paid any debt to the scheme at the start of winding up, or to have had no debt to pay on wind-up. Following the consultation, we have included a provision to allow the FAS scheme manager discretion to treat the debt as having been paid where an appropriate portion was paid. Our intention here is to provide for schemes where, for example, the employer paid a significant majority of the debt owed but where the trustees did not consider it worth while to pursue the remaining debt to be included. We think that it is right to expect schemes first to pursue any debt owed by the employer before coming to the FAS for assistance. But where trustees have taken reasonable steps to secure the recovery of the debt, this gives the FAS scheme manager appropriate flexibility to include such schemes.

As for whether the Pension Protection Fund will be more closely involved in developing the new FAS arrangements, I mentioned that further regulations will be necessary to bring in the remainder of the changes to the FAS announced in December. One of those remaining changes concerns the transfer of assets from FAS qualifying schemes to the Government. In order for that process to be as efficient as possible, these draft regulations contain provisions for the PPF to provide advice, and to be involved in the process of managing schemes through the wind-up process and on to a stage where they are in a position to hand over their assets. I hope noble Lords will agree that the expertise that the PPF has built up since its inception will be invaluable in this task.

Given that the FAS will take in the assets of pension schemes that have not annuitised, we have included a measure in these draft regulations that allows the FAS scheme manager to direct pension scheme trustees in order to protect the value of the scheme assets. This is similar to an existing PPF power.

We have also included measures to speed up the process of making initial FAS payments—that is, payments made before the final FAS payment position is known—by removing the need for trustees to apply for them. The draft regulations retain the FAS scheme manager’s discretion to make initial payments but without the need for a request from the trustees to trigger consideration. We are also reducing the period allowed in existing regulations for trustees to supply scheme data from six months to three months. In addition, they would introduce appropriate timescales for producing information concerning the new ill-health payments.

Finally, the regulations include removing the option to apply for reinstatement into the state additional pension for those eligible for FAS. This will mean that any person qualifying for FAS will no longer meet the conditions for reinstatement into the state additional pension. The aim is to simplify matters by removing a step that not only delays the winding-up process but also offers uncertain outcomes for members. We are replacing this uncertainty with a guaranteed amount. Where someone has, before the commencement of the provisions, been offered the opportunity to be reinstated by their scheme, they will still be able to select this option.

I hope we can agree that the Government have so far made good on the promises made in the December announcement, with more than 1,200 people already being paid assistance to 90 per cent of the pension that they were expecting. With this second set of regulations we are maintaining the momentum to deliver key elements of the reforms to the benefit of many pension scheme members. Later this year, we intend to consult on further draft regulations to deliver the full package of changes. In addition, to support the changes we intend to make through regulations, we have tabled amendments to primary legislation through the current Pensions Bill. In my view, these draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 June be approved. 23rd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

My Lords, this is the first opportunity that we have been given to debate these regulations, which are particularly important as the sooner payments get to the recipients, the better off they will be, especially as they will have been waiting years for their badly needed payments. Some will even have died. It is no recompense that their family may get some of their award.

These complicated regulations are stage two in a multipronged series to give effect to the expansion of the FAS announced by Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December last year, as the Minister said. It had taken five long years to bring the Government, kicking and screaming, to that point. The Explanatory Notes say in paragraph 7.3:

“From its inception the FAS has received significant public interest”.

That is a masterly understatement. I congratulate whoever drafted that sentence.

Unlike my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach on the first set of these regulations, I will not chronicle the sorry history of the FAS from the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report through to the action in the courts that brought the Government to that point. Suffice it to say that the amount of money that is now to be expended on the scheme—some £2.9 billion in net present-value terms—is a great deal better than the original proposal. However, will the Minister admit that this is a gross figure? Because all pensions count as taxable income, can he say what the figure is expected to be net of income tax at the current rates of 20 and 40 per cent? As I am dealing with general points, I suggested months ago that it would be both sensible and cost-saving to give the FAS over to be run by the PPF. Now that these regulations involve the PPF to a large extent, why will not the Secretary of State follow my advice?

As for the improvements made by the regulations, the biggest by far is the early payment of pension to those who retired sick before their normal retirement age. Many schemes taken over by the FAS will have paid pensions from that point, but the regulations propose that pension will be paid only from five years before a qualifying member's normal retirement age. Since the FAS rules only permit normal retirement age to be between 60 and 65 no matter what the ages actually were in the original pension scheme, the earliest that ill-health or early retirement benefits can be paid is at age 55, even though, as I said, the retirement may have been much earlier and the original pension scheme may have allowed pension to be paid from that earlier date. Why did the Government come to the decision that they have? Was it to save money, or for some other reason?

The Explanatory Notes give me the impression that this may—just may—be an interim decision. None the less, I am glad that these regulations cover it now, because the afflicted people are inevitably in straitened financial circumstances and may even have died before receiving anything at all. It is small recompense that their relatives may get a reduced amount. I would assume, too, that many are on state benefits of one sort or another. What does the Minister believe is the net cost of this provision? Also, can he tell me a little more about how the interim payments will work? There is great interest in this from the Pensions Action Group.

The regulations also allow certain schemes backed by solvent employers that started to wind up before 1997, before the employer was required to fund the full buy-out cost. Why was this date chosen?

As the Minister mentioned, the Government are now to take on the residual assets of pension schemes that come into the FAS. This was proposed by the Andrew Young review, and I can readily understand why. It is especially important that those assets are not run down prior to the schemes being accepted into the FAS. It is equally important that information held by the trustees should be given promptly to the FAS, especially when pension or ill health payments are already in payment before the scheme is accepted into the FAS. I approve of introducing timescales for this. Incidentally, I hope that such payments made from, say, the age of 45 will not be terminated by the Secretary of State.

Lastly, although I cannot find it in these regulations, I understand that FAS payments are to be increased not by earnings or even inflation but by 2.5 per cent annually. Can the Minister tell me whether this means an annual FAS uprating order, like the mesothelioma one, or will it be part of the general uprating order? I have made the point before that it would be sensible for all regularly updated benefits to be included in a single uprating order. Can the Minister tell me whether any serious consideration has been given to this, or must I live with the off-the-cuff answer that he has given me previously?

My Lords, it was at short notice that this business was slipped in last Thursday afternoon for discussion today, particularly given the long and sorry history of the Financial Assistance Scheme. I know that the Minister is busy, but he has the resources of the department behind him. Those of us on the opposition Benches, who are obviously also dealing actively with the Pensions Bill, find it hard work to have things done at such short notice. I know that the Government clearly want to get this done before the Recess, but the Recess dates have been known for many months.

As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, this set of regulations makes,

“provision for further elements of the package announced in December 2007”—

as the Minister said—

“such as early access to assistance on ill health grounds. There will be further Regulations to deliver the remaining parts of the package to move the FAS scheme to a position where assistance payments are calculated on a basis which is broadly comparable to that of the Pension Protection Fund”.

In normal circumstances, ill-health payments—or what would have been early retirement due to ill health—would have been subject to the rules and guidelines of individual schemes and trustee discretion. Why have the Government opted for an arbitrary figure? All I could see in the Explanatory Memorandum was that they think it is “appropriate”. The arbitrary figure of five years before normal retirement age could leave some very ill people worse off. Actuarial reductions would not be made in all cases under normal circumstances in those schemes. The House will therefore see that FAS members could be worse off under the current proposals.

A model of how a compensation package should be administered in the form of the Pension Protection Fund was noted in the Explanatory Memorandum. It will pay 100 per cent of benefits to any existing ill-health pensioners—there is probably none in the FAS yet. In the PPF, however, individuals can choose to draw that compensation before normal pension age. They must be at least 50, and payments are actuarially reduced to take account of the fact that compensation will be paid for longer. That is the case even where a person claims their pension early on ill-health grounds. Last year, a parliamentary Answer explained how this works: once the PPF has assumed responsibility for a scheme, any scheme member may take early payment of their compensation from age 50 subject to actuarial reduction.

Surely the FAS is also a compensation scheme, and there must be a strong case for it operating on similar grounds. What would be the cost of treating people retiring early through ill health in exactly the same way regardless of whether they are covered by the FAS or the PPF?

I am also grateful to that superb campaigner on behalf of all pensioners, Dr Ros Altman, for one or two further questions. First—the Minister touched on this—what is now the position of solvent employer schemes? In particular, how many will not qualify? Specifically, is the Desmond scheme in Northern Ireland now included?

Secondly, the annuity factors used by the Financial Assistance Scheme to convert transfers out of the scheme into equivalent pensions do not appear to have reflected the pensions being given up. The Government Actuary’s Department has used factors which seem to result in the assumed scheme pension being higher than it would actually have been. Therefore the FAS payments are lower. This may seem a technical point, but it could cost seriously ill people real money.

Moreover, why are the Government refusing to backdate payments for those who have already been ill for many years, only making payments from 2008 or when notified, whichever is later? The FAS seems to be taking the hardest line possible against such people. These are issues of ill health, which lies at the centre of this regulation.

Finally, why on earth has it taken so long to begin bringing together the administration of the Pension Protection Fund and that of the Financial Assistance Scheme? We on these Benches have been calling for that since the first Pensions Bill in 2004. We did not see the case for separate bodies then, and the dismal record of incompetence and delay by those administering the Financial Assistance Scheme since then has proved us right. These are enabling provisions. What will happen to bring the administration together, and when?

My Lords, I think I just discerned support for these regulations in all of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is absolutely right that I should have covered the short notice in my opening remarks; I apologise. As he recognised, we want to get this through before the Summer Recess, so that we can begin to make the ill-health payments, in particular, as quickly as possible. I acknowledge that it is not always easy for the Opposition to deal with such matters quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about costs and whether they were gross or net. They are gross costs: gross of tax and benefits. A net figure would be a discount of a quarter to a third of that gross figure; that is a ballpark figure. He also asked how interim payments would work for FAS ill-health claims. Interim payments on the grounds of ill health work in the same way as initial payments for FAS. They are appropriate when schemes have not completed wind-up and the final figures are not known. He also asked about annual upratings and FAS being increased by 2.5 per cent. These things are not included in the social security benefit order, so it is not in an uprating order. The 2.5 per cent he referred to relates to the cap on indexation, an outstanding issue that we will look at in later regulation.

Both noble Lords asked why the period for ill-health payments was five years. We understand, as noble Lords have done, that campaigners have called for more generous ill-health provision. We are sympathetic to campaigners’ concerns about ill-health benefits in a small number of particularly difficult cases. We continue to work closely with them to see if we can resolve the issues.

My Lords, the Minister has not answered the basic question of why it was five years.

My Lords, the draft provisions provide for claims within five years of the normal retirement age. This goes beyond the commitment provided in December 2007 to provide help to members over 60; we have done more than we committed to at the time. This approach ensures that all members who meet the ill-health qualifying conditions have an opportunity to receive early, reduced ill-health payments in the five years before their normal retirement age. As I said, as part of the consultation we invited representations on behalf of any members who are unable to work due to ill health and who are not covered by our extended proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked me about the full buy-out cost. I missed the full import of his question. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to ask it again when I have tried to deal with some of the other points that he raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to annuity factors. They are used in the FAS to calculate the amount of annuity a member could have received if they had not taken their share of remaining scheme funds in some other way, such as a transfer value or a lump sum during wind-up. The factors seek to approximate as closely as possible the amount of annuity that the trustees could have purchased under bulk annuity terms for that amount of funds, so they need to be kept under regular review and updated as necessary to ensure that they are broadly in line with market rates. The Government Actuary’s Department recently produced revised draft factors, and we consulted the pensions industry before using them.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, also asked about the Desmond scheme. There are two kinds of situation here. One concerns solvent employers with schemes that are not fully funded, which arise from issues around buy-out arrangements and whether a full buy-out cost had to be applied. These regulations deal with those situations. The Desmond situation is where the employer has become insolvent but the wind-up of the scheme started later than April 2005. We need to deal with that in primary legislation and the relevant provisions are, or will be, in the Bill which we are discussing with great joy. We have identified three schemes in this latter category. Many more schemes were identified in the former category. I cannot put my hands on the relevant figure, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord, if that will help.

Both noble Lords asked why the PPF’s provisions could not be adopted more fully sooner. I remind them of the sequence of events. Andrew Young’s report charted the way forward for us. Part of his remit was to look at engagement with the PPF. Greater engagement with the PPF needs to be undertaken to see what expanded role it might undertake. We have given a power for it to provide advice. I hope that I have dealt with everything apart from the full buy-out cost, which the noble Lord raised. I missed the full import of his question. I hope that he will ask it again and I shall see whether I can help.

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my point regarding payments which were already being made for ill-health retirement from schemes before they were taken over by the FAS. There must be some. I hope that such payments will not be terminated by the scheme if they are already in payment. That is a rather more important question than the one about lump-sum payments.

My Lords, I can confirm that that is the position. If ill-health payments are being provided by the scheme, this measure would not disturb any of that. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. I ask noble Lords to support the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 12:

My Lords, my Amendment No. 13 is grouped with this amendment. It relates to a subject that we debated fairly thoroughly in Grand Committee. We got what I would call a reluctant no, but very often what a community could pay for a bit of land is considerably less than its value on the commercial market. That is a reality. We have to be sure that there is flexibility so that where there is a real gain to the community there is some way of dealing with that situation. We thought we ought to repeat this amendment at this stage to see if we can persuade the Minister that a slightly more positive attitude to it would be helpful.

My Lords, I hope the Minister can clarify a couple of points for me. The nature of urban regeneration is that a large proportion of time is spent assembling land for projects. Sometimes that can be just as tricky and complex with very small parcels of land as it is with much larger sites. My experience was that from time to time English Partnerships disposed of land at less than top whack for good reasons. Sometimes it was part of a land swap with a developer where it was advantageous to the public purse to dispose of a particular bit of land at less than best consideration because the swap was more valuable in the great scheme of things. Sometimes we were disposing of a community-related asset that was a legacy from the old new towns. Sometimes we were dealing with a ransom strip. I shall not go into huge detail, but there is a range of circumstances where it is important that the accounting officer of the organisation can make a judgment, particularly over small parcels of land or parcels of land that are part of a land swap. It is important that he retains the flexibility to do that within the general Secretary of State consent, which is how we have operated in the past.

Can the Minister reassure me that we are not overdoing this and that not every single, tiny parcel of land that might be part of a swap or be otherwise disposed of or brought into a project at less than best consideration now requires the Secretary of State’s consent? I understand that the powers delegated to the accounting officer of the organisation go up to £20 million only and everything above that goes to the department and on to the Treasury in the normal way. I would have thought that in the normal course of events the accounting officer could reach that judgment within an overall direction from the Secretary of State. I would be grateful for some clarification—if not this evening, in writing—because as a result of the amendments that have been accepted, we now have a sensible regime, but if we go any further we could end up unintentionally fettering the organisation in a practical way.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has invited me to put on the record our response, and I am happy to do that. We are committed to developing a general consent to make clear the circumstances under which the Homes and Communities Agency may sell land at less than best consideration without first obtaining the Secretary of State’s consent for that transaction. Officials are currently developing that, so it may be published for further discussion, but I am happy to do my best to set out here what it is likely to cover and again to state that I will share a draft with noble Lords when it is published for discussion in the near future.

As noble Lords will know, the extent to which the Homes and Communities Agency should be able to make decisions regarding the disposal of land at less than best consideration has been the subject of extensive debate during the passage of the Bill. It is our view that, in the majority of cases, the agency should be empowered to dispose of land in the manner that best enables it to pursue its objects. We accept that this may not always mean selling land for the highest price, but we also accept that there must be appropriate and adequate safeguards in place to protect the public purse. The Bill currently contains a provision at Clause 10 precluding the Homes and Communities Agency selling land at less than best consideration without permission from the Secretary of State, but it also contains a provision at Clause 50 empowering the Secretary of State to give consent in general or specific terms. These provisions mirror those that apply to English Partnerships.

My Lords, can the Minister give us an idea of the timetable for proceeding with this?

My Lords, I do not know and I do not think that I will know in the time that it takes to get a note from the Box to the Dispatch Box. However, if the noble Baroness will be satisfied with me giving her an answer outside the Chamber, I shall be more than happy to oblige.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a different question. Does he consider the record in Hansard to be publication? I should have thought that it might well be.

My Lords, it is certainly a record and in those terms it has to be properly considered.

My Lords, perhaps I should speak very slowly as I am not sure that everything is winging its way quickly to the Minister. Of course, what I requested—the information that we had been circulated with—was put on to the record, so, to that extent, I am satisfied. He could not see the expression of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, as he described some of the contents and, in particular, the limits. However, as he said, this is a draft that is being worked on for consultation and I think that he has already had a pretty hefty hint about some of the response to that consultation.

My Lords, I had gathered that the subject of limits had caused a frisson of excitement, and that is why we thought it was useful to add the point about consultation on the limits. I am sure that that was appreciated. At present, we do not have a worked-out timetable but we will consider it as a matter of urgency.

My Lords, I am glad that I asked for that point to be covered. The House and, more particularly, those outside have benefited from the very practical contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Schedule 3 [Main powers in relation to land of the HCA]:

moved Amendment No. 14:

moved Amendment No. 16:

moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:

moved Amendment No. 27:

moved Amendment No. 34:

moved Amendment No. 35:

moved Amendment No. 36:

moved Amendment No. 37:

moved Amendment No. 38:

moved Amendment No. 39:

moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41: