:If he will make a statement on the estimated costs of regional assemblies. [173979]

:An elected regional assembly will cost around £30 million to set up, including the costs of referendums and elections, and around £25 million a year to run.

:Given that the Welsh Assembly cost £55 million—four times more than planned—and that the Scottish Parliament cost £430 million, which was 10 times more than planned, is it not likely that the proposed regional assemblies will turn out to be simply another way of squandering money that people would prefer to be spent on teachers and nurses?

:No, it is not. The first point on which the hon. Gentleman might reflect is that our proposals for elected regional assemblies are for small, streamlined bodies, which will focus on delivering services and developing strategic approaches to policy that the Government and quangos currently discharge. That will restore democratic control to the regions and add value. Secondly, he knows that, next week, when the boundary committee presents its proposals for local government reorganisation, there will be considerable scope for reducing bureaucracy and making savings through cutting out unnecessary tiers of government.

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he gave represent an excellent deal for democracy? He is a much more patient and tolerant soul than me, but does he not occasionally get irritated at the ridiculous scaremongering from Conservative Members, who have neither the vision nor the enterprise to recognise the important moment for regional devolution that is almost upon us?

:My hon. Friend makes a valid point and some kind remarks. I am a tolerant soul, but I have witnessed the Conservative party opposing devolution in Scotland and subsequently changing its mind; opposing devolution in Wales and then changing its mind; and opposing devolution in London and changing its mind. I look forward to Conservative Members changing their minds and recognising that it is right to bring democracy to the English regions.

:The no campaign in the north-west is a cross-party campaign that includes many Labour Members of Parliament. Will the Minister allow its representatives to speak at Government-sponsored public meetings that he and the Deputy Prime Minister attend so that the public can hear both sides of the argument? Does he not want to share a platform with Labour Members of Parliament?

:The hon. Gentleman knows that there is provision for funding the yes and no campaigns at a later stage in the process so that they can present their case to the electorate. That is right and proper. However, the Government are currently exercising their responsibility to ensure that the public are properly informed. Last night, I was speaking in north Lincolnshire at a hearing that was welcomed by people who want information and welcomed the presence of a Minister to answer questions factually and informatively. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman objects to that.

:Will my right hon. Friend revert to the theme of cost? Will he calculate or speculate on the money forgone by the northern regions when successive Tory Governments underfunded health, industrial investment and education there to prop up their electoral base in the south of England?

:My hon. Friend makes an important point because our purpose in extending democracy to the regions is to allow each region to maximise its potential strengths and economic development opportunity. It is sad that, in the past 80 or so years, there has been a disparity in the economic development rates of different parts of this country, with the northern regions failing on the whole to share the high growth rates that some southern regions achieved. We are working hard, through the creation of regional development agencies, the Lyons review and other measures, to redress that balance. The Conservative party shows no concern for assisting some of the more deprived parts of our country to improve their economic performance.

:I refute that last claim. The Minister may recall that the 1997 Labour manifesto pledged that regional assemblies

"would require … confirmation by independent auditors that no additional public expenditure overall would be involved."

:We have made it absolutely clear—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Lady should pay attention to this. We have made it absolutely clear that we will publish the full costs. Those costs will include the potential savings from local government reorganisation, which we are not able to publish until we have the proposals from the boundary committee. The committee will present to us its estimates of the best options for wholly unitary local government in those parts of the three northern regions that currently have two tiers of local government. Until we have those estimates, we cannot produce full costings, but I assure the hon. Lady that, as and when we have them, we will produce those costings. I suspect that she will be surprised when she sees the scope that exists for making savings by cutting out unnecessary tiers of government.

:The fact is that the vast cost of these regional assemblies will end up having to be met by council tax. The Minister has clearly not seen the latest research from Cambridge university showing that abolishing counties or district councils will add £110 to the council tax bill of every resident. Has he not heard the pain expressed up and down the country about the level to which the council tax has risen under this Labour Government?

:I have two points to make to the hon. Lady. The first is that the Government have taken effective action against excessive council tax increases. If Conservative councils had been as successful as Labour councils in keeping their council tax levels down, there would be a lower average rate of council tax this year.

:Did my right hon. Friend note the very encouraging poll in Newcastle'sThe Journal at the beginning of this week, which showed that those intending to vote yes in the referendum greatly outnumbered those intending to vote no? Did he also notice, however, that the support would be even greater if the Government were to strengthen the role of the assemblies in the draft powers Bill? Will he take that message to heart?

:My right hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for regional devolution for many years, and she will have been heartened, as all those who care about the issue will be, to see the evidence of growing support in all the northern regions and, obviously, in the north-east. In the course of the hearings that have been held over recent months, we have discussed the powers set out in the White Paper and any possible changes that might be made to them. We shall obviously bear my right hon. Friend's points in mind before final conclusions are reached and we publish a draft Bill, which we intend to do later this summer.

:If he will make a statement on the new deal for communities. [173980]

:The new deal for communities programme supports 39 severely deprived areas with investment of around £2 billion over 10 years. It has very high levels of community involvement, and the NDCs have reported crime falling and employment and education levels improving faster than the national average.

:The Minister's assessment contradicts the evaluation of her own Department, which found that

"community partnerships are stuck in cycles of blame and remain in a continual state of crisis",

:The hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense. The evaluation published by the Department included Professor Lawless's assessment that the NDCs are making progress, and

"should be commended"

"are beginning to deliver a wide range of projects to improve people's quality of life."

:When considering the new deal for communities, will my hon. Friend take into consideration those communities that do not match the formula for urban renewal, but which could qualify for urban regeneration? There are urban areas in need of consideration for the new deal, and I would ask her to consider those areas that wish to be included in urban regeneration schemes and which would benefit from the Government's programme to help such communities. Will she consider those areas favourably?

:My hon. Friend is right that regeneration needs to extend more widely than the new deal for communities. Certainly, the neighbourhood renewal fund is supporting 88 districts across the country, which are making real progress and closing the gap on the national average in terms of employment and education. He is also right that there are other broader areas in which investment and regeneration is needed. That is why the work of the regional development agencies is so important.

:If he will obtain data to allow a market forces factor in the local government funding formula to be examined for the City of York separately from North Yorkshire. [173981]

:The area cost adjustment is the element of the local government funding formula that takes account of higher wage and rate costs in each area. The new area cost adjustment is a huge improvement on the old system, which gave a top-up only to authorities in the south-east. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister uses wage data from the whole North Yorkshire area to calculate the area cost adjustment for the City of York and for North Yorkshire county council. That is to ensure that the area cost adjustment is stable and reliable from year to year.

:Wages and house prices are higher in York than in North Yorkshire, which of course is an entirely separate local authority area, but York, unlike Leeds, does not receive the area cost adjustment. Will my hon. Friend consider changing the formula so that York's costs can be calculated separately from those of North Yorkshire and we can be considered for the area cost adjustment in relation to our costs, which are different from those in North Yorkshire? Does he recognise that it is important for York to get this help after this year, in which it has faced from its Liberal Democrat council one of the highest council tax rises in the country?

:Currently, the funding formula is set for at least the next year, but I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and we may explore the potential for calculating the area cost adjustment at a finer geographical level. I am anxious however, to ensure that we have enough wage data to produce stable and reliable area cost factors each year. My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency, and he will be pleased to hear that his council in York got an increase of 6.2 per cent. in grant from the Labour Government, and an extra £10.5 million in specific grant. I therefore share his concerns that Liberal Democrats in York raised their council tax by 8.5 per cent. The fact is that Liberal Democrat councils cost more.

:I hope that the market forces provision will recognise not only that, as the hon. Member for city of York (Hugh Bayley) said, wages are lower in North Yorkshire than in the City of York, but that residents living in villages such as Nun Monkton in North Yorkshire will be given preference over travelling showmen trying to set up winter quarters in that area?

:I am not absolutely certain about the connection between the area cost adjustment and the village of Nun Monkton, but central Government funding for local government means that rural areas, like urban areas, have received substantially more grant from this Government than they ever did from the Tories.

:What proportion of respondents to the social exclusion unit's inquiry into mental health was made up of people who had experienced mental health problems. [173982]

:How many individuals with mental health problems contributed via the internet to the social exclusion unit inquiry into mental health. [173985]

:Of 950 written responses to the social exclusion unit consultation, 28 per cent. were from people with experience of mental health problems. There were 33 e-mailed responses, and 11 from groups. The SEU recognises the importance of engaging directly with adults with mental health problems. That is why it arranged a series of consultation events that involved some 500 people.

:In response to that inquiry, this week, Mind published a report entitled "Not alone?", which shows that 84 per cent. of people who suffer a mental health problem feel isolated, compared with 29 per cent. of the general population. Since ready use of a telephone was cited as helpful in overcoming that isolation, does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be encouraged to provide helplines, such as Bolton metropolitan borough council's careline, to help vulnerable people, and that the delivery of all public services can play a role in removing the stigma of mental health problems and the discrimination that they bring?

:Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Mind report, which calls attention to a number of important issues consistent with the findings of the SEU mental health project. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the careline initiative in Bolton. The forthcoming SEU report will identify actions needed to improve access to advice and support for adults with mental health problems through, for example, primary care and a lessening of the financial insecurity that can reduce use of the telephone, which is so often a lifeline and a means of escape from isolation.

:I too congratulate the Minister and the SEU on inquiring into links between mental health problems. What the Minister said about the contribution of the internet was fascinating, and raises further interesting questions. Mind's report "Not alone?", mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), found 72 per cent. of respondents to its survey believed online access was or could be beneficial; but 20 per cent. of those, who were either using or wishing to use the internet, did not have regular access to it. Have the Government any plans to enable people with mental health problems in particular to gain access to what is nowadays a basic communication tool?

:My hon. Friend is right. All the evidence suggests that those on the lowest incomes have least access to the internet. We realise that that is a particular difficulty for people with mental health problems, and we think it very important for them to have direct access to those making decisions on such issues. We expect the SEU report, which is about to be published, to make a major contribution to improving that access.

:If I were writing about mental health, I would be inclined to write to the Secretary of State for Health. It is currently rather difficult to know what is happening in mainstream Whitehall Departments, what policy is being drawn up in Cabinet Office units, and what policy is being drawn up in units in the Minister's Department. Could the Minister help us by reminding us in writing what units exist in the ODPM and what policies they are working on? That is a genuinely helpful question. It is particularly important for us to know when the SEU is to deal with new policies, so that we know when to make representations on them.

:I agree that joined-up government, as they say, is important in all aspects of government, and especially important in this context. The SEU report will go some way towards achieving a more seamless approach to mental health problems across Government, but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman explaining what routes are appropriate.

:I was pleased to learn this morning that the SEU is employing people with direct experience of being at the receiving end of mental health services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one good way of combating the stigma and social exclusion suffered by people with mental health problems is to set a good example in terms of staff recruitment and retention? What are my right hon. Friend and the SEU doing to disseminate best practice in enlightened parts of the public service, and in private sector organisations such as BT?

:The purpose of the SEU report will be to improve dissemination of best practice. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the unit's determination to involve people with mental health problems. As she said, a member of the SEU's mental health team has experience of enduring mental health problems.

:What effects a directly elected assembly for the north-west will have on business. [173983]

:Improving the economic performance of the region will be at the heart of the objectives of an elected regional assembly in the north-west. If the three northern regions improve their productivity to the current southern region average, they will be nearly £35 billion a year better off—and most of that increase will be in the north-west, which is the largest region of the three. A directly elected assembly for the north-west will put responsibilities for releasing that potential in the hands of the people of the region, not the civil servants in Whitehall.

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that good transport links are essential for successful businesses? Although there are significant transport powers in the proposed assemblies, can he offer any strengthened powers so that good transport can be developed for successful business in the north-west and elsewhere?

:My hon. Friend makes a major point on the importance of transport and economic development. Certainly the regions will play a major part in decisions on transport infrastructure, but she will also realise that in the north-west alone there are two passenger transport executives, which have a considerable influence on transport investment in the regions. The Secretary of State for Transport has already made it clear to the House that he thinks that more of those decisions should be taken in the regions. That will no doubt be reflected in the Bill that we will introduce.

:We do not have any oyster bars in the north-west of England, but we have a number of other businesses. I spoke this morning to the chairman of the CBI in the north-west, Damien Waters, who is very concerned that the costs of the regional assembly will be borne by his members. They have seen what has happened in Scotland, with the fiasco of the palace that is being built costing 10 times more than was estimated, and the same has happened in Wales, with the building costing much more than was estimated in the White Paper. Why should those business people trust what this Government are saying about the costs of the new regional assemblies?

:I think that the hon. Gentleman looks more like a kipper than an oyster. I note what he says about the costs of the assemblies, but does that mean that his party is now committed to abolishing the Scottish Parliament? Does it mean that it is committed to abolishing the Welsh Assembly? It promised to do that, but has now changed its mind. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the cost, is he also concerned that his Front-Bench team are committed to abolishing the regional development agencies that will make a real difference to economic development?

:No one believes the right hon. Gentleman's bluster. He is talking a load of cod. He is talking about investment in transport, but an extra layer of politicians and bureaucrats with no new money and no new powers, as Jeff Rooker has said in the House of Lords, will mean that there will not be the resources to improve transport. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that business is overwhelmingly opposed to elected regional assemblies? The Lancashire chamber of commerce has voted against them, as has the Manchester chamber of commerce. The Hull chamber of commerce, in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, has voted against elected regional assemblies. How does he explain that?

:I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that at the hearings that we have been holding, the chambers of commerce and the CBI have been expressing views that have changed from those that the hon. Gentleman suggests they held early on in the debate—[Interruption.] Well, reference has already been made to Newcastle'sThe Journal, which has said that business is quite clearly moving towards a more favourable position. At the end of the day, however, the people will make the decision—we are giving them that right. The hon. Gentleman spends so much time complaining about the hearings, but we are there explaining to people what we are intending to do. All the polls show that those hearings are having an effect in raising awareness, although we must wait to see what the vote is. The hon. Gentleman should not spend all his time asking stupid questions here on the cost of the hearings—questions with a total cost of £7,000, which is the same as the cost of one hearing with 200 people. We prefer to consult the people, and at the end of the day, they will make the decision.

:What plans he has to make council tax liability more closely related to income. [173984]

:The balance of funding review is looking at possible reforms to council tax. We intend it to report this summer.

:I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm that the evidence given by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to the balance of funding review suggests that the proposed pay-as-you-earn scheme for local income tax would be impractical and far from fair? Is it not time that the parties in this House recognised that the public know when they are being sold a pup, and is it not time that we achieved transparency and fairness in terms of local government income?

:The balance of funding review has received very good evidence from a variety of sources, including from CIPFA, whose report has certainly poured a great deal of cold water on the Liberal Democrats' over-optimistic assumptions about a local income tax. Such assumptions were well exposed during Monday evening's debate in this House.

:Will the Minister confirm that he failed to read out on Monday all the very positive things that CIPFA said about local income tax? Has he decided totally to reject the idea of a local income tax, even though it is used in America, Japan, Sweden, Denmark and Swinland—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I meant to say Switzerland.[Interruption.]

:Order. I can hear some hon. Members, but not the hon. Gentleman.

:Sorry, Mr. Speaker, that was very Prescottian of me. Was the Minister pre-empting the conclusion of the balance of funding review and ruling out local income tax at any time, in any form?

:Well, I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his colleagues on Monday evening. They invited me to read out the four recommendations that supported a local income tax, and I said to them that, in all fairness, if I did so I would have to read out the six recommendations that were against the idea. In the interest of economy and of proceeding smoothly, I thought that I would spare the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that pain. We know that the Liberal Democrats love to live in never-never land; now we realise that they want to live in swindleland.

:If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 May.

:This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

:Having read the papers all week, I am relieved to see that the Prime Minister is still here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We may all have been victims of another media hoax. The Government have rightly dedicated both attention and resources to the experience of young people in the home, at school and in further and higher education, but they have perhaps dedicated less attention and fewer resources to the quality of their spare time. Does the Prime Minister agree that the principal reason why young people congregate on street corners is that they have literally nowhere else to go? Will he take the opportunity provided by the forthcoming spending review to dedicate a real increase in resources to the youth service and to facilities for young people?

:About £500 million is now provided every year for youth services and for community services specifically dedicated to young people. That will increase by almost £30 million in this financial year, but in addition, we are pioneering the concept of extended schools—just such a school has been announced today in my hon. Friend's constituency—in which we also provide facilities for youngsters after school hours. Such schools are used as a basis for the local community to bring together some of the youth services, so that young people are kept out of trouble and off the streets, and given something proper and sensible to do. Together with the measures that we are taking in respect of antisocial behaviour, that will make a real difference in many of our communities.

:May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for responding so promptly to my call last week for compensation for people who have lost their pension entitlement? May I also welcome this week's announcement that there may be variable penalty points for speeding, as we suggested last month, just as we welcomed his change of mind—however belated—about a referendum on the EU constitution? So we seem to be working rather well together in the interests of the country: we put forward the policies, and he adopts them. Following those very happy precedents, may I ask him to respond to another of our proposals. Will he ask the Chancellor to drop the petrol tax rise due in September?

:Of course we understand the concern about oil prices, but it is not due to Government action. The high price is due to a number of factors, the most important of which is extremely high demand in China and America. Other factors include low stocks in the United States, so we do not see these as the same circumstances as obtained last year.

:I am afraid that none of that will wash. People are interested—[Interruption.] People are interested in what is happening now and what will happen in the future. Does the Prime Minister not appreciate the hardship that a further increase in petrol tax will cause? Last year, the Chancellor told us that he was going to defer the annual increase in petrol tax because of high and volatile oil prices. Petrol then cost 77p a litre and now costs 82p a litre. This week, oil prices reached a new high. So will the Prime Minister now have a word with his Chancellor—he does not have to go to Loch Fyne to do it—and drop the proposed increase?

:Well,

"I certainly don't think that anybody ought to get in any kind of blind panic about this but nor incidentally do I think that there's anything very material that the UK Government can do and obviously one shouldn't blame the Government for oil prices rising."

:Does the Prime Minister not understand the simple difference between the oil price—of course the Government cannot control that—and the tax on petrol, which the Chancellor can directly control? That is the question I put to the Prime Minister; that is the question that he has refused to answer twice. Why will he not tell the Chancellor to drop the proposed increase in the tax on petrol?

:When we are talking about the tax on petrol, let me remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of his record when he was in government. We have done a little research and found the figures. In the last seven years of the Conservative Government, the fuel duty went up by 17p a litre. It has gone up by only 10p a litre under this Government. Of course we know it is a problem, for reasons that he has accepted are beyond the Government's control, but it is important to realise that we have to run the economy in an effective way. He talks about not going back to the past, but the strong economy with record employment and record low unemployment is happening now.

:More.

:Order.

:Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today the Palestinian parliamentary delegation, which is watching our proceedings, and which, as you know Mr. Speaker, is led by your counterpart in the Palestinian legislative council? He comes from Gaza, where 100 homes have been demolished in the last few days and 3,000 over three years—in contravention of the fourth Geneva convention. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that destruction of homes? As a high contracting party to that convention, what will Britain do to ensure that it is enforced?

:I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the delegation from the Palestinian Parliament. I assure them that the exchanges that have just taken place do not represent the total sum of what happens in parliamentary proceedings. My hon. Friend makes a very serious point. We entirely understand Israel's concerns about acts of terrorism, but what happened yesterday was unacceptable and wrong.

:Can the Prime Minister confirm that the 30 June handover of power in Iraq will involve the transfer of full sovereignty, and the authority that goes with it, to the new Iraqi Government? Will that Government be able, for example, to retain control of both their oil revenues and their prisons?

:The answer to that is yes. The new Iraqi Government must have full sovereignty after 30 June. That will give them the rights that all sovereign Governments have.

:I thank the Prime Minister for that very clear reply. I am sure that the whole House will welcome it. On the related question of the possible further deployment of British troops, if the US requests that further British troops be deployed—and that may happen outside the present British sector and involve an extension of the troops' role into Najaf—will the Prime Minister confirm that the House of Commons will be able to vote before any such deployment takes place? Will he also guarantee that any such decision and announcement will not be slipped out during a parliamentary recess?

:The House will be informed, and there will be consultation in the normal way. However, I do not believe it right to set a precedent that there must be a vote before any further troop deployment is undertaken. No decision has yet been taken on whether to deploy further troops, or about where that might happen. Discussions are continuing at the moment, but the important thing is that this country continues to play its full part in trying to create a democratic and stable state in Iraq. There are obviously huge difficulties, as was made clear by the assassination of the president of the governing council earlier this week. Responsibility for that assassination is now being claimed by one of the leaders of al-Qaeda, which shows us exactly what we are up against. However, the one thing about which I have absolutely no doubt is that it is our job to stay and get the job done. We must make sure that Iraq becomes that democratic and stable state, because that is in the interests of the Iraqis, the region and the world.

:My question follows my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). Taking into account the fact that my right hon. Friend is uniquely responsible for the process that led to the creation of the middle eastern road map, and that the Gaza strip has become a blood-bespattered charnel house, will he condemn the murder of an Israeli women and her four daughters, and the deaths of those Israeli soldiers who gave their lives futilely in pursuit of a futile policy? At the same time, will he also condemn, in the most categorical terms, the Israeli Government's policy of indiscriminate slaughter in the Gaza strip, which yesterday led to the deaths of 20 people, including two children? Will he condemn too that Government's policy of destroying large numbers of homes, and take the earliest possible opportunity to use his unique influence to get the road map back on track?

:My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—and I echo the words that he used yesterday—has already made it clear why we regard what happened yesterday to be unacceptable and wrong, as I said earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is quite right to list the pain and grief on the other side, and in particular the brutal and appalling murder of a pregnant Israeli women and her young children. He makes clear the importance of beginning again a process that means that we must do everything that we can to stop the terrorism that gets in the way of achieving a political settlement, and which gets us back into proper negotiations. The road map remains the only way we can get back into those final status negotiation discussions. I will do everything that I can over the coming weeks to see that we are able to be in that position, because it is the only possibility for the future in both Palestine and Israel.

:The Prime Minister knows that I agree with what he has just said, and in his efforts to get the road map back on track he has my full support.

"I think it's true that when plates appear to be moving, everyone positions themselves for it."

:I have no intention of engaging in a textual analysis of what my right hon. Friend said. I will leave that to others better qualified than myself. In the end, the issue will be very simple: it will be between the record of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in government and the record of this Government. Perhaps we should now debate that.

:Let me see if I can help the Prime Minister a bit, because that was not the only thing that the Deputy Prime Minister said. He was asked whether the Cabinet was discussing life after the Prime Minister, and he said:

"Yes, people do talk about it and you get that discussion."

"Every British Prime Minister goes eventually."

:I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that since I have been Prime Minister, it is not Prime Ministers who have gone but Leaders of the Opposition.

:I can assure the Prime Minister that no one is plotting against my leadership. But everyone will notice that he did not answer the question. What everyone will want to know is whether if they vote Blair, they will get Brown. This week the Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister has hit a "really big sticky patch", the worst of his premiership; the Secretary of State for Health gave members of the Cabinet a dressing-down; the Chancellor issued a one-paragraph statement of support; and the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister have been discussing a "smooth transition" at an oyster bar in Argyll. Is it not the case that the most senior members of the Prime Minister's Cabinet—the two people he is sitting between now—have stitched him up like a kipper?

:It is interesting how the right hon. and learned Gentleman never wants to discuss the issues. I wonder why—[Interruption.]

:Order. The House is suspended.

:I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

::With this it will be convenient to take the following:

'(irrespective of the time at which the winding up of the scheme took place)'.

`(irrespective of the time at which the winding up of the scheme took place)'.

`() The first payments from the financial assistance scheme shall be made within six months of the coming into force of this Act;'.

`() Schemes where the qualifying pension scheme was closed whilst the sponsoring employer was solvent shall be qualifying pension schemes for the purpose of this section;'.

'up until 14th May 2004.

`() Assistance from the financial assistance scheme shall be at least sufficient to provide total benefits to qualifying members as they would have received had their scheme fallen within the scope of the Pension Protection Fund.'.

:Nothing will prevent the Pensions Bill from passing into law.

:Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how, as we are establishing a precedent in the new clause, we can guard against having to pay compensation in absence of fault? That troubles one very much, because one does not wish to establish such a precedent.

:Although one might use a variety of terms in English usage, this is not compensation, and there is no legal liability. We are proposing an assistance scheme.

:My hon. Friend said that the Government do not have a legal obligation. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions spoke on the radio at the weekend about the plight of workers who have lost much of their pensions in defined benefit schemes, he said, "My goodness they've got a human case." On the basis of humanity, why should the Minister not respond with equal generosity to people who, through no fault of their own, have lost out in defined contribution schemes, which they were required to join as a condition of employment? In fairness, why would he not then extend help to pension policyholders in Equitable Life, where the Government's duty of care was certainly no less?

:Order. That is a rather lengthy intervention.

:There is general acceptance of the argument that there is a genuine difference between the situation described by my right hon. Friend and that facing this group of workers, some of whom had to join their pension schemes and are now in difficulty. As I describe our proposals, some of those issues may become clearer.

rose—

:I should like to describe the progress we have made, because hon. Members may wish to question me about some of the details. First, however, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North.

:I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I urge him to ignore the beliefs of some of my hon. Friends, as we very much welcome the decision, which, we understand, was difficult and involved the Treasury, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Firewalls have had to be built in, but we welcome and support the proposals.

:I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks.

rose—

:I think it would help the House if I made some progress; there will be plenty of time for dialogue and debate later.

:Will the measure close the loophole in the case of companies that do not declare insolvency, but decide to uproot and move to other parts of the world, leaving a deficit in the pension scheme? Will people be protected in such cases?

:I may be able to cover some of those issues in a moment. The scheme is very much for the insolvent employer. It cannot be about any disappointments in a range of pension schemes. Where an employer is solvent, the responsibility rests with that employer.

rose—

rose—

:I shall give way, then I shall try to keep to my word and make some progress.

:We know that the Government are proposing a 20-year scheme. Can the Minister explain their reasoning? Some of the workers affected are already past pension age and therefore need money now, but some have not yet reached pension age and will still be alive in, say, 30 years. What will happen in the final 10 years or so?

:It is our judgment that £400 million over a 20-year period, fed into whatever scheme we set up—the mechanics have still to be decided—will be sufficient. There will be a three-yearly review of the administration and of how the scheme is working.

:I welcome the Government's initiative in establishing the scheme, but will it extend into the past to cover people such as Matrix Churchill and Massey Ferguson workers in Coventry?

:I shall make progress, because I can cover those issues.

:Will the Minister give way?

:No, I shall make some progress. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think me discourteous, but he has already intervened once.

:Will my hon. Friend clarify two points on how he intends to operate the scheme? First, when he examines the parameters for who might qualify, will he ensure that he does not open the floodgates and increase payments above the sum that he announced? Secondly. will he ensure that as much as possible is spent on the people who need help, rather than on administrating the scheme?

:Those matters are crucial, and I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend on her first point. We cannot nationalise risk and think that a particular case deserves assistance. Given the level of need, the question of how the money will be distributed is uppermost in our minds.

:I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. My entry in the Register of Members' Interests includes my being a trustee of a pension fund, but I am not speaking on its behalf. The Minister says that the figure is £200 million over 20 years, but he also says that he does not know how many people will be affected. If he discovers that many more people are affected, will he increase the sum, and if far fewer people are affected, will he decrease it?

:We are about to publish a report examining the evidence base on that question, and the collection of that data is obviously at an advanced stage. The pensions industry also has an opportunity to contribute more money. As the Government have no legal liability, the word "compensation" is not appropriate—it is an assistance programme—but we feel that there is an ethical duty to act, as well as a need to restore confidence in pensions. I would hope that the pensions industry, too, recognises that responsibility.

:Does my hon. Friend remember that in a previous debate the Conservatives supported a campaign to pay some form of compensation to this group of workers? Will he seek an assurance that they will join him in trying to get the insurance industry to pay a contribution into the fund?

:Even from a narrow economic and financial viewpoint, it would be a very useful investment, given the need to restore confidence and get the word "security" back into social security as regards pensions.

The Minister said that one of his stepping stones was to do more work on determining how many people might be entitled to help from such a scheme. How did he determine the sum of £400 million? Is it entirely arbitrary? He says that the Government believe that it is enough, but enough for what?

:It is a very significant and substantial amount, and it relates to our arithmetic about the size of the scheme. It represents a very significant draw on Exchequer resources, and it will be larger if industry will make a contribution. I set out the four areas of work—stepping stones—and the six milestones. I think that Conservative Members were grappling with those two figures—[Interruption.] Well, milestones are a step forward in many respects. Given their difficulties, it is just as well that they are not in charge of collecting the evidence base. Once we have done that, we shall be able to consider these questions in more detail.

:The Minister is right. I admit that I was confused as to how four steps could cover six stepping stones, but he explained that authoritatively.

:In determining how much money we wish to seek from the Exchequer, we obviously bear in mind what the evidence is telling us. It is a very substantial amount in relation to those matters.

:As my hon. Friend knows, Richards of Aberdeen Ltd., a company in my constituency, has a failed pension scheme. Can he assure us that the new clause and the timetable that he described give sufficient flexibility for hon. Members with affected constituents to be fully consulted before detailed regulations are brought in?

:It is not possible to comment on a particular scheme, and my hon. Friend would not expect me to do so, as there are many hundreds in the same position. However, I am of course happy to talk to him and to other Members affected if that would prove helpful.

:On 4 October 2000, 572 deferred pensioners and 371 existing pensioners at British United Shoe Machinery—BUSM—were hit by that company's closure. My hon. Friend talks of industry contributing to the cost of the scheme. What incentives does he plan to put in place to encourage them so to do? That would clearly improve the deal that the Government have rightly hammered out over the past weeks and months, which is most welcome to those who worked for the former BUSM—not the present company, which is an entirely separate management buy-out situated at Enderby.

:I would hope that £400 million of public money is a considerable incentive. As I said, I think that other partners would want to engage with us in restoring confidence in the pension system.

:Will my hon. Friend discuss the administration process with the Department of Trade and Industry? Many pension funds get into difficulties because of what happens to the parent company, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend will meet the workers of Lister-Petter next week. Problems arise because the pension fund is an unsecured creditor, way down the list of priorities, which means that it has little purchase over what happens to the future of the company. A pension fund can therefore be driven into insolvency when there may be other ways in which the parent company could be made to help. My hon. Friend is right to say that industry should help, including by examining the way in which other creditors bear some responsibility for what happens to the pension fund. Does he agree with that?

:I understand my hon. Friend's point. We are always in close contact with the Department of Trade and Industry on such matters. In Committee and on Report yesterday, we tabled amendments to protect against what some euphemistically describe as "moral hazard"—one hon. Member called it "fraud"—whereby a parent company can, through restructuring, allegedly dump pensions on a subsidiary company. We need to stop such action.

rose—

:I shall give way twice more at this stage, but I must then deal with the amendments that various colleagues have tabled.

:The Minister has been courteous in allowing so many interventions on an important matter. The issue affects several of my constituents, so I welcome in principle the Government's decision to do something about it. As with anything to do with pensions, the devil is in the detail. It is evident from the Minister's remarks that some detail remains to be worked out on exactly how the provision will operate. Will he give an undertaking to all hon. Members that, when the decisions have been made, we will all be provided with detailed briefing material, not simply so that we can understand it but so that we can ensure that it is passed on to our constituents who are affected?

:That is a helpful and constructive suggestion. We are always happy to meet Members of Parliament to discuss such matters. I hope that the process that I have described shows that there will be opportunities for consultation. Later, consultation will take place on regulations.

:I applaud the generosity of my hon. Friend's impulse. I am well aware of the predicament of Allied Steel and Wire workers in south Wales. None the less, I do not understand how he defines "a deserving case" or a "proper" person. Will he explain the Government's ethical case for helping some pensioners in misfortune but not others?

:Recently—and perhaps throughout history—people have lost money when financial circumstances have moved in the wrong direction, and financial arrangements, such as pensions schemes and life insurance policies, have saddened the customer. I do not say that lightly—some circumstances have been serious, as we know. However, in the circumstances that we are considering, many workers were required to join the company pension scheme as part of their employment contract. We argue that that is a special case. It would be dangerous if we were to get on a slippery slope of believing that the Government could stand behind all such financial risk.

:I am grateful to the Minister,who is being generous. Before he moves on to the detailed amendments, will he tell us whether it has been decided in the discussions that have been taking place behind closed doors in the past few days that the trade union-inspired litigation in the European Court will be abandoned or settled?

:I have heard no word about that one way or the other. I hope that, like other parties, the unions will consider what we say today and make a judgment about their legal action.

rose—

:I shall give way to the hon. Lady and then I really will get on.

:The Minister has, indeed, been generous this afternoon in taking interventions. He mentioned the figure of £400 million, which has come from somewhere. Is he genuinely telling hon. Members that no estimates of the average percentage payout have been conducted?

:We are not in a position to do that. However, I have set out the critical milestones for the approaching period. I hope that that will reassure hon. Members that we have a process for dealing with the detail. Our intention is that people will receive a significant proportion of their pension rights. Something that is often forgotten in these discussions is that many of these schemes, although bust in a colloquial sense, still have considerable scheme assets. We are not just talking about the arithmetic of the £400 million; we are often talking about scheme assets as well and, of course, we hope for a contribution from the industry.

:Will my hon. Friend give way?

:I was about to ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw his amendments. I shall now give him the opportunity to do so.

:From what we have heard so far, I shall certainly not. The Minister's case just does not stand up. When he argued, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), that we should not cover every risk, including Equitable Life, he put forward only one reason, which was that we are dealing largely with people who had to join a scheme as a condition of employment. People such as me, who joined Equitable Life, had no such condition imposed on them. The nearer to date that he takes a cut-off point, the greater the chances will be—given the changes that the Conservatives made—that members had a choice as to whether to join a scheme. The further back we go, the more likely it is that they will have had to join. So, on the Minister's own evidence today, he should be arguing the very opposite case. We should be less concerned with those who more recently lost out, and more concerned with the others, because the further we go back, the more we find that joining a scheme was a cast-iron condition of employment: people had to be in a pension scheme if they wanted a job.

:We shall have the opportunity to look at these issues and consult on them, and I shall obviously be happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about them. There are practical difficulties relating to the question of how far we go back. Obviously, the money will stretch less far if we keep going back for decades. There is some significance to the change of regime following the 1995 Act, which is why we think that any starting point should bear some relationship to that.

:If my hon. Friend is relying on a key date that was triggered by an Act that he now recognises as flawed, is not that an illogical date to choose? If there has to be a date—I do not think that there should be—would it not be better to choose the date on which the 1995 Act received Royal Assent?

:Clearly, there must be some date. The point at which the key provisions of the 1995 Act come into force is important. May I emphasise to my hon. Friend that I have said that I feel that a starting point must bear some relation to the 1995 Act? We have an open mind, not an empty mind, on that. If he reads our amendment carefully, he will see that it is deliberately drafted in broad terms as an enabling measure. I hope that he will take some comfort from that.

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Minister's speech. I had duties elsewhere.

:Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will soon be bringing his intervention to a close.

:I shall do so immediately, Madam Deputy Speaker. The problem is that the system set up by the Minister is nowhere near adequate to protect my constituents, including those who have worked for BUSM, who have seen their pensions disappear.

:Naturally, I anticipated that question. I could give a very lucid answer, but given the lateness of the hour and the disruptions we have experienced, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to write to him—after I have taken advice from my learned friends, of course.

:Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a matter of sympathy in cases such as this? We are talking about defined benefit schemes, not defined contribution schemes. The benefit was supposed to be a promise. As late as 2002, the Financial Services Authority's "guide to the risks of opting out of your employer's pension scheme" stated:

"Some types of employers' schemes (the ones called 'final salary' or 'defined benefit' schemes) give you a guaranteed pension. The amount of pension you get from a personal pension is unpredictable".

:I agree, and it is important to remember that many people had to join a pension scheme as a condition of employment.

:The fact that we are debating these proposals today is a tribute to pressure from Members on both sides to help the 60,000 people who have been affected by the winding up of their pension schemes. I am pleased that, even at this late stage in the process, we now have something from the Government. We have an obligation to help the people affected.

:Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confess to the House whether during Prime Minister's questions earlier today, when his party leader claimed credit for the change that the Government are now introducing, he felt just a scintilla of embarrassment at the fact that his party had opposed Second Reading?

:If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reasoned amendment we tabled when the Bill came to the House on Second Reading, he will see that one of the specific reasons that we gave was that it did nothing to help the 60,000 people who had lost out as a result of their pensions winding up. That was specifically set out in our reasoned amendment because it was one of the big omissions from the Bill. We are pleased, even at this late stage, that that matter has been tackled.

:May I remind the hon. Gentleman that many Labour Members have been campaigning for more than two and a half years on that issue? It seems to me that the only time when the Opposition joined the campaign was when they thought that the Government were going to concede and provide compensation to that group of workers. Does he agree?

:If I may say so, we have had several debates on this specific subject, which Opposition Members have raised over a long period. It might well be the case that it was the intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that finally clinched the matter. There were then panic meetings among the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. The—[Interruption.]

:Order. The House must come to order.

:The Prime Minister ran from this Chamber last Wednesday and asked why it was that nothing had yet been done.

:On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would ask you to rule on the remark that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has just made. The Prime Minister was ushered out by the Secretary of State for Health after something was thrown down into the Chamber. The fact of the matter is that it was the Leader of the Opposition who would not come back and take the drubbing that he was getting from the Prime Minister at Question Time.

:That is not a point of order for me. This is an important debate and many Members in the Chamber want to contribute to it. We should proceed as quickly as possible. I call Mr. David Willetts.

:Perhaps I could just explain that I was referring to events last Wednesday. That was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised this point, and it was after that, later on in the day, that there was a meeting of Ministers.

:May I press my hon. Friend—I should point out that he supports the provision—on the principle on which the Government are operating? In the past, assistance—to use a consensual word—has always been given when Government agencies were at fault, an example being the Barlow Clowes affair. It is far from clear to me that ring-fencing is possible. The question has been raised of Equitable Life members. Where lies the distinction in principle between them and the people is question?

:It appears that people were led to believe by various public bodies that their defined benefit schemes were in some sense guaranteed or safe. It has been asked whether the legal case, in which this point will doubtless prove important, will be pursued. This could indeed still be a matter for the courts.

rose—

:I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West first.

:In the case of Equitable Life, members chose to put their money into that scheme because they thought that it was offering the best rate in the market. No Government agency promised them that their pension was secure or guaranteed.

:It would be a great pity if one group of Members in this House argued that we should help the victims of pension wind-ups and do nothing to help the victims of Equitable Life, and another group argued the opposite. Both sets of victims have a case—although they are different cases—and both give rise to the question of whether public bodies have, on occasion, misled people or failed to discharge their obligations.

:Does the hon. Gentleman remember that Labour Members asked questions about this issue a fortnight and three weeks before the Leader of the Opposition raised it, and that the Prime Minister made clear his intentions? The phrase "jumping on bandwagons" comes to mind.

:The trouble was that although the Prime Minister said that he was going to do something, nothing happened. We have pursued this issue for a long time and we have raised it regularly; indeed, we debated it last year and in February of this year. It was the Prime Minister's failure to pursue the rather confused assurances that he gave during the two preceding Prime Minister's questions that caused the Leader of the Opposition to raise this issue, which finally led to action being taken.

rose—

:I want to question the Minister about his proposal, so once I have given way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), I shall try to make some progress.

:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is being most generous. He is trying to establish the logic that, because the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue last week and the announcement was made subsequently, those two incidents are somehow connected. Given the brain that the hon. Gentleman is reputed to have, he will doubtless be familiar with the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Does he acknowledge that, in fact, pure coincidence and undiluted opportunism have led to the Leader of the Opposition's attempt to claim credit?

:The Secretary of State is welcome to intervene if he wishes to correct this account, but according to one newspaper, when the Prime Minister left Prime Minister's questions last week—

:Order. The tenor of this debate is becoming very repetitious indeed. We are discussing Government new clause 34 and I advise Members to address their remarks to it.

:After I have finished this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will indeed try to make some progress. There were specific accounts of the Prime Minister leaving Prime Minister's questions last week, phoning the Chancellor to ask why nothing had yet been done, and calling a meeting—

:Order. I have already ruled on this. May we please discuss the new clause that is before the House?

:I was responding to a challenge, but I shall of course follow your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and try to make some progress. This issue is in fact very relevant to the new clause. Labour Members are saying that this campaign has gone on for a very long time and that they have pressed for action for ages. But whenever people have pressed for action—as we have done—the Secretary of State has always come up with the same sort of answer. In March, he said:

"We are exploring with industry representatives the basis on which we can establish…the extent of the problem, the number affected".—[Official Report,2 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 764.]

"important to have a clear idea about how and where boundaries could be placed around those who would be eligible."—[Official Report, 24 February 2001; Vol. 418, c. 212.]

:Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

:The new clause appears to have been cobbled together at the last possible moment, without answering any of the questions that the Secretary of State has told the House for the past 18 months had to be studied before he could take any action. The question before us now is why such a thin new clause has been tabled at such a late stage, and which does not answer any of the relevant questions.

rose—

rose—

:I shall just finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady, as I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.

:Some of us will want to press the Minister about the percentage that people can expect. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in the Opposition debates to which he referred, he was extremely reluctant to commit his party to public expenditure of any kind? Now that he appears to support a rescue package, where would the Opposition find the money for it—in the very unlikely event that they became the Government—given the cuts that they intend to make?

:The hon. Lady raises exactly the point to which I want to turn. The House, and those Labour Members who signed early-day motion 200, must accept that the Government are in a position of maximum political exposure. I think that they could have faced defeat in the House this afternoon, but they have come up with a package worth £20 million a year for 20 years, to be financed out of public expenditure. We can take it that that is the maximum amount that the Government are prepared to make available to help the people who have been affected. That falls a long way short of the amount of assistance that the announcement led many people to expect. I saw the photographs of ASW workers celebrating on Friday night. They raised their glasses to this great settlement, but I am afraid that, for many people, euphoria will turn to depression when they discover how modest the help is.

The hon. Gentleman has been doing sums on the back of a fag packet. How much does he believe should be given in compensation or assistance to help the 60,000 people who have lost out? Will he clarify the Opposition's position with regard to retrospection? Does he believe that the Bill should contain a provision for retrospection?

:The hon. Gentleman says that I am quoting figures that I have worked out on the back of a fag packet. I freely accept that they are rough and ready, but they are more detailed than anything that the Secretary of State has had to offer. The Department for Work and Pensions has worked on the problem for more than a year, but no practical evidence has yet been offered about the scale of the problem.

"Where assets and owners cannot be reunited, it is also right that the assets be reinvested in society, as long as the original owners' entitlements to reclaim are preserved."

:Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his calculations assume that all those involved will retire on the same day? The key to the amendment is the ability to take the assets in the pension funds in question and to use them more effectively than simply by purchasing annuities, in order to build a fund. The hon. Gentleman is being slightly misleading in his calculations. As for early-day motion 200, the word "full" does not appear in it.

:The hon. Gentleman has been very active on this issue and I would be interested to know whether he regards the new fund as sufficient to address the problems that he has identified. If he does not, what does he think would be a better way forward? I am trying to help him, and other Members on both sides of the House, to identify that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question!"] I shall answer his question. I agree that it would be much better to continue a scheme rather than to wind it up and require the purchase of an annuity or deferred annuity. Ministers have still not made it entirely clear that they are committed to that course of action, but I agree that it would be better. Indeed, it is something that the pension protection fund will do in future. It is another argument for supporting our amendment.

:Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that it is curious that Ballast Wiltshire continues to be able to trade in the Netherlands, despite having so short-changed its UK employees? Does he agree that there is a case for the European Union to look much more seriously at companies that defraud their pensioners in one member state but continue to trade elsewhere in the Union?

:The issue first got on to the front pages with Maersk, although that company changed its mind and decided to support the company pension scheme. Maersk would not be covered by the provisions in the Government's amendment, and my hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point.

:Will my hon. Friend add to his list the Bradstock group, where there was a solvent wind-up that affects many of my constituents? They feel that the Government's treatment of them is terribly unfair.

:My hon. Friend gives another good example of solvent wind-ups that are not covered by the Government's new clause. The purpose of the Liberal Democrat amendment is to cover such people and I fully accept that there was a serious omission from the announcement.

:Is my hon. Friend advising us to support spending £400 million of public money? Is he advising us to support the outline Government scheme, or is he suggesting that the money is inappropriate, that the scheme will not work and that we should, therefore, be against it? I am not quite clear which advice he is giving us.

:I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not found that my comments over the past 27 minutes answered all the questions he may have had about the Government's proposal. The real problem is that we know very little about their proposal. I welcome the £400 million that has been put into the scheme and I am proposing extra assistance, which would not be public money but would use the unclaimed assets of banks and building societies. That would be a constructive way forward that would involve no increase in public expenditure.

:The hon. Gentleman has indulged in a variety of expressions of sympathy this afternoon. He has indicated that he would not rule out the possibility that it might be appropriate for assistance to be given to the victims of Equitable Life and to the victims of solvent wind-ups. As I agree that there is not the remotest fiscal scope for providing adequate help to all those deserving cases, how is it to be afforded? He suggests that the unclaimed assets will provide what is necessary, but is he not at risk of spending that nest egg several times over?

:The House may not face the decision today, but I am sure that as the penny drops about the very limited scale of the Government's announcement Members on both sides of the House will have to decide whether to explain to their constituents, "This is all there is and there is no more", or whether we should aim to do more. I do not claim that we could give 100 per cent., and we certainly need to see the Figures. We are still waiting for Ministers to provide them. The money from unclaimed assets that the Chancellor identified in the Red Book would enable us to do more and we could plug a large loophole in what the Government have announced today—namely, the position for victims of solvent wind-ups. That is the proposition that I am putting to the House.

:Is not the hon. Gentleman setting up a straw man? Most of the compulsion that has been discussed has been based on models such as the Australian scheme where there would be compulsion to save in a money purchase scheme. The new clause offers no hope of financial assistance for people in the UK who were forced—as some employees were before 1988—to save in a money purchase works pension scheme.

:The hon. Gentleman may not be fully reflecting Adair Turner's commission. Nothing in the original statement said that he should look only at compelling people to save in money purchase arrangements; the remit was much wider than that.

"members can be reassured they will still receive the core of the benefits to which they are entitled".

"they will get 90 per cent."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 March 2004; c. 483–88.]

:On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you received notice from the Foreign Secretary that he will come to the House to make a statement about the deteriorating situation in Gaza? We now have confirmed reports that in the last hour the Israelis fired missiles from jet fighters into a peaceful demonstration in Rafah. It is reported that about 20 people were killed and more than 40 were seriously injured. The demonstration was peaceful and had been organised to protest against house demolitions. Many, many women and children were involved.

:I have received no such request. Clearly, the hon. Lady's remarks are very serious and Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what was said.

:I rise to speak to amendments (d) and (e), which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt).

:I, too, should like to join in the congratulations that the right hon. Gentleman is showering on his right hon. and hon. Friends. When he gets access to those policy papers next April, will he be sure to bring with him a carbon-dating machine, so that he can check the age of the pieces of paper on which those policies were written?

:Those people with hearing better than mine will already be hearing the machines at work, shredding various papers that will not be part of the record. That was trying to be humorous; those on the Treasury Bench must not be too worried about that.

:The right hon. Gentleman has fought a valiant and honourable campaign to get this far. Does he think that £6,700 per person, on average, will be a big enough capital sum? My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) says that it would buy £350 a year. At most, it would buy £500 a year, on current actuarial tables. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is enough; or does he wish that those on the Treasury Bench would come up with a better solution?

:No, of course, I do not think that sum enough. If I had been a little quicker when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asked me to withdraw my clause—in fact, it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey—I should have said, "I will do so on condition that you give Government time for the Bill on unclaimed assets that I introduced a couple weeks ago." Of course, £400 million is not enough. If anything, I am critical of the Government coming up with £400 million. Why should our hard-pressed taxpayers, who are earning away, contribute £400 million, when we could use the large sum that has been lying idle, sometimes for 100 years or more?

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government today have not accepted liability for the problem, but put in some money to try to restore some confidence in the insurance industry? Surely he would agree that it is in the interests of the insurance industry to do the same, to find some resources and to boost the amount of money available to that vulnerable group.

:As we both come from Merseyside, I am always loth to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I do. The Government have not put any of their money into the scheme. Instead, they have put some of our workers' money into it. So they are using taxpayers' money. It is wonderful that they have made a move to start the fund at £400 million, but it is not their money: it is our constituents' money. Our constituents are also contributing to a pension scheme which, thanks to the Bill, will now be protected not only to a large extent, but for the first time. That is great.