With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM—which was published on 31 July. Similar statements are being made in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. On behalf of the whole House, I thank the chair of the committee, Gordon MacKerron, and its members, for the outstanding effort that they put in to arrive at their unanimous report.

The issue of nuclear waste disposal has dogged successive Governments. CoRWM was asked to recommend the best option, or combination of options, for the long-term management of the United Kingdom’s higher-activity radioactive wastes, which provides protection for people and the environment. The Government believe that the CoRWM report provides a very strong basis for moving forward with clarity and consensus. We accept CoRWM’s recommendations that the UK’s higher-activity waste should be managed in the long term through geological disposal, as well as the continuing need for safe and secure interim storage until geological disposal is available. We also agree with CoRWM that we must continue to build on the momentum that it has helped to establish.

As CoRWM’s report observes, geological disposal is the approach that is being adopted in many countries, including Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Nevertheless, securing geological disposal represents a major challenge that will require a commitment over many decades. We accept CoRWM’s recommendation that the process for developing a geological disposal option should be undertaken on a staged basis, with clear decision points. That will allow Government to review progress and to assess costs, value for money and environmental impact before decisions are taken to move to the next stage.

Planning and development of the geological disposal option must be based on four key pillars: a strong and effective implementing organisation, with clear responsibilities and accountabilities; strong independent regulation by the statutory regulators—the Health and Safety Executive, the environment agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security; independent scrutiny and advice to Government on implementation; and a partnership with the host community.

The CoRWM report observes that the safe and secure storage of civil legacy radioactive wastes already falls within the remit of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which was established under the Energy Act 2004. The NDA also has responsibility in its current remit for low-level radioactive waste. We have decided that responsibility for securing geological disposal of higher-activity waste should also fall to the NDA, so as to create one organisation that is able to take a strategic view through all stages of the waste management chain, and that is clearly and transparently accountable to independent regulators and Government.

The NDA is already subject to statutory safety and environmental protection and security obligations under the Energy Act 2004, and its contractors are subject to regulation by the environment agencies, the HSE and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Its strategy and annual plans are subject to approval by Government. We will ensure that, in future, the longer-term radioactive waste management interests of Government are appropriately represented in the NDA’s strategy and that it has governance arrangements to reflect its increased responsibilities.

Nirex has played an important role in maintaining and developing the UK's knowledge of geological disposal, including the provision of advice to industry on waste conditioning and packaging, since the demise of its geological disposal development programme in 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I, as joint shareholders in Nirex, are grateful to the successive chairs and the board for their hard work, and, of course, to the expert staff involved. None the less, the Government believe that having two organisations on the same playing field with potentially overlapping responsibilities would confuse and blur accountability. Instead, we are determined to harness the skill and commitment of the staff involved within the NDA.

Following today’s statement, we shall allow Nirex a short period to comment on the proposed ownership transfer and how it could best be brought about. The independent environment and nuclear safety regulators believe that the proposal will provide a framework that they can regulate strongly and effectively. They are content that the NDA will be responsible for implementing the geological disposal programme, within the constitutional arrangements that I described earlier. The regulators’ support is critical, as strong independent regulation is key to ensuring the safety of people and the environment and securing confidence and trust in the delivery arrangements.

On the third key pillar of our approach, we remain committed to the independent advice that CoRWM has pioneered so well. Accordingly, a successor to the independent committee will be appointed to give continuing advice on the plans for long-term management of radioactive waste.

CoRWM has set the standards for open and transparent advice that takes into account not only the best available scientific and other expert input, but the views of the public and stakeholders. It has also built up support and—perhaps surprisingly, given a name that does not exactly trip off the tongue—brand recognition. The new committee will therefore maintain the current name, but its membership will be reconstituted to reflect its role in the next stage of the “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely” programme. The committee will be sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the DTI and the devolved Administrations.

The committee’s primary functions will be to advise on the implementation of a geological disposal programme, including considering the strategy and delivery plans and the site selection process. It will make its advice available to the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done by CoRWM.

The circumstances surrounding the long-term disposal of higher activity radioactive waste are unique. We have made it clear that we are not seeking to impose radioactive waste on any community. In that context, we strongly support exploring the concept of voluntarism and partnership, as described by CoRWM, with the local authorities serving communities that might be affected. As CoRWM recognises, there is a need to consider further how such arrangements will work in practice. Accordingly, we will look to develop further an approach that includes: the stages and decision points; how communities would be involved; the role of democratically elected bodies locally; and the potential for involvement and community packages as suggested by CoRWM.

Disposal facilities will be built only in a geologically suitable area, and we will also consider how geological and scientific considerations will be meshed with other societal considerations as, for a successful programme, all the criteria will need to be met. I invite any local authority—or group of local authorities—that wishes to be involved in those discussions to contact me, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, or my officials directly. Similar invitations are being extended by my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

It must be stressed that any future facility-siting process will be a wholly new process, divorced from the historical Nirex process. Lessons have been learned from that. We are also determined that the new approach will be carried out from the beginning in an open and transparent way, with appropriate opportunity for public and stakeholder, as well as expert, involvement. In light of that further work, the Government will produce an implementation framework and publish it for consultation as soon as possible next year.

This announcement and the more detailed response that I am publishing today—copies of which have been placed in the Library—complete stage 2 of the “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely” programme. We are now entering stage 3: planning for implementation. We aim to be able to move to stage 4—the final implementation stage—in 2008, and we are confident that the sharing of information and viewpoints, and the transparency of the CoRWM process, will have been maintained.

The CoRWM report states:

“For over three decades, efforts to find solutions to the problem of long-term radioactive waste management in the UK have failed.”

Governments of all parties have struggled to develop a long-term approach to the problem that is founded on science and then driven by openness and transparency. I believe that the content of my statement today combines scientific rigour with clear accountability, and I commend it to the House.

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, and for letting me have prior notice of its content. I also echo his comments on Gordon MacKerron and the members of his committee—the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. They have undertaken a difficult, complex and sensitive task with skill and refreshing transparency. I therefore broadly welcome the fact that the Government have decided to proceed in accordance with the committee’s recommendations.

There are sharply differing views in the House on whether it is desirable or necessary to build new nuclear capacity. However, I trust that we can all agree that there is now an urgent need to find a long-term, secure solution to the problems posed by historic nuclear waste. Whether we like it or not, it is there and it has to be dealt with. Successive Governments have put off confronting that issue for far too long.

The Government have accepted CoRWM’s recommendation that geological disposal is the best available approach to the long-term management of all the material categorised as waste. They have also accepted that a robust programme of interim storage must play an integral part in the long-term management strategy. They are right to have done so.

What is likely to cause more controversy is the decision to give the responsibility for planning, implementing and managing that process to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority rather than to a new independent body. Is there not a danger that conflicts of interest will arise from the fact that the NDA, which owns the waste and existing sites, will also, under the Government’s plans, be responsible for implementing the geological disposal? How will the Secretary of State ensure that, in selecting the sites for storage, the NDA will not only act, but be seen to act, with complete impartiality?

The Secretary of State has rightly emphasised the need for openness and transparency throughout the next stages of the process. Is there not a risk that not only the transparency but the integrity of the whole process will be compromised by the decision to place it, effectively, in the hands of the industry? I strongly urge the Government to look again at this part of their plans; the Secretary of State will understand that it is absolutely essential that the procedures that they adopt are beyond reproach and, as far as possible, beyond controversy.

This aspect of the Government’s plans has already called into question the Secretary of State’s green credentials—and I know that he is very sensitive about them. There is a case for the implementation of the plans to bury nuclear waste to be overseen by a body that is clearly independent of the nuclear industry. I know that he will refer in his reply to the statutory regulators, but there will undoubtedly be concerns that that is not enough.

In respect of locating the disposal sites, the Secretary of State has indicated that he is keen to explore the concept of voluntarism. He is right to do that, but what indication has he received so far from local authorities that they would be willing to enter into negotiations on becoming host communities for nuclear waste? Also, what thought has he given to the scale and nature of any inducements that might be offered to local communities that agree to take such waste?

I am pleased that the Government have set out a timetable, although I note that it is described as “indicative”. Given the length of time that we have all already waited for this announcement, it would have been better if they had set out a firm timetable today. Although safety must be paramount, and there is no case whatever for a rushed job, there is an urgent need to make progress, and CoRWM has mapped out how to do that.

Finally, I have looked in vain for any indication of the likely cost of the Government’s proposal. Surely the Secretary of State would not have made today’s statement without having any notion of what the proposal will cost to implement in the short, medium and long term. I should be grateful if he shared that information with us and with the taxpayer. Out of which budget will the costs be met? It is hard to believe that the costs will fall to beleaguered DEFRA, which is cutting its budget to make up for the cost of incompetent management.

Overall, we welcome the announcement, which takes forward an important and serious issue that, shamefully, has remained unaddressed for far too long.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the serious tenor of his remarks and the engaged way in which he has tried to address the subject. One major issue, to which I shall return later, is the misapprehension on his part that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is anything other than a creature of this House. In fact, it was created under the Energy Act 2004, so it is not a creature of the industry.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must applaud and build on the work of CoRWM, and he is absolutely right to say that this issue should not divide people according to whether they are for or against any further nuclear build. He is also right to say—he could hardly be wrong—that we must both proceed with due speed and not rush he job. He was taking no risks in setting that out. I have yet to be approached by any local authorities, but I know that Members have signalled in debates in this Chamber and elsewhere that their communities are interested in those discussions.

I made it clear that we would give further details on the site selection process next year, which somewhat gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we do not have a forward timetable. Financing obviously needs to be considered by the Government, rather than just one Department—and certainly not just mine. That is what we propose to do, in close consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested parties, not least the Department for Communities and Local Government.

As I said, the NDA was set up only two years ago by this House, so the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should have yet another new body, which would further complicate an already very difficult set of issues, does not seem—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman recommended setting up another new body, but our and the regulator’s argument is that it needs a singular focus to achieve the accountability that is being delivered. The NDA works not for the industry but for this House and this Parliament, which gave it a very clear mandate to serve the public interest. So the hon. Gentleman should look again at the 2004 Act—I am not sure whether his party voted for or against it, but my memory is that it enjoyed wide cross-party support. It is certainly quite wrong to suggest anything other than that the NDA is driven by the Act under which it was set up.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the commitment to deep geological disposal as the least bad solution to the legacy of nuclear waste. However, we were slightly surprised by the statement, in that the Secretary of State congratulated—rightly—CoRWM and its chairman, Gordon MacKerron, on the work done, but then said that it is to be reconstituted. So on the one hand, CoRWM has done a good job, and on the other, it is being sacked. That is perhaps as bizarre a decision as the Prime Minister’s decision, following the incompetent implementation of the single farm payment, to promote the Secretary of State’s predecessor and put her in charge of Britain’s foreign policy.

May we please have a clear commitment from the Secretary of State that the distinction that CoRWM draws in its report—it was not picked up on in today’s statement—between dealing with the legacy of our waste and any new decision should be very clear? There should be no assumption that the decision taken today to set in process the means of dealing with that legacy will set a precedent for dealing with new waste. There should be no licence to create new waste from new power stations.

I am also concerned that the statement is rather mealy-mouthed about a key recommendation of CoRWM that there should be a commitment to voluntarism, and no imposition of radioactive waste on any community. The Secretary of State said in his statement:

“We have made it clear that we are not seeking to impose radioactive waste on any community. In this context, we are strongly supportive of exploring the concept of voluntarism and partnership”.

Many communities would be much happier if the Secretary of State could tell us clearly that no community will have radioactive waste imposed on it against its will.

Finally, I agree very much with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about the merger of Nirex with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Clearly, the build-up of skills in Nirex, to which the Secretary of State referred in his statement, is at risk of being lost in an organisation that has a financial incentive to deliver decommissioning at the lowest possible cost, rather than on the basis of safety or environmental concerns. That seems bad for safety and the environment, and it represents a considerable setback for the Secretary of State in dealing with the interests of the nuclear industry and the Treasury with regard to environmental protection.

In contrast to the official Opposition’s spokesman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman has distinguished himself by his failure, first, to read the CoRWM report and, secondly, to remember that my statement today is made jointly with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In the Scottish Parliament, the relevant Minister, who is a Liberal Democrat, has taken a responsible attitude. That tells me, first, that the Liberal Democrats say different things to different people and, secondly, that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) will never miss an opportunity to be a complete opportunist. Let me run through his wholly tendentious points.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were sacking CoRWM. CoRWM itself recommended that a successor body should be appointed. That is what we are doing. We are also keeping in place the current membership of CoRWM until the new body is established. That seems a completely common-sense decision, and the total opposite of his insinuation.

On new waste, the hon. Gentleman again seems to have failed to read the CoRWM report, which says clearly that the technical arguments applied to dealing with existing waste apply just as well to future waste. Deliberately, CoRWM does not take a position on the desirability or otherwise of any future nuclear capacity. It does, however, address the technical arguments. I can say clearly that the principles underpinning the CoRWM report and my statement—those in respect of geological disposal and governance—not only could but should be the basis of future decision making about new waste.

On voluntarism, given that I made it clear that the former Nirex list is truly dead and buried, and that there is every commitment to make voluntarism—or partnership, as it is sometimes called—work in practice, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman thought that my statement was mealy-mouthed.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman complained that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is subject to independent regulation but, within that, should seek to maximise value for money for the taxpayer. That seems to me to be a completely reasonable position for any authority. The opposite is to say that, within the safety constraints, which are paramount, it should not seek to maximise value for money. That seems a completely ridiculous position. It has been made absolutely clear that the regulators will be able to regulate that model in a strong, effective manner. Anyone who wants to suggest an alternative will have to show me that the regulators will be as happy with such a model as they are with this one.

I admire my right hon. Friend’s courage in finally getting to grips with the legacy of our radioactive waste. The question dates back to the Flowers report of 1976, in which Professor Flowers said that an independent body tasked with storing Britain’s nuclear waste was needed. Many environmentalists are concerned that the body responsible for the ownership of our legacy waste is institutionally linked to the body responsible for storing that waste. That was clearly the view of my right hon. Friend’s predecessor when she made Nirex independent. Does he share my concern that the public might feel that in merging Nirex with the NDA there might be on occasion an attempt to store waste on the cheap? Does he agree that it is vital to retain public confidence as we go forward in disposing of Britain’s radioactive waste?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we must retain public confidence. The conflict of interest to which he refers could arise only were there no independent regulation by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, and no independent ongoing scrutiny by a body such as CoRWM, which is being reconstituted on the basis announced today. On that basis, we can proceed with confidence, because the regulators, working in a totally independent way, will ensure that the public interest is met. Similarly, a new independent committee will provide confidence to Parliament and others that the process has integrity, above all, for the protection of our environment, not just for this generation but for future ones.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement because it addresses not only the issue of legacy waste but some of the underpinning matters affecting the future of our nuclear industry. In his statement, he mentioned the phrase, “geologically suitable area”. He acknowledged that the Nirex list of locations may be dead, but can he say more about the process to be undertaken to determine which areas will be “geologically suitable” for disposal, bearing in mind Nirex’s work and that the answer to that question will be profound for those who wish to volunteer?

Obviously, it is in no one’s interest that a community with completely unsuitable geological foundations should go through a long and laborious process without being informed of the scientific basis. In my statement, I talked about the need to mesh the voluntarist principle with the best scientific advice about where is appropriate. The sort of discussions that I have described, which I want to start with potential communities, can bring together the best scientific advice with expressions of interest in a way that ensures that we have not a sequence of impositions, but a dialogue and conversation that uses the science instead of imposing it.

As the Member of Parliament whose constituency currently houses all the nation’s low-level waste, 70 per cent. of its intermediate-level waste and all its high-level waste, I comprehensively welcome today’s recommendations and the work done by the Secretary of State. For the best part of 10 years, one of the principal obstacles to the effective implementation of radioactive waste policy in this country has been the existence of Nirex, which, as an organisation, is without credibility or trustworthiness—[Interruption.] I say that as a former employee, and I know what I am talking about. How long will it be before the incomparable intellectual property and skills of the Nirex work force are transferred to the NDA?

As I hope I made clear in my statement, the jewel in the Nirex crown is its staff and their skill, commitment and intellect. After the short consultation period on the legal transfer that needs to be undertaken, I want to ensure that the NDA and Nirex work closely together so that Nirex staff are brought into the NDA fold in the most appropriate manner. My hon. Friend may raise this question later, but there is no reason, in our view, for any discussion of compulsory redundancies or anything like that. There is a full commitment to a full transfer of Nirex staff on a TUPE basis.

I hope that not just Members on both sides of the House but all players in the arena, whether they represent regulators, Nirex or any other body, will send Nirex staff the message that we want to do right by them, because they are critical to the future success on which this process depends.

I join my colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State for his statement. May I return him to the comment of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) about the independence of those charged with overseeing the burial and refer him to what has been going on in Caithness, at Dounreay, where a geological burial site exploded in the mid-1990s, sending huge amounts of radioactive material into the bay? The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority then spent all its time lying and denying that any such thing had happened. Since then the problem has worsened—there has been contamination on the beach.

The public need to be confident that what happens will happen with transparency, openness and full accountability. Will the Secretary of State now say that any mistakes that occurred in the past will be cleared up by future Governments and that there will be independence in the oversight?

I want to respond positively to that question. Of course, any Government must make up for errors, dreadful or otherwise, that have been perpetrated in the past. It is precisely because of experiences such as those in the mid-1990s that we need the reforms that we are announcing today. It is precisely because of that lack of transparency that we want to ensure not just independent regulation, but independent oversight. Although there have not been many questions about the independent oversight body, I think that our experience of CoRWM is of a body that, without fear or favour, has asked tough questions of all parts of the industry and all parts of Government. I welcome that, and I think that it must continue.

I am somewhat surprised that there has been no mention of the controversy in CoRWM itself. An all-party group of Members met two of the scientists who walked out of CoRWM because they felt that the scientific evidence was not being taken seriously. They could not understand how a view could be taken on risk management without geological, hydrological and climate-change expertise. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that whatever reconstituted body replaces CoRWM, the areas of scientific expertise that are essential to the risk assessment process will be incorporated before we reach the risk management stage?

I think that I am right in saying that one of the two resignations from the committee occurred not because there was too little discussion of the science, but because there was too much and it was taking too long. However, I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend if that would be helpful. As for his second question about the future composition of CoRWM, I want it to have as broad a base and as deep a knowledge base as possible. I think it essential for all views and expertise to be represented there, and that is what we shall try to achieve.

The Secretary of State has said that the new process will be completely divorced from the old Nirex process, but given the type of disposal that is being discussed, is it not inevitable that the new body will opt for the same or similar sites as Nirex? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether Scotland has been ruled out as a site for a long-term repository?

The ball is not in the scientists’ court; it is in the community’s court, and the first move must come from communities that are interested in participating in the programme. That seems to me to be the right order. As for the devolved Administrations, they are, as I have said, publishing similar statements today—in fact, exactly the same statement—and they will be proceeding with the process.

As the Secretary of State knows, his statement was made against the background of the sale of British Nuclear Group, announced yesterday by the Department of Trade and Industry. Will he confirm that two key principles will always be foremost in his mind and those of his colleagues? First, the national interest should be of paramount importance; secondly, there should be a key role for the public sector rather than for a series of privatised organisations, particularly those whose ownership is abroad.

I consider it essential for the process to be driven by the national interest and by a public body. That is precisely why the NDA will play the role that I have described. As I have said, it was created by Parliament with express purposes. When it comes to the appointment of contractors, its best-practice model is the running of open competitions. I think that I am right in saying that that procedure is now proceeding satisfactorily and appropriately in respect of lower-level waste at Drigg.

Following the excellent CoRWM report and his welcome statement, will the Secretary of State be sure to take on board the experience of Finland and France in particular? They made it very clear that consultation and the building of public confidence do not come free but are expensive educational options, and that public funds provided for the purpose are not a bribe when there is accountability and transparency. That should apply both to this long-overdue disposal of nuclear waste and to the position when we proceed, as we undoubtedly will, to the next generation of nuclear power production.

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and he is absolutely right. Anyone who reads the CoRWM report will see how much time and effort CoRWM devoted to engaging not just with scientific experts, but with members of the public with no expertise, and will recognise that time and money were well spent.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned France and Finland in one breath. While I would like to learn from the experience of both countries, I would not wish to give the impression that they are the same. The Finns are adopting what might be described as a consensual or voluntarist approach, while the French have a Napoleonic tradition that is rather more dictatorial, or at least centralist.

Dirigiste.

Dirigiste, as the hon. Gentleman says.

Does my right hon. Friend intend the reconstituted CoRWM to undertake a separate assessment of the disposal of nuclear waste from new nuclear build? If so, does he also intend to develop a paradigm of what that separate assessment might consist of? I am thinking not just of the technical aspects, but of the costs that will be involved, including the opportunity costs of new nuclear waste riding on the back, as it were, of the disposal of existing nuclear waste in new sites.

The CoRWM report deals with that question. It says that on technical grounds there is no requirement for another assessment. However, if there were a decision in favour of new nuclear build, the inventory of waste would depend on the type of build. That inventory would be critical to the method of waste disposal, but according to the report no new technical assessment is needed. What we must ensure is that discussions with potential partner communities are open and transparent about what they would receive.

The Secretary of State mentioned societal considerations. Does that include recognition that the purposes for which national parks such as Northumberland national park were created are inconsistent with their use for nuclear disposal? What options and procedures would be open to any section of the community that believed that a site was being imposed on it?

Someone referred earlier to a veto power—a power for a community to refuse to accept a disposal facility. We have made it clear that in the event of such broadly based opposition, it will not be possible for the procedure to go ahead.

What about the national parks?

I shall have to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the national parks, but I can say that I am not starting by dividing up the country. I am inviting host communities to come forward if they wish, which seems to me to be the right way to proceed.

Surely Nirex’s work in identifying suitable geological areas is still valid today, unless my right hon. Friend is saying that the commissioners of the original report placed political constraints on it. If the geological analysis remains valid, can we not today identify the geography that would encompass potential sites? Would they not be predominantly in areas identified by Nirex in the first place?

I shall not cast aspersions on work that has been done by Nirex, because that would not be right. Over the past 10 years, the board and staff have made serious efforts, on which we want to build. Indeed, we want to build on all relevant information. The Nirex list turned out to be quite long and we want to learn from that. The scientific evidence is there for anyone to work from, but the important founding principle that I have tried to enunciate today is that the starting point is the interests of the host community, rather than the science.

Governments of all kinds have moved with geological speed on this issue over many decades, so I welcome the statement insofar as it goes. Given the need to restart the nuclear programme, which the Government have signalled elsewhere, will the Secretary of State widen his invitation to local authorities to include not only long-term storage, but other aspects of the programme such as decommissioning, short-term storage and even the search for new sites? Is he aware that Sedgemoor district council in Somerset has already had informal discussions with the NDA with a view to bringing tangible benefits for local people from other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle?

I am not aware of Sedgemoor district council’s approach to the NDA, but it is welcome in the context that I have set out today. It is important to emphasise that the statement is about high-level waste, which raises particular issues of interim and long-term storage. In respect of other procedures, the process that the right hon. Gentleman describes is welcome, but I would like to believe that we are ensuring that the first principle at every stage is public safety, enforced by independent regulators. That is key to the whole process.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, despite claims by one environmental non-governmental organisation, there are no plans to dispose of high-level nuclear waste in Nottinghamshire’s collieries or former collieries? Given the notion of voluntarism that he has espoused and the real geological difficulties in the area, the issue should be as dead as a dodo.

I would not want to compete with my hon. Friend on his geological knowledge of the Nottinghamshire coalfield, but I certainly concur with everything he says—

Too shallow.

I am not sure whether that is a reference to me or to the mineshafts—but in any case my hon. Friend’s point is right and is wholly consistent with the statement that I have made today.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on both safety and security in his statement, but I was a little surprised not to hear any mention of the civil nuclear constabulary, of which I am a great admirer. The geological disposal scheme will add considerably to the headaches that that organisation will have to face. What plans does the Secretary of State have either to expand it or reform it, and where will the money come from?

For obvious reasons, we do not have widespread discussion of the counter-terrorism measures that we take in respect of those sites. The work that is done by the constabulary is very important, but it would not be judicious to venture further into that area. However, many people believe that long-term geological disposal is by far the safest security option, compared with the interim storage we have at present.

I heard what my right hon. Friend had to say about the CoRWM report in relation to new waste from a new generation of stations, but when the Trade and Industry Committee took evidence we were told that the radioactive waste would not be of as great a volume, but would be much more radioactive than that from the existing stations. That has implications for geological disposal. Will my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy continue to try to reach some understanding that no new build should take place unless the appropriate geological depository is in place?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s long-term interest in the issue. It has certainly been the case that the failure to come to terms with a waste-disposal option has blighted the discussion of nuclear power in this country and I hope that today’s statement will allow us to debate the pros and cons of nuclear power with the waste issue in a different context. The discussions that he mentions should continue, and he is right about the difference between volume and activity, but CoRWM made it clear that in technical terms the principles that it set out would continue to apply. It is important to emphasise, however, that it did not take a view on the desirability or otherwise of new nuclear build.

As the Member of Parliament for Nirex—

For Nirex?

To say that Nirex is based in my constituency might be a better way to put it. I hope that the Secretary of State will move as quickly as possible to reassure my constituents who work for Nirex about their future. I simply cannot understand why the Secretary of State has made this decision. On the one hand, he says that it is because of the potentially overlapping responsibilities with the NDA, and on the other he tells the Liberal Democrat spokesman that it is a cost-cutting measure. The Secretary of State also claims that he wants to retain the expertise and the jewel in the crown status of Nirex. He should save much time and effort and keep Nirex as an independent body that gives independent advice on one of the most important issues in the country—the safe disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. The fundamental issue that has weighed with me and my colleagues from the DTI and elsewhere when we discuss this issue is that it is far more effective to regulate one organisation that is responsible across the whole cycle than it is to regulate two organisations with overlapping responsibilities. The discussion that I had with the Liberal Democrat spokesman about costs was in a different context and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise. I hope that he will join me in sending the important message to his constituents that the work they do is invaluable, and the skills they have need to be preserved and delivered in the most effective way in the new organisation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the design of any repository will ensure that the waste is indefinitely retrievable and that any design that proposed sealing the waste would be rejected? Is he inclined to build on the recommendation from the royal commission on environmental pollution that the nation’s plutonium stockpile should be defined as waste?

On the first question, the CoRWM report addressed the issue of retrievability in some depth. I do not know whether my hon. Friend considers 100 years to be a short or long time, but CoRWM said that retrievability would be preserved for up to 100 years. In the context of nuclear waste that would last for 10,000 years, it proposed that after about 100 years—I do not suppose that it intends to be kept to the month—there should be a ceiling on the waste emplacement. That is the best scientific advice, although I do not know whether that will reassure my hon. Friend.

In respect of the royal commission on environmental pollution, we have responded to that at length and I am happy to go into details with my hon. Friend on another occasion. The report made 36 recommendations and we should perhaps consider them in a different context.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on facing up to this vexed issue, and not before time. In terms of the way in which cost is apportioned, does he think that a distinction should be made between the legacy waste from, for example, the nuclear weapons development programme and the waste directly generated by power generation?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to new build, because we have made it clear that waste costs should be incorporated into any new plans. The costing exercises are difficult and complex, and as they emerge I hope that they will show in the round how the nation can face up to the long-term financial as well as scientific challenge.

May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today? I wish to register an interest as I am chairman of the all-party nuclear energy group. From that, the House may gather that I am pro-nuclear.

Although I share some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) about putting everything into the NDA, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) assures me that that is the right way to go, and I look forward to examining the arguments as time goes on. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that it is important to have retrievable waste that one day, when we are more technologically aware and expert, we might be able to use as an energy source. In addition, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ignore the chirpings from Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members, who make the sort of noises in this House that the Scottish National party makes in Scotland.

Will my right hon. Friend allay my fears about the openness and transparency that the entire industry—as well as both Opposition and Labour Members—says are so necessary? Does he agree that it is important that we know what is going on at every stage?

My hon. Friend speaks on this issue with considerable expertise, and I completely agree with him—I want that openness and transparency as much as he and the Opposition do. What is going on should be transparent to me, as Secretary of State, but also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the House and to the wider public. If anything has been made clear by the 30-plus years of what CoRWM calls failure, it is that a secretive approach—sometimes described as “decide, announce, defend”, although it often became “decide, announce, defend, abandon”—does not work. We must have full openness at every stage, and public confidence is critical.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) wants to look at the details, and I said in my statement that a detailed response to all of CoRWM’s recommendations has been made available to the House. It contains more detail than I was able to supply in my statement. If my hon. Friend reads that, he will see that the Government are committed to transparency and to independent and rigorous scrutiny and intervention by the statutory regulators, which are the only bodies with statutory responsibility in these matters at the moment. Although Nirex has played an important role in advising the industry, it does not have any statutory powers. The independent regulators are the only bodies with statutory powers, either under the current system or in the future. I believe that that is the right approach, and the existence of an additional oversight committee made up of scientists and lay people means that we have an important double lock on these matters.

I share the admiration expressed already for the courage shown by my right hon. Friend, but despite his assurances about the independence of the oversight, what is the rationale behind designing an infrastructure that contains an obvious and inherent financial conflict of interest and then saying that everything will be all right because it will be regulated? He had an opportunity to set up an organisation that was clearly and obviously independent.

The simple answer is that having two organisations with overlapping responsibilities would blur precisely that accountability that is so necessary.

Nonsense!

The hon. Gentleman calls that nonsense, but if he thinks that regulating two organisations with overlapping responsibilities would help the regulatory process, enhance transparency and tackle confusion, I am afraid that he will have to return to the land of the living.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) made an important point. The NDA structure contains clear checks and balances, as set out in debates held in this House and in the legislation that we have passed. That is the best safeguard for the sort of independent, effective and properly regulated waste management system that we need.

BILL PRESENTED

Local Planning Authorities (Energy Generation and Efficiency) Bill

Colin Challen presented a Bill to enable local authorities to make requirements for energy saving in local development plans and in the determination of planning applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed [Bill 232].

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of mini motos; and for connected purposes.

I aim to show that legislation on miniature motorbikes, which exist in a legal grey area, is necessary, popular and overdue. A new law is necessary because the situation that exists for my constituents, and for those of many hon. Members, is intolerable. I am introducing this Bill on behalf of the people whom the problem affects and on behalf of the legitimate motorcyclists to whom it is giving a bad name.

Today, people will be tearing around roads and paths in South Swindon on mini motos, terrifying residents. In my first year as an MP, that has been one of the main antisocial behaviour problems that my constituents have come to me with, and they have every reason to expect action.

I can tell those who have never seen a mini moto that they are replica motorbikes, only a quarter of the size of a regular bike but with a two-stroke engine that can take them to over 50 miles per hour. In theory, they are to be used only on private land, but in practice they are driven over public land, paths and, most terrifyingly, on roads. In Swindon in just one small period of this year—between 1 May and 19 June—there were 128 complaints about antisocial behaviour and dangerous driving involving mini motos. That amounts to about five complaints every two days.

I have raised the issue of minibike misuse on the paths between Eldene and Liden with PC Phil Young, and various similar problems in the Parks and Toothill areas with Inspector Steve Bridge. The police in Swindon are doing fantastic work, often involving crushing illegally ridden mini motos, but they are fighting against the tide. According to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, there has been a twentyfold increase in recent years in the number of mini motos imported into the UK from China, and representatives of the motorcycle industry believe that there could be 300,000 machines in circulation.

However, the police in Swindon are not required by the Home Office to collate the number of accidents, serious or otherwise, that mini motos cause. That is a problem that I want rectified. I want the Home Office to supply updated guidance to chief constables to require police to report mini moto accidents separately. We need access to statistics to see if the number of injuries caused by mini motos is exploding at the same rate as that at which the bikes are flooding in.

I can quote much anecdotal evidence on this matter from my constituency and from across the country. For example, one of Swindon’s Labour councillors, Barrie Thompson, recently received a complaint from an elderly disabled woman who said that she was harassed and nearly knocked over on the path that goes up to her house by a person riding a mini moto. In a separate incident in Peterborough, a 71-year-old woman was run into by a gang of young people on minibikes and received a broken foot and fractured knee. In addition, the brain injury association Headway is backing the crackdown on the riding of mini motos, on the ground that it could cause brain injury. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has his own mini moto story to tell. His leg was gashed as a result of what happened, and I am sure that he will tell the House about it at some point in the future. The Government believe that existing legislation provides adequate powers to combat mini moto misuse. However, that argument offers no consolation for my constituents who are putting up with the nuisance. Clearly, more could be done.

Mini motos have hurt children and can wreck lives, and it is entirely unreasonable that they should be treated by the law as toys. There has been confusion among enforcers—that is, magistrates and the police—about whether they are considered to be motor vehicles. Apparently, magistrates have tended to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt in these cases, and the police have been uncertain about which part of the legislation should be used in prosecutions.

I am glad that the Department for Transport acknowledges this problem and that it has issued guidance making it clear that it regards mini motos as motor vehicles. However, in the absence of legislation the Department has left clarification to be determined by the results of further court cases. The High Court has ruled on motorised scooters but not yet on mini motos. Treating mini motos as motor scooters, which are allowed on the roads, would not be an adequate solution.

Mini motos are not roadworthy. Unless they are modified, they do not come up to European construction requirements. By banning mini motos from the road we would send a clear message to enforcers and consumers, and the vehicles could still be enjoyed on tracks created for the purpose.

This measure would be a popular move with hon. Members, with the motorcycle industry and with my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill two weeks ago to deal with scrambler bikes and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) is introducing a similar Bill next week. Early-day motion 2040, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was signed by 79 MPs and calls on the Government to ensure that minibikes are clearly defined as motor vehicles. That shows that the House wants to see action on tightening the regulation of off-road bikes.

The industry does, too. Honda, based in my constituency, is supporting motorcycle industry initiatives to tackle poor-quality, far eastern minibikes, which are flooding the UK market. My constituents also support action—78 per cent. of people in Swindon say that they want a ban, as shown in a poll in my local paper, the Swindon Advertiser, which has been hugely supportive of my campaign.

My constituents, including the police who wish to reach offenders, and youngsters and their parents who are actively involved in the fast-growing sport, have engaged extremely positively with me about the Bill. The commercial manager of Swindon speedway stadium is keen to work constructively with Swindon youth services and the police to tackle the disruptive use of mini motos. I have received a further positive offer of support from a track owner, Andrew Watts, and my constituent, James Carter, a parent involved in the sport. Mr. Carter is actively involved, together with his young sons, and he travels to a safe track to supervise their sport. He is confident that those who are involved with mini motos would welcome the Bill and he is encouraged by the local alternatives suggested as a result of the debate.

Support for my Bill has come from parents, police, youth services and members of the public. They want to see children having fun, but not endangering people’s lives—or their own—and blighting neighbourhoods. Instead of a complete ban, the best approach combines both enforcement and managed provision. The law needs to be changed so that mini motos are seen as vehicles, not toys, and are driven off our streets completely. We should legislate clearly in a way that the police, the courts and my constituents can understand and have trust in. I hope that I have convinced the House that this small Bill is what we need to defeat a massive menace.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Snelgrove, Ms Diana R. Johnson, Dr. Nick Palmer, Helen Jones, Chris Bryant, Barbara Keeley, Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Ken Purchase and Mr. David Drew.

Mini Motos (Regulation)

Anne Snelgrove accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of mini motos, and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed [Bill 233].

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Government were cutting 21,000 NHS jobs, yet when his own health spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), was asked by Andrew Neil a few days ago whether he and the Opposition claimed that these were job cuts and that 20,000 people currently in jobs would lose them, he replied that he did not claim that. Should not the Leader of the Opposition come back before the House to apologise for misleading us, however inadvertently, by using figures that his own spokesman admits are wrong?

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to continue an argument that occurred in our earlier proceedings, but there will be other more appropriate opportunities for rejoining it.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Governments amendments: Nos. 28 to 30, 61, 65 and 69.

As well as moving new clause 1, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I shall speak to Government amendments Nos. 28 to 30, 61, 65 and 69.

The new clause deals with the accounts scrutiny regime for charitable companies—that is, charities established in the legal form of a company. One consequence is that smaller charitable companies are subject to a regime whose requirements are designed for small businesses, not small charities. In the debate on the Companies Bill in the other place, Lord Hodgson tabled Opposition amendments to take small charitable companies out of the company law regime for accounts scrutiny, placing them instead within the charity law regime. The Government accepted the merit of that idea, took representations from a number of umbrella bodies for charities and professional accountancy bodies and received a favourable response, so we agreed to proceed with the idea.

At its heart is the sensible proposition that we should treat charitable companies primarily as charities, albeit ones that happen to be set up in company form, rather than primarily as companies that happen to have charitable status. To give effect to that, changes are needed to the Companies Bill and the Charities Bill. The necessary Companies Bill amendments were made on Report last week and the principal amendment to the Charities Bill is set out in new clause 1.

The new clause contains a new order-making power, allowing Ministers to amend the Charities Act 1993 and the Bill to reflect changes in company law—the changes that will be made by the Companies Bill when it comes into force. The result will be that we can apply the same accounts scrutiny requirements—professional audit for those with an income above £500,000, independent examination for those between £10,000 and £500,000 and no compulsory scrutiny for those below £10,000—to all charities, regardless of their legal form. The order-making power will also allow the group accounting requirements to be changed so that, in preparation of group accounts, a group of charities headed by a charitable company is put in the same position as a group headed by any other form of charity.

The Minister mentions the impact of the proposals, but how many charities would benefit from it?

I believe that I am right in saying that about 15 per cent. of the UK’s 190,000 charities are in that category, so it amounts to a significant number.

I was about to say that because the order-making power will allow Ministers to amend primary legislation, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and amendment No. 61 achieves that.

Amendment No. 65 is designed to ensure that the power to make consequential amendments under clause 75 can be used to amend the Companies Bill, when it is enacted, in line with amendments that the Bill makes to the Companies Act 1985.

Amendment No. 30 is the other substantive amendment in the group. It amends new section 73E, inserted by clause 38 into the Charities Act 1993, and arises from the diligence of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)—and not for the first time, either. It is designed to give the court the power to grant relief to the trustees of a charitable incorporated organisation. Section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 gives the court a power to grant relief to trustees, but the charity trustees of a CIO are not trustees within section 61 of that Act, mainly because the CIO is a new institution. Section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 gives the court the power to grant relief to the officers of a company, but that, too, does not at present apply in the case of a CIO. The amendment therefore provides for section 727 of the Companies Act to have effect in relation to the charity trustees of a CIO.

In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I would propose an amendment in response to his previous amendment that identified the gap I have just described. I am grateful to him for identifying it.

Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 69 are minor consequential amendments to new clause 1 and amendment No. 30.

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister and to thank him for his generous words about the contribution that my noble Friend Lord Hodgson and I made to the development of the new clause and one of the Government amendments.

The Minister has confirmed that the procedure under new clause 1 is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which is appropriate and we welcome it. We support the extension of the new provision covered by amendment No. 28 to charities that are companies, and I welcome the movement to afford protection to the trustees of new charitable incorporated organisations.

I shall not detain the House further on this group.

I, too, thank the Minister for his opening remarks. One of the best aspects of the Bill is that it has somewhat alleviated the onerous nature of company law, especially for smaller charities but also for others who might want to pursue a different path. The amendments are designed to further the spirit of reconciliation between new organisational statuses, such as that of charitable incorporated organisations, and existing company and charity law.

In that spirit, I, too, am happy to support the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Property from trusts in residuary legacies

‘After section 36(3) of the Charities Act 1993 (c. 10) insert—

“(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to any such land that is left in a will to a charity.

(3B) Subsection (3A) above shall not preclude charity trustees commissioning a report in accordance with subsection (3) if they so wish.”.’.—[Martin Horwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 35.

New clause 3 addresses a problem that has, I think, arisen by accident. Before the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993, section 29 of the Charities Act 1960 provided that no land held by or in trust for a charity that—this is an important phrase—had been occupied for the purposes of the charity could be sold, leased for more than 22 years, mortgaged or charged to security without the consent of the court or the Charity Commission.

Section 32 of the 1992 Act superseded the 1960 Act and imposed an overall prohibition of disposal of any land held by, or in trust, for a charity without an order from the court or the Charity Commission. That section was repealed and re-enacted without alteration as section 36 of the 1993 Act, which is the crucial provision that we are addressing.

The effect of the rather rushed 1993 legislation was inadvertently to catch a category of land held in trust for charities, left in wills as a charitable bequest, which had not been included before 1992, because the original Act covered only land held in trust that had been occupied for the purposes of the charity. The section 36 requirements were perfectly reasonable for the normal disposal of land by charities, which had to acquire a proper valuation and go through various procedures set out in the section. However, by applying such procedures to land left in legacies, the 1993 Act inadvertently gave charities a new and serious burden.

I shall give the Minister a few examples. Macmillan Cancer Support derives about 33 per cent. of its total income from legacies. It says:

“We spend, as best we can calculate it, some £14,500 a year on section 36 reports. This includes not only the surveyor’s fee (and VAT which we cannot reclaim) but also the costs of staff in considering, processing the information, passing it to Trustees for approval, all communication with estate solicitors and co-beneficiaries and ancillary costs such as postage and photocopying…There is without doubt an adverse effect on the charity overall. The majority of the reports simply confirm what the estate Executor has already informed us about the property’s broad state and value, which will usually include, for instance, an offer higher than probate value, or the possibility of development. In a small number of estates, the s36 valuation does show a higher value than the estate administrator has believed appropriate; however, it is not always the case that the market then offers the higher price.”

It calculates that

“the time spent in considering, processing and forwarding the reports represents nearly four weeks of a person’s time each year, for almost no benefit”.

Macmillan makes the important point that the fiduciary duty on executors would protect assets held in trust for the charity by the executor. It states:

“We feel that little additional protection is given to the Charity’s trustees beyond that which already exists by virtue of the Executor’s duty to maximise assets.”

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for raising this important issue. The letters from various charities that he read out were quite compelling and I hope that I can help to offer a way forward. I shall also address our amendment No. 35.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of new clause 3 is to change the regime under which trustees may sell land belonging to a charity, where the land has been given to it through a bequest made under a will. One normal feature of that regime is that the charity trustees must obtain a surveyor’s report about the proposed sale. I have seen a letter from the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners—STEP. I suspect the organisation has also written to other Front Benchers. The letter raises a number of concerns, which I have discussed with the Charity Commission. It seems pretty clear that the question is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, one of law but more of perception or administration—either the perception of the charities or the administration of the commission, as I shall explain when I have set out the legal position.

The concern seems to be that, at present, separate reports have to be obtained in some cases where land is given to a charity in a will. One report has to be obtained by the personal representatives of the donor—that is, of the estate—and another by the trustees of the beneficiary charity or charities, resulting in unnecessary expense for the charity. I have talked to the Charity Commission about that concern at some length. In its view, the legal position is that there is never any need for double compliance with the regime.

If the estate’s personal representatives sell the land in the course of their administration of the donor’s estate, the charity land disposal regime does not apply. If the administration of the estate has been completed and the land belongs to the charity, the personal representatives can sell it only as agents of the charity, or as its trustees. The charity trustees must comply with the charity land disposal regime, but their personal representatives need not. I hope that that makes clear the legal position on double compliance.

STEP says in its letter—the point was repeated by the hon. Gentleman—that the situation is particularly difficult for legacy-receiving charities with non-executive trustees, because a surveyor’s report and a certification of compliance with the procedures must be obtained by the charity trustee personally. I checked with the Charity Commission on that point, and found that a whole range of powers given to trustees can be delegated to members of staff; the section 36 power is one of them. There is no need for the trustees personally to give approval—that was one of the concerns raised by STEP. I have made the position on double compliance clear, but to enhance understanding on all sides I have agreed with the Charity Commission that it will listen to representations about the practical implementation of the law on the subject, so that we can clear up any misperceptions or administrative problems.

If the intention behind the amendment was the removal of the need for anyone to follow the normal requirements of the charity land disposal regime when selling land left to a charity as a legacy, there would be no justification for it. In other words, charity trustees should not be exempt simply because land has been given to them in a will. The regime is sensible, and it clearly encourages the trustees to carry out their duties properly and effectively; in addition, it ensures that, if charity land is sold, a proper price is obtained, so it is a necessary protection for charities and their beneficiaries. Having said that, the necessary content of the surveyor’s report is set out in regulations that are nearly 15 years old, so there is a question of administration, too. I said in Committee that the Government have undertaken to review those regulations, with a view to simplifying them, thereby reducing the costs of surveyors’ reports.

Finally, although we note the intentions behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, as he set them out, I am advised that its wording will have quite a different effect. If charity trustees have followed the requirements set out in section 36(3) of the Charities Act 1993, they need not seek the authority of the commission for the sale. I know that this is not his intention, but if we removed the possibility of complying with those requirements, trustees selling land that they received in a will would always have to seek the authority of the commission. In practice, that would involve complying once again with a bureaucratic requirement.

I am a little unclear about what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. He seems to say that the charity’s trustees would not have to obtain a valuation when they inherit property that they sell straight away. However, clearly, there must be a cut-off point between inherited property that is sold straight away, and inherited property that is sold at a later stage, and I am not sure what that cut-off point is.

I am saying two things. First, as I understand it, the concern raised by charities, and in STEP’s letter, is that there is a double compliance problem. Their concern is that, after the representatives of an estate have completed the whole process of obtaining an evaluation and so on, the charity must go through the same process. That is duplication. I am assured by the Charity Commission that there was never any need for double compliance—that is a matter of law.

Secondly, to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, it is right that there should be the necessary protections ensuring that, when a charity gets a bequest, it seeks a valuation of the land, so that it can act in the best interests of its beneficiaries. However, one of the concerns raised is that the sale of the land will require the personal approval of charity trustees. That is a particular problem if they are non-executives who are abroad. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as with many other functions of a charity, that function can be delegated to members of the charity’s staff.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, but they are surprising, given the overwhelming body of legal advice that all the major charities that I mentioned have been receiving for more than a decade. The misunderstanding—if it is that—about the involvement of the trustees is understandable, given what is said in part V of the Charities Act 1993:

“Except where the proposed disposition is the granting of such a lease as is mentioned in subsection (5) below, the charity trustees must, before entering into an agreement for the sale…obtain and consider a written report”.

I can understand why charities believe that it is the trustees who must approve the reports.

On the first point about the legal position, clearly I have infinite capacity to surprise the hon. Gentleman. I am assured that the position is as I said. On the point about trustees, my understanding—I am told this reliably—is that the authorisation can be delegated to members of staff. If I find that that is not the case, for some reason, I will obviously correct it, but that is my strong understanding.

The overall point is that we are discussing a complex area of law. The Charity Commission is clear that double compliance, which is the primary problem that has been raised, is not necessary. The letters read out by the hon. Gentleman, and the letter from STEP, convince me that a lot more work needs to be done on sorting out the perception of the law, and quite possibly its administration by the commission. I have proposed that the commission should undertake such a process, and it has agreed to do so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but, as I said, I find them surprising. The people who are concerned about the point of law that we are discussing are not amateur organisations, or junior legacy officers in charities; as he said, they include STEP, which is the professional organisation of trust accountants and lawyers. There is a widespread body of legal opinion that has been shared with most of the top 500 charities, and it suggests that the issue remains a problem in law, hence all the representations that we received. Clarification on the double compliance issue might assist charities, and it will certainly provide them with a defence in law if they are challenged on the lack of a report on a particular occasion, but the overwhelming body of advice from charity lawyers states that there is indeed a problem in law with the personal involvement of trustees and the commissioning of reports.

To expand on my earlier point, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear that duties are given to trustees throughout the law, but there are general powers allowing the delegation of many of those duties, including the duty that we are discussing. I hope that that satisfies him, and that he will withdraw his amendment. I give him a promise that there will be proper dialogue on the issue with the commission.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and for that promise, to which we will hold him, whatever the outcome.

Is it not still a problem, despite what the Minister says, that if a conscientious trustee delegates a duty, it is still the trustee who will be liable?

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comment; indeed, I was about to make it, myself. As a charity trustee, I have some interest in the subject, and perhaps I should declare that interest. Although we have good liability arrangements in place, in general trustees have personal liability in that regard. It is routine to delegate administrative functions, including—as the representations from the various charities have made clear—securing section 36 reports. No one is suggesting that trustees are personally talking to surveyors and estate agents and obtaining the reports; such duties are clearly delegated to the proper officers. However, as part of the approval process that must be followed, I guess that it would be a derogation of trustees’ responsibilities if, at a meeting of trustees or of the governing body, there was not, at the very least, a personal vote on whether to approve the report.

I welcome the Minister’s promises to take the matter up with the Charity Commission and to look at perceptions, as well as the simplification of any regulations. However, that does not remove a problem that, according to the advice of the overwhelming majority of charity lawyers, has persisted for a decade or more. It requires the change of law proposed by the new clause, which I wish to press to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 284.

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 2, line 10, after ‘religion’, insert ‘or belief’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 124, in page 2, line 16, after ‘religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity’ and insert

‘harmony or equality between races, religions and beliefs’.

Government amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 125, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—

‘(aa) in paragraph (c) “belief”, and in paragraph (h) “beliefs”, are to be construed in accordance with article 9 in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)’.

Government amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 122, in page 2, line 35, after ‘exertion’ insert

‘or which, on the day this section comes into force, are sports or disciplines open to competition in games organised by:

(i) the International Olympic Committee;

(ii) the International Paralympic Committee; or

(iii) the Commonwealth Games Federation.’.

Government amendment No. 4.

I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and the names of other hon. Members from more than one party. I shall talk about Government amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125. I shall cover in passing amendment No. 122, and I shall say a word about the other Government amendments in the group for another reason.

I accept that I come late to the Bill and I know that a huge amount of excellent work has been done by Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, not just on this Bill but on a draft Charities Bill and a previous Bill in a previous Parliament. I have followed this particular aspect with interest but I do not claim to be an expert on charity law like other hon. Members who have worked so hard on this impressive piece of legislation.

The issue that I want to speak to is relatively narrow, and the Minister knows that it has been the subject of correspondence with, in particular, the British Humanist Association. I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, and I wish to record that. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has reported on this matter at least three times, backing in general terms the amendments that I am proposing.

I strongly support the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, which I have signed myself. I wondered whether he would give some idea of the proportion of the population who might be excluded in a sense from the coverage of the Bill if the word “belief” were not included.

It is hard to say, because the number of people signed up to humanism per se, through the British Humanist Association and other organisations, is not as extensive as for other religions. But as the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a question of numbers because the Bill makes provision, as it should do, for small religions—even religions whose adherents are fewer than those who have actually consciously subscribed to a humanist belief system—to be recognised. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that there are significant numbers of people who say—for good reasons, I happen to think, although I am not a member of the British Humanist Association—that they have a non-religious view of life. At a time like this, given what is going on in the world, that is something that should at least not be discriminated against, and some may argue that it is a very laudable thing.

What I do not understand is, what belief system would not be covered by the definition of the advancement of education, health, citizenship or community development, arts, culture, heritage or science, or any of the other purposes listed elsewhere in the clause?

I was going to come on to the point that the Government have made about that. It is not that humanist or rationalist new organisations, for example, may not be able to get charitable status under another part of the clause. Indeed, the Government said in their response to reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the catch-all, which used to be clause 2(2)(l) and is now clause 2(2)(m), and refers to subsection (4), would do. That is not the issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not that those are not charitable activities; it is just that they should be dealt with in a straightforward way, in the same way as religious belief systems. It is easier, because of the specific mention of religion, for that to happen with religious belief systems.

For reasons of non-discrimination, the default ought to be “religion or belief”, as defined under the Human Rights Act 1998, introduced by this Government. That definition has stood the test of all the other recent Government Bills that have mentioned religion. This Bill is a curious departure. To argue that the situation is okay because those organisations will be able to do things some other way, which might or might not take them longer, is not an argument of principle, and it is an argument of principle that I want to hear from the Minister.

In the 18 September letter to the Minister, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, Hanne Stinson, says that the BHA has never been given any reason why the separation of non-religious beliefs from religion is necessary or desirable. That is the key point, and if that is not addressed it will be hard for us to avoid pressing the amendment to a Division. We need some sort of explanation. The BHA says—and I agree—that the situation is objectionable on formal grounds as an obvious discrimination between religion and non-religious beliefs, even if no actual detriment is caused. It says that it would be likely to lead to detriment for non-religious beliefs as different bodies of case law or Charity Commission practice built up, because cases dealing with non-religious beliefs may well not be dealt with by the same staff or in the same context as those dealt with under another sub-heading. That is at least possible—some would say probable.

The BHA claims—I have seen the background to this—that Government assurances that there is no problem and that things will not be any more difficult are undermined by past Charity Commission practice and by Government assurances of special treatment for religion. I will give a brief example. It cites the Minister saying on Second Reading:

“it is right that public benefit must be shown, but…at least for religion, the obligation will not be onerous.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 96.]

As the reference is not to “religion or belief”, that can be taken, and is taken, to show that for religion the obligation may not be onerous, but it may be for things covered by the catch-all, or the items relating to education that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We know from other debates that education is a difficult ground for which to show public benefit.

The Government need to be aware that in practical terms, there has been an impact. The BHA goes on to explain that past practice shows that it can be onerous to get charitable status for a rationalist or humanist belief. The Rationalist Association sought registration as a charity in February 2001 and put in an amended application in November 2001. The process took another 15 months after the amended application was made, and there was endless correspondence with a variety of Charity Commission staff, each pursuing different lines of unnecessary inquiry, before at last the application was approved in exactly the amended terms proposed in November 2001. That cost a lot of money and delay.

The commission made the following assertion in the course of that correspondence:

“the promotion of Rationalism and Humanism in themselves … is not a charitable activity”.

Would the commission ever write to a Christian charity to say that the promotion of Christianity in itself is not a charitable activity? I believe that debates will show that if anything, assurances have been given that the straight promotion of, for example, Christianity is to be considered a charitable activity in itself, before the other test about public benefit, which we might debate later, is passed. I share the BHA’s view that that is

“the clearest demonstration of blatant discrimination against non-religious beliefs by the Commission and of the need for the Bill to bring religious and non-religious beliefs together under the same head so as to deter to some extent at least such detrimental treatment of humanist charities in the future.”

It has been argued that because there is a wide variety of non-religious beliefs, they demand special scrutiny. However, the same applies to religion. There are a multitude of religions. The Government have been reluctant—I do not argue with this—to define religion in statute, but have recognised that there will be a number of religions. The non-religious beliefs that qualify under the Human Rights Act as being governed by article 9 are already delimited by case law, and non-religious beliefs are no different from religious ones in being required to show public benefit. One can always argue about Scientology and so forth, but the same arguments that might apply to non-religious belief systems apply to some—some might say all—religious belief systems. I am talking about the questions that need to be addressed.