With permission, I should like to make a statement on the report of the prisons review carried out by my noble Friend Lord Carter of Coles. Copies of his report are available in the Vote Office and on my Department’s website. Lord Carter was asked in early June of this year to undertake his inquiry. He was asked jointly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Chancellor, and my predecessor as Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Falconer. I am extremely grateful to Lord Carter, and his team, for all their time, expertise and professionalism.

Lord Carter’s report proposes a large increase in prison building. It says that there is an urgent need for an improved long-term mechanism for better balancing supply and demand for prison places. It puts forward far-reaching proposals for a judiciary-led sentencing commission, and for efficiency and organisational changes

Let me first give the context of the review. For more than half a century, from the end of the war, crime rose inexorably. As each successive Government left office, crime was higher than when they came in—significantly higher, in the case of the 1979 to 1997 Administration. In sharp contrast, we are the first Government since the war under whom crime has not risen, but fallen—and fallen by a third. Violent crime is down, burglary and vehicle crime are down, and the chance of being a victim of crime is lower than at any time since 1981.

Those improvements are due to many factors: the police, local communities, local authorities, industry, stronger powers to deal with disorder, substantial youth justice reform, and greatly increased investment in law enforcement, with 14,000 more police officers, bringing numbers to record levels. In turn, those improvements have led to many more serious, persistent and violent offenders being brought to justice, and being sentenced for longer.

The result has been a very rapid growth in the prison population, which is up by one third since 1997—from 60,000 to 81,500, last Friday’s figure. During the same period reoffending rates have improved, while the physical condition of prison has been transformed, as has security. I pay particular tribute to prison officers, probation officers and staff at all levels. They do a difficult job in difficult circumstances.

The whole House is agreed that, wherever appropriate, offenders should be punished in the community. Overall, investment in probation services has gone up by 72 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. We shall test intensive alternatives to custody, and provide sentences with more rigorous non-custodial regimes.

Of course, the House and the country are clear that prison has to be used for violent, serious persistent and dangerous offenders. With so many factors in play, forecasting future trends in the prison population has always been complex and uncertain. Predictions made over the previous seven years have put the prison population for this summer both at 20,000 above, and 12,000 below, its actual level of 80,600. However, there is no doubt that the prison population will continue to rise in the next few years, given the increasing effectiveness of the system in bringing more offenders to justice. To meet previously anticipated demand, a programme of 9,500 extra places is already under way. An extra 1,600 new places have come on stream in 2007, and a further 2,300 will do so next year.

In light of Lord Carter’s recommendations, I can now announce that to secure the long-term availability of prison places, I have agreed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer additional funding of £1.2 billion, on top of the £1.5 billion already committed, to deliver a further and extended building programme that will bring an additional 10,500 places on stream by 2014. We will act on Lord Carter’s recommendation to build up to three large titan prisons, housing around 2,500 prisoners each. That extra capacity will help us to modernise the prison estate, close some of the older, inefficient prisons on a new-for-old basis, and reconfigure some of the smaller sites to accommodate female or juvenile offenders.

The building programme is aimed to bring overall net capacity to just over 96,000 places by 2014. To provide additional capacity within that total in the short to medium term, we intend to convert a former Ministry of Defence site at Coltishall in Norfolk into a category C prison, provide further places through expansion on existing prison sites, convert Her Majesty’s prison Wealstun, near Leeds, into a closed prison, and bring forward projects from the building reserve list. In addition, my Department is actively looking at securing a prison ship.

As for women in prison, the prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)—will tomorrow publish the Government’s detailed response to my noble Friend Baroness Corston’s report. Today I asked my noble Friend Lord Bradley to carry out a review, reporting jointly to the Department of Health and my Department, on diverting more offenders with severe mental health problems away from prison and into more appropriate facilities. Lord Carter has made important recommendations about the operation of the National Offender Management Service and the Prison Service, to improve the focus on service delivery and offender management. We will streamline corporate service costs in headquarters and regional offices in NOMS and the Prison Service, and we will establish a programme of performance testing.

Contrary to myth, there have been fewer criminal justice Bills in the last 10 years than in the preceding decade. [Interruption.] Well, I shall be happy to give the figures in due course. In the criminal justice field, it is inevitable that measures have to be kept under constant review. Indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection—IPPs—introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, have proved an effective way of dealing with the most serious and dangerous offenders. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the then Home Secretary, has confirmed to me, those sentences were never intended to target those who would have received tariffs of less than two years. Notwithstanding that, the drafting of the legislation has meant that they have been used for very short tariffs—in one case, for a tariff as short as 28 days. As recommended by Lord Carter and by the chairman of the Parole Board, Sir Duncan Nichol, we will introduce amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to establish a minimum tariff of two years, below which IPPs and extended sentences cannot be given.

I want to make a particular point about sentences for rape. It is very rare indeed for rape offences to receive less than a two-year tariff, which is well below the recommended guideline. Any sentence for a serious offence that is effectively below a two-year tariff will be open to appeal by the Attorney-General on grounds of undue leniency. All that will ensure that IPPs are focused on the most serious and dangerous offenders.

In addition, we are accepting Lord Carter’s other recommendations to align release mechanisms for offenders sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 with those sentenced under the 2003 Act. Offenders sentenced for non-sexual, non-violent offences committed since 2005 are now eligible for release at the halfway point of their sentence and remain on licence to the end of that sentence, rather than being eligible for parole at the halfway point, automatic release at two thirds, and being on licence until three quarters only. We propose to introduce a similar regime for prisoners sentenced for non-sexual, non-violent offences under previous legislation.

Decisions about the sentence to be handed down in a particular case must be a matter of judgment for the trial judge or magistrates. Respecting the independence of sentencers to pass the sentence that they believe is appropriate in the individual case is fundamental to the integrity of the judiciary in a free society. But Parliament has a critical role to play in setting the framework for sentencing and in deciding on the level of taxpayers’ money to pay for the prison places and probation services that arise from that sentencing framework.

Over the past decade much progress has been made to develop a more coherent and transparent sentencing framework, with the Sentencing Advisory Panel in 1999, and the Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2004. But Lord Carter now highlights the need for a mechanism—a sentencing commission—that will allow for the drivers behind the prison population to be addressed and managed in a transparent, consistent and predictable manner through the provision of an indicative set of sentencing ranges.

Such a commission would have an ongoing role in monitoring the prison population and reporting on the impacts on the prison population and penal resources of all national policy proposals and system changes. I wish to emphasise that the proposal has nothing to do with linking individual sentences to the availability of correctional resources. The debate relates to the linking of resources to the overall sentencing framework. I am pleased to accept Lord Carter’s recommendation to establish a working group to consider the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of such a sentencing commission, which in our judgment will lead and inform the public debate on these issues.

Prison is, and will remain, the right place for the most serious offenders. Custodial sentences, and therefore prison places, must also be available for less serious offenders when other measures have failed or are inappropriate. And we must have in place a rigorous and effective framework of community penalties where they are the right course.

The measures that I have announced today will fulfil our aims in this important area. They will bring many more prison places on stream with agreed funding and a delivery programme. They will allow for a rational debate on sentencing that recognises that, as with any other public service, resources are finite. Above all, they will fulfil our commitment to provide a modernised prisons system that protects the public from the most serious offenders. I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for sight of the report and his statement, just over an hour ago. All of us agree that the situation in our overcrowded prisons cannot continue. In calling for urgent action, is not the latest Carter report a devastating indictment of the Government’s failure to manage the prisons system? We have consistently called for an expansion of prison capacity to meet demand, so the Government’s announcement of additional prison places is welcome, but long overdue. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the additional 10,500 places that he announced today are in addition to the 9,500 places already promised?

At present 17,000 prisoners are doubling up in cells—twice as many as when the Government came to power. Will the Government’s proposals reduce that overcrowding, and will the Secretary of State reject Carter’s recommendation that there is scope for increasing levels of overcrowding? The Secretary of State says that he is actively looking at securing a prison ship. Why did the Government sell off their prison ship at a loss, if a new one is to be purchased?

We have called for more appropriate security provision for prisoners with severe mental illness, so we welcome a review in this area. Should not serious drugs offenders also be treated in separate secure units? In two previous reports Lord Carter proposed replacing unsuitable prisons. That is long overdue. Can the Secretary of State say how many of those prisons will be closed? Is he sure that Lord Carter’s recommendation to build large titan prisons is right? Would it not be better to build smaller, local prisons where offenders could be closer to their families to aid rehabilitation? Is it not clear that although there will be some increase in capacity, the Government are choosing to release more prisoners early and water down sentences to moderate demand?

We Conservatives believe that sentences should fit the crime, not jail capacity. Will not any proposal to fetter the discretion of judges and magistrates to hand down sentences as they see fit cause the gravest concern? The Government already propose to remove magistrates’ right to suspend sentences; now they want to link sentences to the resources available. The Secretary of State claimed that that had nothing to do with linking individual sentences to resources, but is it not the case that sentences as a whole could be shortened if Ministers failed to provide enough capacity?

The Secretary of State proposes greater use of community sentences as an alternative to prison, but prison is already largely reserved for serious, violent and persistent offenders. Is it not the case that 70 per cent. of prisoners released have 10 previous convictions? Prison is already the last resort, when community sentences have failed. Some 40 per cent. of unpaid work requirements for male offenders are not even completed. How can the public have confidence in community penalties as an alternative to prison when the sanctions are so weak and unenforced?

For the past five years, the Government have paraded as a badge of honour their indeterminate sentences for public protection. Why, then, do they now propose to limit those sentences for criminals who, by definition, pose a significant risk of causing death or serious injury by reoffending? The Secretary of State proposes a minimum tariff of two years for indeterminate and extended sentences. Can he confirm that in the first year of operation, 26 indeterminate sentences for public protection with a tariff of less than two years were given for sexual offences against children?

The Secretary of State’s statement said almost nothing about improving the rehabilitation of offenders. What do the Government plan to do about the fact that prisoners still spend fewer than four hours a day engaged in purposeful activity? Any Government’s first duty is to protect the public. How can the Government claim to have done so, given that they have released 11,000 offenders early on to our streets in just four months? The Carter report assumes that the end-of-custody licence will continue indefinitely. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that that measure is to become permanent?

The Prime Minister took office promising to punish offenders, but is it not the case that we now have overdue additional places for prison, but no serious action to reform our jails? We have weak community penalties for offenders who should be sent to prison and early release for criminals who should have served their sentences. Far from honouring their promise to punish offenders, the Government’s agenda is to give thousands of criminals a break.

That was nonsense from beginning to end. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not dispute the fact that crime had risen inexorably for 50 years under one Government after another. Recorded crime doubled under the previous Conservative Administration. The Labour Government have been the first since the war under whom crime has gone down—and it has gone down by one third. One of the reasons for that has been provided by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the shadow prisons Minister, who said just last week:

“The Government’s policy on sentencing is to send more people to prison for longer…That is why more people have ended up in prison.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 375.]

That happens to be the truth, but it is totally inconsistent with what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has said, which is that we are somehow letting more prisoners out.

I am sorry to shoot the hon. Gentleman’s fox so comprehensively, but last week, anticipating the review, he said:

“So that is what it is all about—no money for prisons”—[Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 361.]

I have just announced £1.2 billion extra for prisons, on top of the £1.5 billion already announced. [Interruption.] I will come to the detailed points in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that he accepts that resources are finite; if we are talking about a journey, that at least is a start—although his arm may have been twisted by the shadow Chancellor.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs recently told the media:

“The Lord Chief Justice is quite right to say that when the sentencing framework is set, the impact on the prison population must be properly taken into account”.

I agree. I cannot for the life of me understand why he has come up with his synthetic criticism of a sensible proposal for a sentencing commission that will do exactly that.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He asked whether the additional 10,500 prison places would be on top of the 9,500 that are already on the way. The answer is yes. That will provide a gross increase of 20,000 additional places. Our aim is that part of that increase should be taken up by closing some older, inefficient prisons so that the net figure is 15,000—provided, of course, that the prison population reaches the median target, which is 96,000, not the high target of 101,000. Those decisions will have to be made in due course, but that is the current position, as I spelled out in my statement.

The hon. Gentleman referred to 17,000 prisoners doubling up. Doubling up in cells intended for one person is not something that we wish to happen, but under this Government it has not, at any level, ever reached the 47 per cent. of prisoners who were doubled up in the 1980s—and that was with insanitary chamber pots, not internal sanitation. He should pay attention to what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said about prison policy—that we have to look, if need be, at doubling up in some prisons. That is just a little bit behind the times.

HMP Weir was indeed sold off. It was intended to serve for three years but was used for eight years, and was not at the time regarded as fit for purpose.

The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about mental health provision in asking whether that should also be available for serious drug offenders. Yes, of course it should. Many, if not most of the mental health patients in prison—this is, in a sense, a semantic point—are also serious drug offenders, so we are in effect talking about the same population. Some drug offenders, particularly egregious drug dealers, do not have mental health problems; they are just straightforward serious criminals who, in my judgment, should stay in prison for a very long time.

As for how many prisons will be closed, the proposal is that some provision will be closed on a new-for-old basis. However, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list, and I have no intention of compiling a list until we are clear about the development of the programme and capacity.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned having smaller local prisons rather than titans. There is a debate to be had about that, and I am not saying that there is a perfect answer. Our judgment, based on Lord Carter’s recommendations, is that a small number of large prisons sited in London and the south-east, where there is an urgent need for prison accommodation, will meet the needs of efficiency, better management of offenders, and reasonable closeness to their homes. However, we are happy to have that debate in due course.

The hon. Gentleman made some less serious points about community penalties. We have increased the use of community penalties, and their effectiveness has increased too. That is one of the reasons for the increase in the prison population, as is brought out in Lord Carter’s report. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of probation offenders who have breached their sentence and are therefore taken back to court, and often sentenced to prison.

I commend Lord Carter for his second report on this matter, and my right hon. Friend for his response. Given the substantial additional resources, will the budget of the Youth Justice Board also be protected? Will innovative schemes to keep young people out of prison but in secure and structured frameworks be put forward in the consultation, particularly in light of the suggested sentencing commission? The commission might then be able to deal with the situation alluded to by my right hon. Friend relating to indeterminate sentences—that what the House thinks that it is doing does not always come to fruition when the Sentencing Guidelines Council or the courts take a different view of how it can be applied.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and for all the work that he did in developing a more coherent framework in this field. The sentencing commission builds on the excellent work that he did, if I may say so, in setting up the Sentencing Guidelines Council. This money is new money; it will not touch the Youth Justice Board budget. I agree with him about sentences of imprisonment for public protection. The framework was set out and, as I understand it, Members on both sides of the House agreed its purpose, which is that such sentences were for much more serious offenders who would typically get a tariff of two years or much longer. However, it has not quite worked out like that. It is entirely appropriate that we should accept that the system has not operated as intended, and amend it.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for early sight of the statement, and I echo his tribute to prison officers and probation officers. I also thank Lord Carter, that most prolific of reviewers, for a thorough report.

I welcome the recommendations on improved efficiency in the service, on stronger alternatives to custody, and on modernisation of the prison estate. However, in the latter case, why cannot the Lord Chancellor put forward, after, presumably, due consideration over some years, concrete proposals to dispose of antiquated prisons—I almost said Victorian prisons, but we now know that some of them date back to 1500—which would enable those prisons to release capital that could then be reinvested? Do not the plans for emergency places smack more of desperation and panic than proper forward planning?

The Lord Chancellor announced yet another review, under Lord Bradley, on diverting those with mental illness from prison. That is welcome. However, why is there no commitment in his proposals to build more secure mental health provision, as well as drug centres, within the estate, to ensure that those who should not be in prison are not held in standard prisons but in alternative accommodation?

I note that Lord Carter agrees with the recommendations of the Corston review on women prisoners, but there appears to be no incorporation of those recommendations into his recommendations. Is not that an omission, and will the Lord Chancellor rectify it in the statement that he is to make in response to the Corston review?

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that, as is demonstrably the case, short-term sentences are almost completely ineffective in reducing reoffending? Would it not be sensible instead to impose more tougher community sentences, which are proven to be more effective?

As I think that the Lord Chancellor has said, no judge should be constrained by lack of capacity from imposing custodial sentences that are necessary to protect the public. Will he extend that principle to rehabilitative sentences such as drug treatment or probation?

Lastly, does the Lord Chancellor agree that the test of any penal policy is what works in protecting the public and reducing reoffending, and that the current system fails both those tests?

I agree that one test of sentencing policy is what works. I also agree that short-term sentences have often proved not very effective in terms of reducing reoffending. Offenders who get those shorter sentences are often those who have been convicted of what would be regarded as medium or lower-level offences but are persistent offenders, and the courts simply run out of patience with them. As I have often said, prison is often the sentence of last resort. We should do everything we can with such offenders, but it is for the courts to decide for how long they should go to prison. If it is just so that they can be locked up, at least that is a respite for their communities. That is the dilemma that we face.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the proposals. Let me run through his other points. In respect of closing some of the less efficient prisons, it should not be assumed that antiquity is of itself grounds for closure. Otherwise, a large number of Oxford and Cambridge colleges would be closed, as would many schools, which gave some of us a half-decent education, and even this place. The issue with buildings is whether they are efficient and providing a decent service. Some 1960s buildings should come down a lot sooner than some of those of greater antiquity.

On mental health, I am not personally in favour of putting within prison estates secure mental health provision where prisoners have been sectioned, because it will lead to a problem with the regime. I am happy, however, to pass on the hon. Gentleman’s support, along with mine, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in saying that we need more money for secure mental health provision outside prisons.

The Corston report will be published tomorrow in a written ministerial statement by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and I hope that that will be welcomed.

I have to say that I found my right hon. Friend’s statement rather depressing in its assumption that we are going to carry on sending more and more people to prison when we already send more there than virtually any other European country. Although I welcome what he said about Lord Bradley’s review, surely we ought be putting far more money into keeping out of prison people who do not need to be there—those with serious mental health problems, fine defaulters and those in for minor breaches of orders. Does his statement on expansion and more resources imply a reversal in the budget cuts in place for the next year, which will affect the probation service and the Prison Service?

None of us wants to send people to prison just for the sake of it, but prison is there to deal with offenders who are sentenced properly by the courts. The increase in the prison population is one factor—we cannot say exactly what weight to give to it—that has contributed to the significant reduction in crime. We all agree that more should be done to move into the health service prisoners who suffer from serious mental health problems. A great deal has been done; we have abolished the prison health service and we now have NHS staff working on the issue. We hope that more work will be done in future.

On fine defaulters, I say to my hon. Friend that prison has to be available as a sentence of last resort if people refuse to pay fines. Other disposals are available, but if people go on refusing, they need to be locked up. There are no cuts in the Prison Service or the probation budget.

Does the Lord Chancellor recognise that short periods of custody are notoriously ineffective for dealing with fine defaulters, breaches of bail conditions or antisocial behaviour order breaches? All those things could probably be more effectively handled by community courts that had a consistent engagement with the offender and were able to keep the offender up to the mark. Will he deal with the tendency in our system to spend the vast resources that go into criminal justice on the most expensive measures, rather than the ones most likely to work?

If we can deal with offenders outside the prison system, we should, but I repeat that it is not for us to second-guess magistrates or judges when they are making a decision about what to do with a particular offender. Almost always, when they deal with an ASBO breach or a serious fine defaulter, they have been through a range of community sentences and then said, “We’ve had enough. We’re going to take you off the streets for a period.” It may or may not be that the person in question decides to get away from criminal habits, but the period for which they are locked up is at least a respite for those whom they have been penalising through their criminal behaviour.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and particularly the implicit recognition that offenders cannot carry on reoffending in the community while they are in prison. I also welcome Lord Carter’s proposal for a sentencing commission, which is a good way forward. However, may I ask my right hon. Friend to go a little further still? Does he agree that courts should be determining an appropriate sentence on the basis of the offence itself, and not how many prison places are available on any given day?

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approval of the recommendations; he comes to the matter with a great deal of expertise, having worked with me as Minister with responsibility for prisons in the 1997 to 2001 Parliament of this Administration.

It is a matter for the courts to determine the appropriate sentence. There has been no guidance, and nor would there be, to vary sentences according to variations in the prison population. We have responded to rises in the prison population, and we shall continue to do so, hence the increase of 10,500 places on top of the 9,500 already announced, for which the Government are now finding funds.

Surely the proposal by Lord Carter of a sentencing commission is based on the rather extraordinary proposition that, from time to time, sentencing guidelines should be raised or lowered in line with the current state of the prison population and of overcrowding. Will the Lord Chancellor make it clear whether he is commending and adopting this proposal, as he seemed to be in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), or whether he will refer it to a working party that will give much more consideration to the advantages and disadvantages, and to whether or not it is a good idea? Surely there cannot be any substitute for a situation in which civilised prison accommodation is available for all those whom the courts think it is appropriate and necessary to send to prison. We cannot start having variations over the years according to the state of prison overcrowding—a state that we should not have got into, although we have done so during the past 10 years.

I try to be ecumenical, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary during a period when police cells were used very extensively, and more extensively than today. He was also Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I know for certain that when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) came to ask for more money for the police, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did not say, “Oh yes. Would you like to write out the cheque?” One of the consequences of his penury was that police numbers were going down at the end of that period, not up.

However, let me reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He asks whether this is a done deal or whether a working party will further examine the matter. I think that the idea is a good one, on the basis of what I have read, but it is not a done deal. There is a working party, which will be chaired by a senior member of the judiciary, to examine it properly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a serious interest in these matters, and I hope that when he has looked at what Lord Carter says—and also, I may say, a passage in the speech made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs on 26 November that came to similar conclusions—he will support what is proposed.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and in particular the changes to indeterminate sentences—the IPP sentences. Will he tell me what he plans to do to reduce the number of young people in prison? In March this year, there were nearly 2,500 15 to 17-year-olds in prison.

We all wish to see the number of young people in prison reduced if that is consistent with what the courts decide. As it happens, pressure on prisoner status has come from adult offenders in recent months, not from young people. What we have done, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the end of June, is ensure that joint responsibility for the Youth Justice Board and youth provision as a whole for young offenders is held by myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. A joint unit is being established in our Departments to ensure better management of the policy and its operation.

The report proposes a large increase in prison building. When considering any prison estate review, such as the one currently under way in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm that significant emphasis will be given to two things? The first is a unanimous recommendation by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs regarding the location of an existing prison in my constituency. Secondly, there is the fact that not to do as suggested in that recommendation could cost the public purse an additional £60 million through land acquisition.

As I am also Lord Chancellor of Northern Ireland, I discussed those matters when I visited the courts in Belfast at the start of the judicial year, but this is directly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I will ensure that he is made fully aware of the hon. Gentleman’s opinions.

At Armley prison in my constituency, 50 people a day go in and 50 a day come out. Nationally, one in seven children have a father who has been or is in prison. It is also well understood that if prisoners have visits from their children, the reoffending rate drops drastically. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend support and perhaps visit the independent charity The Jigsaw Project, which is in a new building outside Armley prison? It is doing excellent work with prisoners and their families, getting results in practice and reducing reoffending. We need to support projects outside as the key to preventing people from going around in circles, in and out of prison.

I commend my right hon. Friend for his work, and yes is the answer to his question about whether I would be interested in a visit.

The Lord Chancellor announced the establishment of a category C prison in the former RAF base at Coltishall, part of which lies in my constituency. In 18 months, the local community has experienced moves from no Department being interested to the Home Office being interested a year ago and definitely intending to establish an immigration and asylum centre there, to the current prospect of a category C prison. The local community is, to say the least, bewildered. What does he mean by providing additional capacity in the short to medium term? What is the time line on that? Will he or one of his Ministers be able to brief local Members of Parliament and the local community fully about all the details associated with the announcement?

I understand that there has been some uncertainty for the local community. I hope that it may be relatively relieved that the site will be used for a category C prison rather than the potential earlier use, which always causes some excitement in local communities. The prisoners will be locked up and our record on cutting escapes from closed prisons is good. Of course, we will ensure that local Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, and the local council and community are fully briefed. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, says that he is happy to visit the area.

It is a sad day for our society when we have to announce extra prison places. However, I welcome the re-emphasis on prisoners with mental health problems. My right hon. Friend knows that, last year, we processed 700 people out of prison, and we probably took more people with mental health problems into prisons than we processed out of them. Has he considered creating a special prison—a special unit—that could probably process such people more quickly? It could assess them and pass them on to more appropriate locations, thus releasing prison places, but more importantly, leading to treatment for those suffering from mental illness.

Many health care centres, for example in Preston, which is an old prison but has transformed its health care provision in recent years, perform the function that my hon. Friend describes. We want to examine greater and more flexible arrangements for health care in prison. Some of the committed NHS staff who work in Preston put proposals to me when I was there with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) in September. Of course, we will examine those matters. The aim is to keep serious, long-term mental health patients out of the prison system.

Like the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), my interest is based on the location of former RAF Coltishall in my constituency, where it is largely situated, although it overlaps into his. Does not the announcement about it smack of chaos, confusion and crisis management? When the site was first offered to the Home Office two years ago, it showed no interest. Last year, we were told that an assessment had concluded that it was not an appropriate site for a prison. For a year, its potential as an immigration centre was considered, while it decayed. Now we are told that it is appropriate for a prison. What has changed since the assessment last year? We have known about the trends in prison numbers for some time. There is concern in the local community. Will the Minister with responsibility for prisons agree to meet the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk and me?

If you do not mind my saying so, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman could take some lessons from his Conservative neighbour in seriously representing his constituents.

We all understand that there will be a period of uncertainty about the use of redundant military land. Indeed, that applies to all large areas of land that become available. Of course, if it is Government land, several possible uses will be considered. We can either conduct that consideration in secret—in my judgment, there is no case for doing so in areas such as the one that we are discussing—or as ideas come through, we can share them with the local community. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the latter, and believes that we should go back to the old days before the Freedom of Information Act 2000, let him put that on the record. Sometimes we say that we are considering an idea and we then take account of the local community’s views and, as in the case of candidates for asylum and immigration centres, of whether the numbers are decreasing—and they have decreased dramatically.

In our judgment, the proposal is a sensible use of the camp. We all understand that proposals for prisons cause some nervousness in the local community. However, all the evidence shows that there is no adverse effect on house prices—we have data to prove that. Once prisons are established, they prove popular with the local community, and it will be difficult to close those that become candidates for closure in future.

With three prisons and a young offenders institution in my constituency, I greatly welcome the statement and the measures to reduce prison overcrowding. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that prison officers and probation staff will be fully involved in developing non-custodial sentences and deciding the circumstances in which they can be applied, including finding alternatives to prison for non-violent vulnerable women and people with mental health problems?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. I hope that she is looking forward to the publication of the Government’s response to the Corston report tomorrow.

Greater proximity to home and family networks is, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) suggested, a major factor in helping reduce reoffending rates. With that in mind, does today’s statement mean that we will finally get a prison in north Wales for the first time, and a women’s prison in Wales for the first time? Can we get more secure facilities for young people in Wales so that we do not have to send so many young offenders hundreds of miles away to institutions in England?

Yes. If one looks at the map, it is patent that, while north-west England—my area—has many prisons, north Wales does not, although there are five prisons in south Wales. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the Minister with responsibility for prisons, represents a north Wales constituency, and we are considering sites in north Wales. If we can find a suitable site, we shall use it, I hope with the full support of constituency Members.

Can the Lord Chancellor clarify how many of the 10,500 new places will be new cells?

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details. Most of the prisons are entirely new build. We are also putting rapid build units into existing sites, but I emphasise that we are considering a building programme.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the annual social security uprating statement and a broader statement on pensions. I will place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report.

As in previous years, most national insurance benefits will rise by September’s retail price index, which is up by 3.9 per cent. Most income-related benefits will rise by September’s Rossi index, which is RPI less housing costs, and is up by 2.3 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, from April 2008 the basic state pension will increase to £90.70, which is up by £3.40. For couples, the standard rate will rise to £145.05, which is up by £5.45. That is a real-terms rise of 10 per cent., or more than £47.30, since 1997.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that the standard minimum guarantee part for pension credit, which has risen with earnings since 2003, will from next April rise by £5 a week for single pensioners and £7.65 for couples. That means that from April next year, no single pensioner should live on less than £124.05 a week, and no couple on less than £189.35 a week. That is an increase of £57 for a single pensioner and £85 for couples since 1997.

Since 1997, pensioner poverty has reduced by more than a third as a result of targeted support from pension credit and £11 billion of extra funding. That has lifted more than 1 million pensioners out of relative poverty. As a result, pensioner households are on average £1,500 a year, or £29 a week, better off in real terms. The poorest pensioner households are around £2,200 a year, or £42 a week, better off. That underlines our commitment to target resources where the need is greatest.

That is a commitment that I can reinforce today. I can announce a package of changes for introduction in October 2008 to simplify further the state pension system. The package is cost-neutral over the long term and will be paid for by reducing the backdating of pension credit from 12 months to three months, as from next October. Twelve-month backdating was introduced in 2003 to ease the introduction of pension credit. The new changes will make better use of these resources and, I understand, will be broadly welcomed by Help the Aged and Age Concern. The changes that we intend to introduce will make the system less confusing, less intrusive and more transparent. We want the customer to be able to get their state pension entitlements with the minimum fuss, bureaucracy and form filling.

In 2005, we made some improvements. Those applying for pension credit by telephone have been able to get council tax benefit and housing benefit together, using a shortened claim form completed by the Pension Service. The form is then sent out to the customer to sign and send to their local council. Many pensioners do not send the form on, however, and so lose out. We aim to improve on that by being more efficient and more joined up. We intend for council tax benefit and housing benefit claims to be made over the telephone in exactly the same way as those for state pension and pension credit. The claim will be taken by the Pension Service and automatically passed to the local council for assessment. No more action will be needed by the pensioner. They can access up to four benefits in one telephone call: pension credit, state pension, housing benefit and council tax benefit. About 50,000 pensioners will gain from the measure by 2010. We also plan to align the rules on backdating of pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit with those on the working age benefits. That will reduce complexity and make the application process less intrusive.

These days, some pensioners spend longer periods abroad in warmer countries. They currently lose their pension credit after only four weeks. We intend to change the pension credit rules that relate to the length of time that pensioners can spend abroad before their benefit is affected. We will align pension credit with the rules on housing benefit and council tax benefit, so that benefit will continue for up to 13 weeks. That will mean that almost 90 per cent. of the pensioners who would currently have their pension credit stopped will in future retain their entitlement.

Those changes will be taken with two further measures in the pensions Bill that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to put before the House today. Those measures will simplify the rules relating to the additional state pension and remove the need for most pension credit customers aged 75 and over to tell us about changes in their retirement income. More than 1 million pensioners will benefit through not having to complete a review of their income and capital, because we believe that income and capital do not increase much for most people after 75.

We will also uprate benefits and allowances for the working population. Child allowances linked to the income-related benefits will be increased in parallel with the child tax credits. This is intended to ensure that families receiving those benefits see the full value of increases in child tax credits. In particular, the allowance paid for a child dependant will increase by £5.14 a week from next April to £52.59, which is a rise of almost 11 per cent.

As in previous years, the uprating provides an opportunity to deal with anomalies and make the system simpler. So from next April, the single person rate for income support and jobseeker’s allowance will be the same for all 16 to 24-year-olds. For the small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who claim, this amounts to an increase of £12.30, uplifting their weekly benefit from £35.65 to £47.95. That will tackle a perverse incentive that exists in the current system to leave home to receive more benefits. The change will also provide extra help to some vulnerable teenagers, as well as simplifying the benefit structure.

To return to pensions, our first priority was to tackle pensioner poverty and ensure that everyone shared in rising prosperity. Our next priority is to put in place a pensions system for the future. The good news is that on average we can expect to live longer, but that has consequences. Measures in the Pensions Act 2007, passed earlier in the year, will tackle gender inequality in the state system, providing a more generous basic state pension, restoring the earnings link and giving people a clear picture of what the state will provide and what they need to do for themselves. Measures to be introduced in Parliament later today will take the next step in the reforms by encouraging saving and extending for the first time the benefits of pension saving with minimum mandatory contributions from an employer across the working age population, and by giving everyone the opportunity to create a retirement income that helps them to meet their aspirations. In bringing forward these measures, we will continue to support existing final salary pension provision.

I am pleased to announce that we are today publishing the Government’s response to the deregulatory review consultation. The response summarises the comments that we received and outlines the further action that will be taken. We are grateful for all the responses received and for the detailed consideration that many have already given to the issues involved. We want to reduce burdens on employers who provide good workplace pension schemes, but we need to balance that against maintaining adequate protection for pension scheme members. That is not easy to achieve, but without action, the slide away from final salary schemes could turn into a rush.

We intend to reduce the statutory cap on the revaluation of deferred pensions from 5 to 2.5 per cent. for pension rights that will build up from a future date. That change will not affect pension rights that are already earned. We will include the changes needed to achieve that in the pensions Bill that I hope to introduce this afternoon. In addition, we will take forward some issues through secondary legislation or guidance, and work with stakeholders to explore the scope to address concerns that have been raised in other areas. This includes a statutory override to enable employers and trustees to agree changes to pension schemes, which will enable them to benefit from statutory and regulatory changes. That has proved difficult for some schemes in the past. Copies of the detailed response will be placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

The cost of uprating benefits for next year is nearly £4 billion, with more than £2.75 billion of that going to pensioners. The further simplification measures that I have announced today, together with those that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward in the pensions Bill, represent a substantial further investment in social justice, reducing poverty and helping those in need. I commend the statement to the House.

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in letting me have a copy of his statement in advance.

We on the Conservative Benches of course do not oppose the uprating of benefits, although we have issues with the administration and complexity of the system, as well as with the disincentives to both work and saving that are inherent in it. Can the Minister update the House on the Department’s efforts to tackle fraud and error in the system? It is bad enough that the Government are so inept at dealing with people’s confidential records, but why are they still paying out more than £5 billion through fraud and error in the benefits system? Can he confirm that benefit payments have been going to prisoners, students and those who are already in work? Can he also confirm that, at the same time as that largesse at the taxpayer’s expense is going on, up to £2.5 billion of pension credit went unclaimed last year—a rise of £500 million on 2004-05?

May I welcome the proposal for 1 million pensioners not to have to review their income and capital? However, can the Minister confirm that there will be losers from reducing the backdating for pension credit from 12 to three months? How many does he estimate there will be? What steps will he take to ensure that pensioners are aware of this change in the rules? Is it not the case that the saving made by the change is simply being transferred to, I hope, an increased take-up of means-tested benefits?

Is it not simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Can he confirm that almost 40 per cent. of those entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it, and that pensioners are the worst category in that regard? Is it true that the take-up of the benefit has fallen—fallen—by 12 per cent. since 1997? I therefore welcome the proposals in the statement to increase take-up, but why has it taken so long to produce them? Have the Government not tested to destruction the system of means-tested benefits to the extent that the poorest pensioners are becoming poorer in real terms? Will he explain the Government’s failure yet again to provide help to pensioners with their council tax bills?

The Minister made much in his statement of what the Government are allegedly doing for pensioners. While he mentioned the restoration of the link between the state pension and average earnings, he gave no clue whatever as to when that might happen. Previously, it has been said that it would happen in 2012 or 2015, or not even then if it was unaffordable. When will it happen?

As the Minister pointed out, there is a broad measure of consensus over long-term pensions reform. My party supports the overall pensions settlement emerging from the Turner commission. In our last election manifesto, we embraced auto-enrolment and the need to boost pension savings. But does he accept that we have legitimate concerns about the design of personal accounts? In recent weeks, Ministers and others have tried to shut down debate on those important issues by suggesting that the official Opposition were in some way undermining the consensus. I wholly reject that argument. Does he not accept that it is the job of the official Opposition to question? We have serious questions about the effects of means-testing on pensions saving.

The Pensions Policy Institute has identified at-risk groups who will be no better or worse off as a result of being auto-enrolled into personal accounts. Can the Minister confirm that he takes the issue seriously? Does he appreciate that whatever politicians might say, commentators and journalists are bound to write the story that some people will not be better off? It is fundamentally an issue of confidence, which has been badly shaken by the pensions crisis. Will he make a statement in the near future on proposals to deal with the problem?

While we are on the subject of confidence, will the Minister confirm that he will shortly receive and publish the Young report, and bring forward proposals for compensation in response to pension victims’ legitimate claims?

We broadly support the measures mentioned by the Minister in response to the deregulatory review. I assure him of our broad support on the revaluation of deferred pensions and on the statutory override. If we are to stem the disastrous decline in defined benefit schemes, however, Ministers must be more radical and courageous. I assure him that he will have our encouragement and support in looking at radical options such as risk-sharing.

On personal accounts, is it not most unfortunate that the new chairman of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, Paul Myners, has rendered his position wholly untenable, given his intemperate attack on the official Opposition from his civil service position and his record as a Labour donor?

Finally, does the Minister accept that with nearly 2 million pensioners living in poverty, 125,000 pension victims, nearly 5 million people claiming out-of-work benefits, and the highest proportion of children living in workless households in the whole of the European Union, the complacency that peppers his statement today is grossly misplaced?

It is interesting to read what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said last year and compare it with what he says today. In the past, he said that the Government would do nothing about the Turner report, but we passed one Bill in July and are about to introduce a further Bill. He claimed that nothing would be done about the Child Support Agency, but we have just taken through legislation in relation to it.

We made it absolutely clear that we would reduce pensioner poverty, and the whole statement is about ensuring that. We are putting an extra £11 billion into helping pensioners. That money would not have been in the system had the Conservatives maintained office in 1997. Two million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty, and 1 million out of relative poverty. Those are enormously good figures. Had the Conservatives stayed in power, pensioners would be on £69 a week. Instead, no pensioner need be on less than £119 a week, and that figure will rise next April to £124 for a single pensioner.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about a number of issues, including those in relation to fraud. We are committed to protecting the integrity of the benefits system and ensuring that we pay our customers the right benefits at the right time. May I make it clear that fraud in income support and jobseeker’s allowance has been reduced by about two thirds since we took over from the Conservatives? It is down from 7.2 per cent. to 2.1 per cent., and is now the lowest ever recorded. Since 1997, our Department has put enormous effort into reducing fraud in the benefits system, with great success. Fraud now stands at its lowest level—down from an estimated £2 billion in 2001. As well as changing the way in which fraud is dealt with, we are addressing error in the system through benefit simplification. Today’s announcements will help in that process.

The hon. Gentleman also asked how we would ensure that people were able to claim pension credit. Our officials are ready today to accept telephone calls from pensioners who wish to claim pension credit. I know that the changes announced today will be welcomed by some of the pensioners’ organisations, as they have asked for them in their conversations with me for some time. The whole basis of those changes is to ensure that take-up of pension credit increases and that people get help with their council tax. Those who are on low incomes and struggling with council tax, many of whom did not fill in the form that they got from the Pension Service, and did not send it on to their local authority and get the benefit to which they were entitled, will no longer have to sign that form. Many of them thought that the form was confusing and did not want to sign it. In future, that form will be dealt with automatically by the Pension Service, and pensioners will not have to worry about it, sign it or pass it on to local councils. That will not only be a saving for local councils; I hope that it will ensure that more people who are entitled to help with their council tax get it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about losers in relation to the backdating. There will be no actual losers, as we are redistributing the money within the budget—[Interruption.] I see that Opposition Front-Bench Members are chortling. Overall, there will not be losers, as the money will be redistributed within the budget. During the next nine months, we will encourage some people to make the application before the change is introduced. There need be no losers in the long term either. We want those who are entitled to claim the backdating for 12 months to make that claim before next October. We will therefore work with some of the pensioners’ organisations to ensure that we support their campaign to get more people to apply.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Young report in relation to the financial assistance scheme. We hope to receive the Young report shortly—I have not yet seen a copy of it, but I hope to get it within days. We will then consider it, and I hope to announce in due course our response to that report.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned proposals in relation to risk-sharing, which he said that he supported. We have looked into that and we could look at it more broadly, but I am not anxious to rewrite the whole of pensions and trust law in order to bring it in. That would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might find it worth talking to some leading figures in the CBI, as some are a little concerned that it might lead to a movement from defined benefit schemes into the new system, as some companies are not prepared to go straight from such defined benefit schemes into defined contribution schemes. The issues around this subject should be examined with great care, but I do not want to rush into this just yet.

The hon. Gentleman said that his party supported Turner and automatic enrolment and, indeed, wanted to ensure that it was a success. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s good faith in saying that, because I think he has been broadly supportive. I have to say, however, that his colleague, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has not filled me with any confidence that he takes that view; nor is it the case, I also have to say, that he has adopted the same role as his predecessor in supporting personal accounts. I have seen the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell take every opportunity to run down the whole idea of personal accounts. I think he needs to be really careful, as we have built a consensus on it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne for contributing to it, but I warn him that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell takes every opportunity, as I said, to undermine it.

We are now looking at another example, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has raised questions about the chairman of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, Mr. Paul Myners. He has a record for dealing with issues in the City, which meant that when he was appointed by a perfectly proper procedure, he was been broadly welcomed by stakeholders as a serious figure with a strong record. He has a world-class business record and extensive knowledge of financial services. Judged in a fair and open competition as the best man to lead PADA, his appointment has been widely welcomed by the industry, yet the hon. Gentleman has now attacked him. I ask myself whether this is yet another example of that hon. Member taking the opportunity to have a go—[Interruption.]

Order. Some hon. Members still wish to question the Minister, so perhaps he could draw his remarks to a close.

I know that Paul Myners has written to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, pointing out that while that hon. Member may not find his company of the sort that he would want, it appears that the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry matters invited Mr. Myners to dinner after “Question Time”. We seem to have a slight split on the Tory Front Bench there. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will continue to support personal accounts and perhaps put the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell back in his box.

I am grateful to the Minister for advance notice of his statement. The uprating announced today will be welcomed by many, but tackling poverty must be the key test against which such statements are judged. On that basis, some serious questions need to be answered. Even with today’s rise, the state pension is still worth less than it was in 1950. Is it not simply unjustifiable that the uprating in line with earnings is to be delayed until 2012 at the earliest?

Can the Minister confirm that, yet again, there is no uprating of the winter fuel payment? Is he not aware that due to rising fuel prices, that payment is now worth roughly half its value when introduced, leading many to slide back into fuel poverty? The Minister has talked about backdating the pension credit, but is he not aware that with between 1.2 million and 1.7 million people not claiming it, there will inevitably be some individual losers, notwithstanding the fact that money is being redistributed, as he rightly said, within the pension pot?

While the steps the Minister is taking to simplify the application process for pensioners are welcome, is he not accepting by doing so that complexity is a major barrier to benefit take-up? Does he not agree that with 51 different benefits and 250 different rates, Britain’s benefit system is the most complex in the world? Does he not further agree that that complexity makes the system a nightmare for many who will wish to claim today’s uprated benefits such as pension credit? Is it not time to seek much greater simplification—through the introduction of a single working age benefit, for example? Does the Minister also agree that deep public anxiety about data security within the Department for Work and Pensions and about tax credits could also undermine benefit take-up? What reassurance can he offer to give claimants confidence in how their data will be handled by his Department?

The Minister mentions the pensions Bill, and we will carefully study the proposals on deregulation. The personal accounts scheme is welcome, but does the Minister share my concern that the mass means-testing of pensioners continued by today’s statement could muddy the waters for many people about whether saving is worthwhile? What steps is he taking to ensure that those people, and those with huge personal debts, will have access to appropriate advice to ensure that they are able to take the right decision?

One group of pensioners—the 125,000 whose pension schemes have collapsed—will have heard nothing of comfort in today’s statement. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to publish the results of the Young review? Is it his intention, as was reported in the press at the weekend, that the assets within the unclaimed scheme should be privatised? Would it not make more sense to hand those assets over to the management of the Pension Protection Fund, which has shown considerable expertise? That matter cannot wait much longer and I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances on that. [Interruption.]

Order. There are far too many individual conversations going on in the Chamber, which is making it very difficult to hear what is going on.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the earnings link, and we have already legislated to ensure that it will be brought in after 2012 during the course of that Parliament.

As to winter fuel payments, we never intended them to cover all the costs of heating, lighting and so forth for pensioners. It has rather been a contribution towards those costs. We know—and I know from my time as Energy Minister—that fuel prices dipped, but they have now come back up, which has meant significant changes in the cost of fuel on the market. However, as a result of our uprating of various benefits, particularly pension credit, for the poorest pensioners and the more general improvement in benefits and pensions for retired people, we also know that their income has steadily risen. They should be able to deal with issues around fuel poverty; indeed, we have been able to improve their position with respect to it. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about winter fuel payments, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as I can see, however, the record on winter fuel payments from 1997 to now is an extremely good one.

The take-up of pension credit has been a long-term issue. It is the case that we have written as many as four or five times to some of the people who we think should be claiming pension credit. For various reasons—they may not want to fill in the forms, or they may feel that they would not get very much—they decide not to. Some of them are surprised when they make a claim, as they receive far more than they expected. We are still working to encourage people to take up pension credit. Indeed, we hope to visit as many as 600,000 pensioners during the coming year to see if we can encourage better take-up. The changes that will come into force in October 2008 will provide quite an incentive for people to move forward and take up pension credit between now and then.

The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to complexity, which has been a long-term problem for the pensions sector. Through the Pensions Act 2007, and indeed the new pensions Bill, we aim to simplify and clarify a very complex system indeed. The changes I have announced today, particularly the automaticity of benefit application, will help ensure that some of that complexity is dealt with.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about data security. Personal accounts will require the transfer of some data between HMRC and the pensions regulator. We want to ensure that it is transferred in an appropriate and proper way and that proper controls are undertaken in respect of it.

As for means-testing, we have sought to use it to ensure that we tackle the key issue of pensioner poverty. We have had considerable success in doing that, and the proposals that I have announced will help us to build on our record, but there is still much more that we can do. Changes that we are making in the way in which benefits are available will, over time, start to reduce some of the means-testing. We have never been in favour of it, but it is one of the best ways of targeting help on the poorest people.

I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman a publication date for the Young review. I want to be able to look at it and consider it, and I know that it is likely to be quite a complex report. I hope to receive it in the next few days, and although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a commitment, I hope to be able to say something about it before Christmas.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some report in the weekend press. Let me say to him that obtaining information from the press is never wise.

We all welcome upratings, but does my good friend the Minister intend to write to all the people in our community who attain the age of 80 this year, and along with it entitlement to the old age allowance, and inform them of what they should do with their new-found wealth when the allowance rises from 25p to 26p? Might it include buying a second-class postage stamp, or saving up for a first-class postage stamp? Is it not about time that this award, which is neither use nor ornament, was laid to rest?

I have to say that my hon. Friend sounds a bit like my mum. My mum has just turned 80, and she said, “That 25p was a bit of an insult”—and a good friend of mine, Gwen Johnson, who runs the Atherstone pensioners convention, said, “You need to get rid of that 25p, Mike.” I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and I hope that we will be able to take some steps. I want to deal with what many pensioners regard as an insult, but if we do that, there must be a compensation measure. I hope that in due course we will be able to ensure not only that pensioners do not receive just 25p, but that they do not lose out as a result of any change.

What is the official estimate of the rate of inflation as it applies to pensioners, and how does it compare with the proposed increase in the state pension next year? Of the alleged £1,500 real increase in the state pension in the past 10 years, what percentage, on average, has been taken up by council tax rises?

This year the retail prices index is above earnings levels, and we have therefore increased the pension by the higher rate to ensure that people do not lose out. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about council tax, the answer is that—as with many things—it depends. It depends on whether someone is able to access the various benefits that are available to help people on the lowest incomes with their council tax. Numerous people across the country will benefit from some of the proposals that I have announced: we estimate that by 2010 up to 50,000 pensioners will be helped, many of them as a result of claiming benefits relating to council tax.

As was mentioned earlier, we have had problems in getting people to claim their pension credit, so we are making changes in relation to take-up. We are launching a campaign to inform people that they need not pay so much council tax, and that if they telephone the Pension Service it will not only ensure that they pay less, but perhaps enable them to claim pension credit at the same time. Reducing council tax would provide quite an incentive. People do not like paying taxes but they may also object to claiming benefits, and I hope that the council tax incentive can be used to get people on to benefits and lift them out of poverty.

The Minister’s statement has been rightly welcomed in all parts of the House, but may I press him on the proposal—itself very welcome—to ensure that information is sent automatically to councils, especially when it concerns council tax and housing benefits? Will the Department encourage local authorities to make that facility widely known to council tax payers in particular? Given that administration can vary slightly between authorities, will the Minister monitor them to ensure that the system is implemented fairly and quickly? Many people are a little confused by all the form-filling and demands, and it is important for them to interpret his initiatives positively.

Yes, that is important. I hesitate to tell local authorities what to do, because they always object to it and then demand money. We will work with Age Concern and Help the Aged during the coming year to encourage take-up of pension credit. We hope and intend to introduce the changes that will establish automaticity—as the jargon has it—by October next year. People will then be able to claim a number of benefits with just one telephone call.

I believe that working with voluntary organisations on a national basis to mount our campaign will give us a considerable voice out there, but I hope that we can persuade local authorities to join in. Telling pensioners about, for example, the extra help with free transport that we will be giving them next year might provide authorities with a good opportunity to say to them, “Actually, you can claim backdated pension credit until October, and after that a telephone call might well result in your paying less council tax and receiving more help in the form of pension credit.” The hon. Gentleman is right: the opportunities are significant.

Fuel poverty is the big issue for pensioners. In Stornoway, diesel costs £1.19 a litre. How does the Minister propose to help pensioners in rural and island communities who must pay more tax on fuel than people anywhere else in the United Kingdom and thus, probably, in the world? Ironically, pensioners incur those costs when they collect their pensions, and when they go shopping. On large islands such as Lewis and Uist, 50-mile return journeys are not unknown. Just what can the Minister do?

The hon. Gentleman rightly talks of his island communities, but rural communities throughout the United Kingdom are affected by problems relating to distance. That is why we have a strategy to help rural areas, which has been announced by my colleagues in other Departments.

There are higher costs associated with living in beautiful areas. Such areas often require a degree of hardiness, given the problems that exist in them. We want to find ways of providing further assistance, particularly for pensioners, some of whom may be infirm and may experience difficulties with travel arrangements.

The Minister has rightly recognised that failure to take up pension credit means that some of the poorest pensioners are missing out on something to which they are entitled. The view of those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is that we should deal with the problem by reducing the need for means-testing. The Minister is trying to simplify the process and I wish him success with that, but to help us to judge his success in a year’s time, will he give us estimates of the number of people who he thinks are currently missing out on pension credit and the figure to which he expects that number to fall if his campaign has been a success?

It will not all have been done in a year’s time. A year from now the system will have been in place for only a couple of months, and I think it ambitious to try to tie me down to a figure representing a change over a couple of months. It is ambitious on the hon. Gentleman’s part, and giving such a figure would certainly be ambitious on mine. What we have said is that we expect the introduction of the automatic entitlement as a result of a single telephone call to lift about 50,000 pensioners out of poverty by 2010.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I could seek your advice on how to correct misinformation in a particular case. I have here a document that states:

“The Electoral Commission had referred matters to the Police therefore aspects of the Whitty review would have to be placed on hold.”

That is in confidential minutes written by Michael Cashman, MEP. Earlier, the Prime Minister denied that. Obviously, that was inadvertent. How can we get the Prime Minister back to the Chamber to correct the record, so that the whole world will know that, in fact, the Whitty review has to be placed on hold because the police are involved?

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, and I suggest that he write to the individual concerned to get clarification on the point he has raised on the Floor of the House.

BILLs PRESENTED

Pensions

Mr. Secretary Hain, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Des Browne, Mr. Secretary Hutton, Mr. Secretary Woodward, Mr. Mike O’Brien and Mr. James Plaskitt, presented a Bill to make provision relating to pensions, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 25].

Planning and Energy

Mr. Michael Fallon, supported by John Battle, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Martin Caton, Colin Challen, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Hugh Bayley, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Michael Jack, Julia Goldsworthy and Chris Huhne, presented a Bill to enable local planning authorities to set requirements for energy generation and energy efficiency in local plans: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed. [Bill 17].

Special Educational Needs (Information)

Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, supported by Lyn Brown, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Kelvin Hopkins, Ms Angela C. Smith, Anne Snelgrove, John Bercow, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Mark Oaten and Stephen Williams, presented a Bill to amend the Education Act 1996 in relation to the provision and publication of information about children who have special educational needs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed [Bill 26].

Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment)

Andrew Miller, supported by Tony Lloyd, Mr. George Howarth, Margaret Moran, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Andrew Smith, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Alun Michael, Mr. Kevan Jones, Ms Dawn Butler, Ben Chapman and Ann Clwyd, presented a Bill to provide for the protection of temporary and agency workers; to require the principle of equal treatment to be applied to temporary and agency workers; to make provision about the enforcement of rights of temporary and agency workers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February, and to be printed [Bill 27].

British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals)

Mr. Julian Brazier, supported by Mr. John Gummer, Keith Vaz, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Jim Hood, Stephen Pound, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mrs. Nadine Dorries, Jim Dobbin, Mr. David Burrowes and Mr. Greg Hands, presented a Bill to make provision for parliamentary scrutiny of senior appointments to the British Board of Film Classification and of guidelines produced by it; to establish a body with powers to hear appeals against the release of videos and DVDs and the classification of works in prescribed circumstances; to make provision about penalties for the distribution of illegal works; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 29 February, and to be printed [Bill 16].

Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment)

Mr. John Heppell, supported by Mr. Anthony Wright, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Robert Flello, Mr. Fraser Kemp, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Michael Clapham, Ms Dari Taylor, Janet Anderson and Rosemary McKenna, presented a Bill to extend the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to the acquisition and disposal of substantial shareholdings by private equity companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].

Animals Act 1971 (Amendment)

Mr. Stephen Crabb, supported by Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. Roger Williams, Mr. Richard Benyon, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Edward O’Hara, Kate Hoey, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Tim Farron and Barry Gardiner, presented a Bill to amend the Animals Act 1971 to limit strict liability for damage done by animals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].

Food Products (Marketing to Children)

Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mary Creagh, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Andrew George, Bob Spink and Stephen Williams, presented a Bill to make provision about the advertising, marketing and promotion of food and drink products to children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 19].

Environmental Protection (Transfers at Sea)

Mark Lazarowicz, supported by Mr. David Anderson, Derek Conway, Nigel Griffiths, Mr. David Hamilton, Mr. John MacDougall, Anne Moffat, Bob Spink, Dr. Gavin Strang, Mr. Mike Weir and John Barrett, presented a Bill to make provision about transfers of cargo at sea; to provide for environmental safeguards in relation to such transfers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed [Bill 20].

Health and Safety (Offences)

Keith Hill presented a Bill to revise the mode of trial and maximum penalties applicable to certain offences relating to health and safety: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 29].

Energy Saving (Daylight)

Mr. Tim Yeo, supported by Peter Bottomley, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Lembit Opik, Richard Ottaway, Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. John Whittingdale and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to advance time by one hour throughout the year to create lighter evenings, for an experimental period; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 21].

Voting Age (Reduction)

Julie Morgan, supported by Natascha Engel, Jo Swinson, Roger Berry, John Bercow, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Jenny Willott, Mrs. Betty Williams, Peter Bottomley, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Hywel Williams and Ms Katy Clark, presented a Bill to reduce the voting age for parliamentary and other elections to 16 years: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed [Bill 22].

Fixed Term Parliaments

David Howarth, supported by Mr. David Heath, Simon Hughes, Chris Huhne, Danny Alexander, Lynne Featherstone, Mr. Nick Clegg, Mr. Paul Burstow, Paul Rowen, Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Peter Bone, presented a Bill to fix the date of the next general election and all subsequent elections; to forbid the dissolution of Parliament otherwise than in accordance with this Act; to allow the House of Commons to change the day of the week on which a general election is held; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Forces Widows’ Pensions (Equality of Treatment)

Mr. Michael Mates, supported by Mr. Bruce George, Sir Menzies Campbell, Patrick Mercer, Mr. Michael Clapham, Nick Harvey, Peter Viggers, Derek Conway, Simon Hughes and Sir Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to provide for the equal treatment of Forces widows’ pensions in respect of retirement from military service for the periods before 1973 and between 1973 and 2005; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed [Bill 31].

Leasehold Reform

Simon Hughes, supported by John Hemming, Mr. Nick Clegg, Greg Mulholland, Paul Rowen, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mark Hunter, Stephen Williams, Andrew Stunell, Paul Holmes, Bob Russell and Lynn Featherstone, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to long leaseholders; to confer further powers on leaseholders; to make provision in relation to leaseholders in local council owned property and property owned by other social landlords; to confer powers on landlords to create sinking funds; to make requirements of landlords relating to the management of property; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February, and to be printed [Bill 32].

Borough Freedom

Derek Conway, supported by Mr. Graham Allen, Janet Anderson, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Roger Gale, Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Mr. Keith Simpson and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to enable rights of admission to the freedom of cities or towns to be extended to women; to enable other amendments relating to admission to be made; to confer powers to admit persons as honorary freemen of certain places in the Confederation of the Cinque Ports; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed [Bill 23].

Sound Recordings (Copyright Term Extension)

Pete Wishart, supported by Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Mark Field, Sandra Gidley, John Robertson, Rosemary McKenna, Adam Price, Mr. Greg Knight, John Hemming, Stewart Hosie, Kelvin Hopkins and Janet Anderson, presented a Bill to extend beyond 50 years the copyright term of sound recordings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 33].

Environmental Protection (Airports)

Justine Greening, supported by Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Nick Hurd, Adam Afriyie, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Edward Garnier, John McDonnell, David Taylor, Susan Kramer, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Mark Prisk and Mr. Greg Hands, presented a Bill to promote the protection of the environment near airports; to establish a body to monitor the environmental impact of airports and to report on levels of pollution; to confer certain powers on that body; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 34].

Public Sector Buildings (Energy Performance)

Anne Snelgrove, supported by Lyn Brown, Colin Challen, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. John Gummer, Andrew Gwynne, Mrs. John Humble, David Howarth, Martin Horwood, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Tim Yeo and Dr. Alan Whitehead, presented a Bill to make further provision about energy efficiency and microgeneration in public sector buildings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 35].

Foreign Nationals (Statistics)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Nick Harvey, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. John Whittingdale and Mr. Tom Clarke, presented a Bill to establish a requirement on local authorities to transfer certain statistics relating to nationality to the Office for National Statistics; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 May, and to be printed [Bill 36].

Disqualification from Parliament (Taxation Status)

Mr. Gordon Prentice, supported by Paul Flynn, Kelvin Hopkins, David Heyes, Ms Katy Clark, Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Gavin Strang, Lynne Jones, Dr. Ian Gibson, Clive Efford and Andrew Mackinlay , presented a Bill to make provision for disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the House of Lords on grounds relating to residence and domicile for taxation purposes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed [Bill 24].

ESTIMATES DAY

[1st Allotted Day]

It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on some of the work of the Public Administration Committee, and in particular its work on “Ethics and Standards: The Regulation of Conduct in Public Life”. I was going to say that this is a timely debate, but I could have said that at almost any point in the recent past.

I wish to begin by paying a most sincere tribute to my fellow Committee members. They are an outstanding collection of people. I have been privileged to have a number of them as members of the Committee for some time, and then for it to have been refreshed by some excellent new arrivals. I am sure that the Committee has built up a collective spirit and a way of operating that has contributed greatly to its work. I also pay tribute to the Committee’s excellent staff, particularly our departing Clerk, Eve Samson, who managed to keep us on the straight and narrow in our dealings with Scotland Yard in the past year or so, which was not always entirely easy. We had a party for her last night, and I hope that Eve was feeling all right this morning.

The PAC’s work concerns itself with the conduct of government in a general sense, and it is worth reminding ourselves that that concern has two main aspects, and that it always has done. We can go back 150 years to the famous Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, which reformed the civil service and put it on its modern basis of appointment by merit. The importance of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms was that they concerned themselves with the proper conduct of government in two senses. One sense was propriety—that patronage was wrong. The other was that patronage was inefficient—that it produced an inefficient state. Therefore, the Committee has always concerned itself with those two elements of what the proper conduct of government is: the more narrowly defined issue of propriety, and the more general issue of effectiveness and efficiency. That is consistent with the traditions of public service reform that began in the 19th century on the back of Northcote-Trevelyan, the foundation of the system associated with the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the civil service commissioners. Those are the great 19th century reforms that we have built on in our own times.

The Committee’s recent work has ranged widely over the conduct of government in the sense of propriety—I shall leave aside the question of efficiency and effectiveness for the moment. We have concerned ourselves with the need for a Bill to bring the civil service into statute, and I am delighted that we are finally to get that. The Committee is unique in having vented its frustration at not getting such a Bill by drafting one itself and showing the Government how it could be done. I believe that this is the first time that that has happened in the modern period, but I am sure that it helped the Government to frame their thoughts, and I am glad that the Bill is to be included in the constitutional reform legislation.

The Committee has examined, and said things about, the constitutional relationship between Ministers and civil servants. We have examined prerogative powers and suggested reforms in that area—indeed, such reforms will be in the constitutional reform Bill. It is almost as though someone in government has discovered our back catalogue. We are delighted about that, because we labour on these issues year in, year out, thinking that no one takes much notice of what we are doing, but suddenly people discover the corpus of our work and we find that much of it is to be translated into legislation. This is an exciting time for us.

The Committee has examined the ministerial code and has called for an independent investigator under it. We can claim to be the people who got the code changed to insist that announcements should be made in Parliament first—that is important. We have examined the role of special advisers and made recommendations. We have reformed the honours system. We have considered the system of business appointments—indeed, we have reformed the House of Lords.

More!

If only the rest of the world would catch up with us. The Committee has examined, and recommended reforms to, the system of public appointments. We have examined the balance of interests in the publication of memoirs and made the most important and significant contribution to that matter since Lord Radcliffe examined it a generation or so ago. We are about to produce a report on propriety and peerages in the wake of the Scotland Yard investigation into cash for peerages, and we have just embarked on an inquiry into lobbying. It is clear that the Committee has a consistent track record of examining the propriety side of government in a constructive way that is designed to improve the system and to make recommendations that can be acted upon.

I must confess that the Committee is also probably responsible for some delay in the Government’s appointing a new chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, because they knew that we were about to produce a report on ethics and standards, including a review of that Committee, and I think that they probably thought that we were going to recommend single, non-renewable terms. That might partly explain a delay in the appointment.

I thank my hon. Friend for his explanation to the House. It might help him, the Committee and the House if I were to announce that the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Christopher Kelly as Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that that follows a recommendation by his Committee that the appointment should be for a single, fixed term of five years. I am sure that he will also be glad that the appointment process was regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

It is good to have that announcement. My Committee did not recommend a particular nominee, but I am sure that the appointment is an excellent one. We did recommend that all jobs of this kind—ethical regulators—should have single, non-renewable terms. That removes the silliness about whether people should be renewed in such jobs.

This whole area is necessarily sensitive, and it can be difficult for us. I remember thinking about that soon after I joined the House in 1992. I foolishly took part in a debate on Members’ travel allowances. At that time, the system was that Members who had larger cars received larger allowances, and that seemed silly to me. When I joined the House, various Members at the time recommended that I buy a Ford Sierra diesel—it was called the MP’s car because it had a huge engine and, as a diesel, did huge mileage. I did not buy a car, but I noted the suggestion. Even back in the early 1990s, I thought that rewarding people for driving the largest cars was not sensible, so I made the mistake of saying in the debate that I had been given that recommendation, that I did not think it made a lot of sense and that we should surely have a different kind of remuneration system. A Labour colleague, who is now a senior Member of the House, came up to me afterwards, looked me in the eye and said, “You know, you will never be forgiven for what you have just said.” He may have been right—I may have never been forgiven for what I said—but at that point I learned that these are sensitive areas where one has to tread carefully.

I also vividly remember the day when John Major, who had his back to the wall and was engulfed by sleaze allegations, announced that he was setting up the Committee on Standards in Public Life and that it would sit on a permanent basis—it was never going to go away. I remember being in the taxi queue down at the Members’ entrance that night, where there was a little collection of Conservative Members, one of whom was spitting blood about the announcement and saying, “Life will never be the same again, because someone is going to poke around into our affairs and identify all the ways in which Members are working for outside interests and do something about it.” That was not going to be done in the usual way of inquiries, whereby they sit for a few months and then go away. This Committee was not going to go away; it was going to keep coming back to issues time and again to ensure that we put our political system in some kind of order. Those two examples remind us that these are difficult matters.

My proposition is that we all should share a commitment to high standards in public life—that should be a given across Parliament and across parties. We know that such a commitment is crucial in maintaining public confidence, but it is also crucial in its own right, because it is what we would expect of our political system. On the whole, our system does reflect a commitment to high standards. We do not have the kinds of corruption that are seen in some other political systems. If one were to look historically—at where we have come from—one would find that things are much better now. Comparatively—where we sit in relation to other countries—we also do rather well. In terms of the hard definition of corruption, which is the use and abuse of public office for private gain, our system does exceptionally well. Even when there are lapses, as sometimes happens, they are usually lapses for party gain, rather than for personal gain. That is not to be recommended, but such lapses are not corruption in its core sense. They happened for a period in the 1990s, but only in very small measure and at the margins.

The problem is that the reality is, in some ways, less important than perceptions. There is a perception, fed by certain sections of the media in particular, that public life in this country is corrupt, and that it is a moral sewer or cesspit. That perception is poured out each day and it is thus unsurprising that some people think it is true. We should consider the judgment of Sir Hayden Phillips, who has been conducting the review into the funding of political parties. He said in his interim report that

“when compared to other jurisdictions, the British political system, taken as a whole, has been remarkably free of abuse”.

That judgment was also made by the very first report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and, on the whole it is correct.

I agree with what my hon. Friend has been saying, and I congratulate him on his speech. Does he agree that constantly making reference to the relative performance, both historically and internationally, of British politics compared with others is not enough? Does he agree that we need some kind of absolute standards, and we need to say, “We are going to aim at that”? We should not just say that we are not as bad as other people.

Of course we have to have standards of our own that we believe in and want to see enforced. I was just seeking to point out the need to take a step backwards from the daily headlines. Some people want to persuade the great British public that our political system is corrupt. I do not believe that it is corrupt, and we are entitled to say that. However, that is not to say that we should not be eternally vigilant. We should not be complacent and there are issues that require attention, but on the central judgment we are entitled to say that the historical evidence and the comparative evidence suggest that we do not do too badly.

These are matters of culture and structure, and it is important that we get both right. Our Committee went on a visit to Finland as part of its inquiries because that country usually comes at or near the top in league tables of good governance and lack of corruption. In structural terms, we would find much of the Finnish system unacceptable—for example, the way in which senior civil servants are appointed by politicians. Despite that, the Finnish system is wonderfully uncorrupt. The clue to that success was the remark by someone we met, who said that in Finland people only behave badly once. What he meant was that in the Finnish culture bad behaviour puts someone out of bounds. The society was so closed, tight and intimate that everyone knew if someone had behaved badly. In other words, the culture was sustaining the high standards. That is a reminder that structures matter but culture probably matters even more.

There is a danger that, in our preoccupation with seeking yet more structures and rules, we may end up substituting them for the culture that really matters most. We need both, and on the whole this country has been fortunate in having elements of both, not least because we have a civil service that is an in-built check on propriety in the system. It is no wonder that people still come from around the world—I know, because I meet them—to look at the British civil service as an example of independence, neutrality and propriety. I am sure that having such a system at the heart of government acts as permanent propriety check.

We want high standards for their own sake, not for other reasons. We say in our report that we should not have high standards just because we think that they will somehow restore trust in government—something with which we are much preoccupied now. In fact, the reverse may happen. Transparency is a wonderful thing and it is true, as is often said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant. However, it may illuminate areas that were previously unilluminated, and the more one illuminates areas, the more problems may be revealed. I suspect that no Member of Parliament particularly enjoys the annual ritual of the publication of Members’ expenses, accompanied by newspaper reports about snouts in the trough without any explanation in the popular media of what we do with the money that we are paid. Does that transparency contribute to the development of trust? I doubt it. Indeed, it probably works in the other direction, although that is not to say that we should not do it. The point is that transparency of itself will not foster trust: it may work to make trust more difficult.

Our report documents in some detail the recent creation, especially in the past few years, of a considerable apparatus of ethical audit and regulation. We—I mean we generally, not in a party sense—have published and made more robust the ministerial code; we have produced a civil service code, and one for special advisers; we have set up a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; we have established an adviser on ministerial interests; we have set up the Electoral Commission; we have had a Freedom of Information Act, with an Information Commissioner; we have a House of Lords Appointments Commission to check for propriety; we have a commissioner for public appointments; and we have reformed the honours system.

It often goes unremarked that the previous Prime Minister removed himself completely from the honours system. He said that he would no longer add or subtract any names from the list given to him by the newly independent honours committees, but would pass them directly to the palace. That was a big moment in the evolution of such matters, but it was not widely noticed. I think that the present Prime Minister has said that he will do the same.

I have given quite a roll call of reforms and institutions that have been introduced in the past few years, designed to strengthen the propriety of our public affairs. Both major parties have had a role in that. I pay great tribute to John Major for setting up the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1994. Yes, he did so against a background of sustained allegations of impropriety, but he did it nevertheless, and it was an important, bold and brave moment. His Government also set up the commissioner for public appointments to answer the charge of the politicisation of quango appointments.

When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they took the process further. For example, the Major Government had said that they were not prepared to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to consider party funding. They would not include party funding in the committee’s terms of reference, despite many requests. One of the first things that the Labour Government did in 1997 was to include party funding in the committee’s terms of reference. That is why the committee produced its great report that led to the 2000 legislation and the commitment to transparency. It was thought at the time that that was the answer to the problem, but as I said a few moments ago, transparency is not necessarily the answer, because people do not always like what they see. Therefore, they want more to be done, which is what we are discussing now.

There is a paradox in the history I have given. We have had a huge explosion in the ethical regulation of government, but trust in government, and perceptions of trust in government, have gone in the opposite direction. That is an interesting conjunction. One might have expected the growth in ethical regulation to produce a growth in trust because all the unregulated areas of public life were now being regulated. That has not happened, which suggests that other factors are at work.

I apologise for not being in my place earlier in the debate. I agree with the changes that have been made, starting in 1994 for the reasons that my hon. Friend has outlined, and extended by the present Government. However, would he agree that we took a step backwards on 18 May, when the House of Commons passed by 96 to 25 votes the wretched private Member’s Bill that would have exempted Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act? Fortunately, no one in the Lords would pursue it. Had that become law, we would have disgraced ourselves, because we would have said that freedom of information should apply to all other public bodies—and it should be extended to the private sector, too, as far as I am concerned—but not to Parliament. We were saved from ourselves by the other place.

I very much agree that that was not this House’s finest hour. The Public Administration Committee was involved in examining the draft of the original Freedom of Information Bill, and we can claim to have made it rather more robust by the time it completed its parliamentary journey than it was when it started.

There are a number of explanations for the paradox surrounding the enormous growth in ethical regulation in recent years and the seeming further decline in public trust in the system, but one should concern us directly. I am referring to the fact that it has become extremely attractive for one political party to attack the integrity of other parties. We have all discovered in recent times that there are enormous short-term political dividends in doing that: suggesting that our opponents are mired in sleaze plays to existing public perceptions, and brings huge political gains in the short term.

We on this side of the House played that card heavily in the 1990s, with some justice—although, in retrospect, that was exaggerated. Some things needed remedying, but we were wrong to suggest that the Major Government and most members of the parliamentary Conservative party were sleazebags. That was not true, but we found it extremely rewarding politically to say so.

Similarly, the Conservative party found that those attacks had been so damaging that it decided to start making equivalent charges as soon as possible after the new Labour Government came to power in 1997. As a result, the parties became involved in making mutual allegations and charges, with each saying, “You’re sleazier than we are!” To which the answer always comes back, “Oh no we’re not, you’re much sleazier than we are!” That is how the slanging match begins, and some sections of the press love to reinforce it by telling readers every day how corrupt and sleazy we all are.

That is why I was disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition say last week that there were questions about the Prime Minister’s integrity when it came to party funding. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to attack the Prime Minister in all sorts of ways, but that was unfortunate. I do not think that there are any questions about the Prime Minister’s integrity, although many questions can properly be asked about current matters. However, attacking our opponents’ integrity has extremely damaging consequences for our political system and for the perception of public life.

We all have our little lists of scandals that we think that we can throw at opponents in other parties. That is what we do: I gather that there was a splendid debate yesterday when that was all that happened. The point is, though, that such an approach is based on a deception—the lie that our system is mired in sleaze and corruption. I do not believe that, but if that is what we are saying about our opponents, no wonder people in the outside world believe it to be true, and no wonder public confidence and trust evaporate. If we say such things about each other when we know them to be fundamentally untrue, no wonder public engagement in politics vanishes. By seeking advantage in making such accusations, in some measure we are responsible for the consequences that we bring about.

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech, but does he agree that the problem is that we are in an era of sound-bite politics, with too much interest shown in what the news bulletins at 12, 6 and 10 o’clock report? We need to break our slavish desire to keep in with the media at any cost, regardless of the background of what we say. Does he agree that Parliament and the media pander to each other in a relationship that means that we live in a world of our own creation?

I know the hon. Gentleman. He is a distinguished member of the Public Administration Committee, and I can tell the House that he panders to nobody. He is a person of ferocious independence—

Is that allowed?

It is one of his great charms and attractions: it is probably not greatly welcomed by those on the Conservative Front Bench, but it is hugely welcomed by someone who is trying to run a cross-party committee. He does not pander to the media; he tries to tell it like it is, and that is what we all must do. Our responsibility is not to engage in a game that we know will be taken up by sections of the media because it feeds an existing agenda or an existing set of perceptions. We must say things that we think are true, even if that is not politically convenient to our side. If we do not do that, we will deserve everything we get—and we are getting quite a lot at the moment.

I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), our colleague on the Public Administration Committee. It is said that Clement Attlee looked at newspapers only for the cricket results, which suggests that he had a healthy attitude to the news media. Does my hon. Friend agree that we might help our Prime Minister now by suggesting that he should worry less about what is on the front page and perhaps pursue something more harmless, such as the cricket?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to pay huge tributes to all the members of the Committee, but I am happy to pay tribute to him. I yield to no one in my admiration for Clement Attlee, of whom it was famously said that he would never use one word where none would do. He is the antidote to the age in which we live. Some say that he would not survive for a moment now, but I think that he would be a hero, cutting through all the spin-driven, media celebrity nonsense that drives so much of our modern public life.

I may be anticipating a point that my hon. Friend is about to make, but does he agree that the ethical regulators who should be pronouncing on our conduct are simply not on the radar screens of people outside the House? That is the problem, and the result is that the public get their information from what happens in this Chamber. Should we not establish ethical regulators who talk loudly and are listened to?

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend anticipates a point that I was going to make. Indeed, much of life on the Public Administration Committee is taken up with him doing just that, and his contributions are always extremely valuable. I was coming to precisely that point—that it is not much good to have an elaborate system of ethical regulation if it does not have a voice, or if people do not know that it exists.

Following the report that we are discussing today, the Committee convened a seminar of all the ethical watchdogs. It was very interesting, but the consistent theme that emerged was that they all believed that they were lacking a champion. The spokesmen for the bodies involved all told us that they did not feel that anyone was there to champion all the good work being done. The fact that that is what we were told emphatically makes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and it is something to which we must turn our attention.

At the heart of the Committee’s interest, and its recommendations, is the fact that it robustly tries to seek solutions to the problems it identifies. That is its hallmark. The Committee is not complacent about standards and conduct, and tries always, in various ways, to strengthen the arrangements. In our report, we argue that the time has come to recognise explicitly that we have created a system of permanent ethical regulation. I have described an array of bodies: they are not here today and gone tomorrow; they are here to stay. As a political system, we have committed ourselves to having standing machinery to regulate conduct in public life.

The problem is that the bodies are often set up in an ad hoc way. In response to a passing crisis, what do we do? We set up a new body, a new commissioner or a new committee. That means that the complete network of such bodies lacks a coherent institutional design. We think it is time to remedy that. There is a rather important constitutional point: if we are serious about the permanent ethical regulation of public life we have to be serious about the status of the bodies that engage in it. The situation seems fundamentally unsatisfactory to us. Indeed, our report notes:

“It is unsatisfactory for the ethical regulators created to regulate government to be appointed by government, and funded by government.”

We have reached the point where we should express our commitment to the permanence of those bodies by putting them on a proper statutory foundation. Parliament wants to know that they are part of the permanent political landscape, so the Committee suggested the establishment of a public standards commission, which would be an umbrella organisation for the bodies that have been set up, and ensure that they all took a statutory form.

The Government have not said that they accept our argument, but they have not rejected it either. In their response to our report, they say they will think about the proposals. Given the fact that we have had a number of successes with the Government recently and they are taking a great interest in our previous recommendations, we have some hope that when the constitutional reform Bill is drafted—that omnibus piece of legislation—a place will be found to do something of the kind that we propose. It would provide an explicit constitutional commitment to ensuring that bodies charged with the regulation of public life are permanent, independent and not simply creatures of Government.

In fact, such bodies are not compromised in practice; they do excellent work and are robustly independent, but there is something unsatisfactory about their constitutional status and I think we can put that right. At the same time, we can give coherence to the system and perhaps answer the watchdogs’ charge about the lack of a champion of their role in the overall system.

I have read the report and was taken by the idea for a commission. In Scotland, we have various people—the Auditor General, the ombudsman, the Information Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner and others—who are all approved and appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of Parliament. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the commission model would be better than a system in which Parliament, as opposed to the Executive, makes the nominations?

We looked carefully at the Scottish model—indeed, we visited Scotland—and we were attracted by aspects of it, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not entirely without difficulties. It is being reviewed even as we speak, and there are some radical recommendations for the regulatory system in Scotland. Our public standards commission would be set up by Parliament; it would be a parliamentary creation. It would report to Parliament and Parliament would be represented on it. The analogue is the Public Accounts Commission; thus a public standards commission would say that we are as serious about public standards as we are about the regulation of public money. That is the model we advocate, although I do not say that there is not more work to be done or that other models are not available. We need to take on board the essential constitutional point, and I hope that the Government, minded as they are to introduce a variety of measures in that field, will want to go down the road that we suggest.

I should like to explore the hon. Gentleman’s interesting proposal a little further. If the suggested commission were set up, would reports from the various bodies still be put before Parliament directly, or would they come via the commission? How would the mechanics of the commission work?

The answer is that the commission would report to Parliament in its turn. Parliament would be involved in setting it up, and all the matters of funding and appointment that flowed from that would go along the parliamentary route. It would be sensible for the Government to be represented on the commission, as they are on the Public Accounts Commission. The reports would come to this place, very much as the Committee that I chair receives reports from the parliamentary ombudsman and the Public Accounts Committee receives reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General. There would be an organic relationship with Parliament, but there would also be independence for the bodies concerned.

The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling and most impressive case. His Committee clearly had some influence with the Government in the appointment of Sir Christopher Kelly. One of the Committee’s recommendations was that the names proposed should be agreed by consultation among the parties. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether that particular aspect was taken up by the Government in that appointment?

I think the hon. Gentleman may be in a better position to answer that question than I am. I have no idea who was consulted. There is a convention and I hope it was followed in the recent appointment, as it is in certain other appointments. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us a little more about that when she speaks.

The House has choices. We can do what I have just recommended. The Committee was particularly concerned with Cabinet Office bodies, of which there are about half a dozen. It is not satisfactory that such bodies are ad hoc, or that they can be abolished at the whim of the Government. Whatever model we choose, it is right to put those bodies on a proper constitutional basis. That is one choice for the House and the Government.

There is another choice, too. As politicians and party members we have to decide whether we think that engaging in the politics of sleaze, by which I mean attacking the integrity of one’s opponents, is so alluring and attractive, and brings such political dividends, that we would rather settle for that as a way of handling such matters—or whether we think that the time has come to state jointly, on both sides of the House, our determination not to engage in that kind of game, but to establish a system of regulation and a culture that will ensure that our public life is conducted, and continues to be conducted, to the highest possible standards. That is a real choice for the House, and for the way we do politics. I hope that the report will be a spur for the House to make the choice that I think it ought to make.

This is a welcome debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and his Committee, which has done a particularly good job. It is an all-party Committee that consistently and regularly brings before us appropriate matters to consider. This report is an entirely good and appropriate thing to discuss. It is timely in the context of the wider debate about these matters, which has been precipitated by the recent allegations that were the core subject of yesterday’s debate on party funding. These things are all part of the understanding of how the political process works.

I want to start with the formalities of the Committee’s recommendations and the Government’s response, because it is important to get on the record my view and that of my colleagues on these matters. I can summarise my view by saying that I agree with all the proposals in the report. It is welcome that the Government have accepted the large bulk of the recommendations in their response, which came out on 15 November. They have accepted that

“watchdogs should, in principle, have power to initiate their own inquiries into matters of specific or general concern.”

They have agreed that

“ethical regulators need to be robustly and conspicuously independent, and the system of regulation needs to be proportionate and coherent.”

They have accepted the recommendation that

“the cost of each Independent Office and the CSPL”—

Committee on Standards in Public Life—

“be clearly indicated in Estimates and Accounts.”

They also accepted the following recommendation:

“The most effective safeguard against concerns that regulators’ independence may be influenced by a desire for reappointment is to provide for a reasonably lengthy single non-renewable term. In our view this term should not be more than seven years (nor less than five years).”

It is an indication of the Government’s good will that the Minister intervened on the hon. Member for Cannock Chase to announce not just that the Government have agreed the appointment of the new chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but that he has been appointed for a fixed-term non-renewable period of five years. That is welcome. The Minister will expect me to say that it was not so welcome that the Government were not keen for the previous chairman to continue in office. Alistair Graham did an excellent job. We have to have a system in which the Government are not able to get angry or into a huff about such an important committee set up precisely to be a voice apart. The chairman should not find himself suddenly rubbished—I may be using slightly excessive language—by sources in Government, so that he is not able to continue in office.

I pay tribute to Alistair Graham and his team. I appeared before them and have given evidence to them. Nothing that I have seen or know suggests that they did not do their job entirely competently, professionally and with the best interests of the country at heart. I thank him and them for the work that went on under his chairmanship. I am only pleased that the interregnum has at last come to an end and we have a new chairman, and I wish him all the best in his five-year term. This is an important appointment, an important job and an important committee.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Sir Alistair Graham. I, too, admire him and thought that he did a good job. He was precisely the kind of robust independent mind that the report recommended. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government have accepted the Select Committee’s recommendation about a robust independent chairman reflects the change in Prime Minister? It was the previous Prime Minister and his Government who found Sir Alistair Graham rather irritating and did not like him getting under their skin. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the Government have now said that they want a robust and independent chairman? That marks a welcome change.

I accept that it was not the current Prime Minister who took the view about Alistair Graham. The current Prime Minister has indicated nothing to suggest that he is not willing to have people who are independent, robust and effective doing the job. I hope that that marks a sea change. In general terms, I welcome all the comments that the Prime Minister has made on such issues since he took office. Comments made in “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper, which was published just before the summer, and elsewhere suggest that he is determined to try to make sure not just that we, as a body politic and a set of public institutions, clean up our act where necessary, but that we are seen to do that. I do not doubt his integrity in that regard.

Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away with his praise for the Prime Minister, will he recognise that the Prime Minister has not conceded to the ministerial adviser the right to initiate inquiries on his own account? The ministerial adviser has to wait for the Prime Minister to invite him to do so.