My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking ministerial visits to Belfast and Manchester on Tuesday 7 and Friday 10 September? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday launched Taking Action: The UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world. The strategy signals major new investment in AIDS—over £1.5 billion over the next three years. It also gives a special focus to tackling the impact of HIV/AIDS on women and young people, including orphans and children made vulnerable by AIDS.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate her on the Government's response so far to this overwhelming and exceptional crisis. Does she agree with the All-Party Group on Africa's recommendations in its recent report on AIDS that DfID should marshal the capacity of all other government departments to assist—for instance, the Department of Trade and Industry in stimulating UK companies which work in Africa to develop proper AIDS programmes for employees and migrant labour; and the Department for Education and Skills to train replacement capacity in the public services?

My Lords, first, this is indeed an integrated strategy. My noble friend may be aware that the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council launched a joint HIV/AIDS employment policy early in 2002 for all employees and their long-term partners in developing countries. We encourage responsible businesses to have in place a similarly effective workplace policy.

My noble friend is quite right about the human resource capacity crisis in Africa, which is now impacting significantly on the region's governments' ability to deliver vital public services. We will of course encourage other departments working in the area to work with those governments to ensure that the skills gap, which now stands at 1 million qualified professionals, is narrowed.

My Lords, the extra resources are welcome indeed, although I hope that the Leader of the House recognises that much more needs to be done, not just by this country but by the West generally, to reduce the appalling toll of death from AIDS, especially in African and other developing countries. She will have read yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which reported that several thousand trained nurses, desperately needed in many African countries, are being recruited to work here in Britain. How does she believe that that helps the fight against AIDS in Africa? How can that policy be defended?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is quite right: more needs to be done. He is also right to say that we need to create the conditions in developing countries that mean that their skilled professionals stay in those countries. One of the most appalling facts is that investment in developing countries by their own citizens, which is encouraged by foreign direct investment, does not stay—there is capital flight. So a big part of our strategy is to create the right conditions in-country.

On the specific point about nurses, the noble Lord will know that we have a code of practice for the health service, which is working quite well. What is not working as effectively is the voluntary code that applies to the private health sector, which does go in to countries to poach professionals. That remains a cause of concern.

My Lords, is it not horrific to contemplate the catastrophic effects of HIV/AIDS across Africa? In Botswana, where life expectancy was 60 10 years ago, it is now 40 and predicted to fall to 27 by 2010. That is why I particularly welcomed the announcement by the International Development Secretary last week, following the spending review, that he would be trebling the UK's contribution to the UN AIDS programme. Does my noble friend therefore share my concern at the comments made by the shadow Chancellor to the effect that, in the unlikely event of a future Tory government, £800 million would be cut from the DOD budget, which would seriously weaken this country's ability to contribute to the worldwide campaign against HIV/AIDS?

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: the figures for life expectancy in developing countries where there is a serious HIV/AIDS pandemic are falling. My noble friend is also right to say that there is likely to be a cut in the DfID budget if the Opposition's spending plans go through. However, I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who speaks on these subjects in this House, constantly commends the department's work. I hope that she would fight hard with her colleagues to ensure that that did not happen.

My Lords, that statement is welcome, especially in its renewed focus on children, which was missing from previous statements on AIDS. However, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the current estimate is that by 2010 there will be 25 million AIDS orphans? What action are the Government taking to assist those children and, in particular, to assist their carers, who may within families be looking after 18, 20 or 25 children? The pressing issue may be simply how to feed them.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is quite right: the number is set to increase substantially, although the figure that I have is 20 million, rather than 25 million, by 2010. That is still a significant rise. On the work that we are doing with carers, I must say that a number of the carers are children themselves. That is why a key part of the strategy is to work with developing countries to ensure that they prioritise their work on HIV/AIDS on work with orphans and vulnerable children. Not only feeding but educating those children is a key part of the strategy.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that although many of the carers of the millions of orphans are young, many of the others are grandparents who are trying to bring up children with none of the help, support or resources that we take for granted in the industrialised world? A whole generation of those children's families has been decimated by that terrible scourge. I declare an interest as a board member of HelpAid International.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: we must consider not only children in those caring roles but grandparents.

My Lords, I also speak on international development for my party in this House.

No final decision has been taken by my party on international development spending. In the light of the launch of Taking Action, are Her Majesty's Government confident that the UN target for reducing the number of young people infected by HIV/AIDS by 25 per cent by 2005 is achievable?

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we are concerned that a number of the targets will not be met. That is why we have launched our action plan; that is why we have made it absolutely clear what role we will play. Part of that is to give political leadership, which is why that will be a key plank of our G8 and EU presidencies next year. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also speaks on international development. Of course he does, and I hope that his views and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, prevail.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we are working with police forces to monitor the policing of drug offences since cannabis was reclassified. Initial feedback from police forces is highly encouraging. Police time can be redeployed to tackling class A drug dealing offences. Young people have learnt of the legal change through government radio and newspaper advertising—93 per cent of under-18s now understand that cannabis is illegal. We have also started a health messages campaign to highlight the particular harms of cannabis.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging response. It is important that there has not been the wild increase in cannabis use as a result of the reclassification that many people feared. Do the Government now fully accept the merits of separating the use of cannabis from the hard drug culture? If so, will the Government now favourably consider further moves towards the decriminalisation of cannabis or, at the least, to the full implementation of the recommendations on cannabis contained in the Runciman report on drugs and the law?

My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord that there has not been an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, the slight decrease that we have seen since 1998 has continued. Of course, this is an important change. I cannot say that the Government intend to move further on the matter until we see the results confirmed that we are heading in the right direction.

My Lords, although we on these Benches supported the reclassification of cannabis, we also pressed that government attention should be applied to dealers, money launderers and others up the criminal chain. Does the Minister have any evidence yet of increased prosecutions in those areas?

My Lords, we are monitoring those figures. The signs are very encouraging. The release of police time from policing the cannabis issue has enabled us to concentrate on class A drugs and other matters. We hope to come forward relatively quickly with figures that I hope will give the noble Lord considerable pleasure.

My Lords, we on these Benches are very pleased with the Government's approach to antisocial behaviour and their attempt to address the yob culture phenomenon. Is the Minister confident that the reclassification of cannabis will help those important steps?

My Lords, as a result of anti-social behaviour legislation we were able to take very aggressive action in closing down crack houses. The powers have proved successful. They have been used on more than 100 occasions nationally, making a particularly effective impact in areas such as Hackney in London, as well as Bristol, Nottingham and Middlesbrough; so they have been very successful indeed.

My Lords, is depression one of the dangers of taking cannabis?

My Lords, there are a number of dangers in taking any illicit drugs. I would not like to identify depression alone. We clearly maintain that cannabis is an illicit and dangerous drug. That is why we have kept the classification as it is.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of her noble friends were very unhappy with the way in which cannabis was reclassified? For example, there was a lack of notice and it was brought to this House without proper explanation of the benefits of the experiment taking place in Lambeth. Will the Minister now undertake to ensure that when all the statistics to which she has referred have been collected that evidence can be very clearly given to the House so that we can see whether there is a causal link between reclassification and the effect of consumption on class A drugs?

My Lords, I absolutely understand the importance of collecting those data. We have made it clear that we wish to collate those data and identify whether, thematically, there are things that we need to do. I can assure my noble friend that we are very anxious for those data to be shared.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

My Lords, a government-commissioned report by the Transport Research Laboratory published in October 1998 concluded that if the UK adopted Single/Double British Summer Time—that is, GMT plus one hour in the winter and GMT plus two hours in the summer—thereby making the evenings lighter, there could be a saving of 400 fewer people being killed or seriously injured per year in Great Britain.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extraordinarily helpful and informative reply, which prompts me to ask the question, why on earth do the Government not get on and do it? They should bear in mind that it is a change which would be widely supported not only by road safety and motoring organisations but also by the tourist industry, including the National Trust, VisitBritain, Age Concern and many other organisations?

My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend appreciated the initial response. Perhaps I may just indicate that there are wider issues than just road safety, although road safety is obviously very important. Of course, it is the wider issues that need to be taken into account. Currently, there is a Bill before the other place: the Government are monitoring its progress carefully.

My Lords, when we talk about the wider issues to which the Minister has just referred, they are primarily agricultural concerns and about daylight in the north, particularly in Scotland. Since the report on transport and road safety, agricultural practice has changed markedly. Cows are not milked on family farms to anything like the same extent that they were. Can some work be done to show the trade-off in the disbenefits to farming and the saving of child casualties, which would definitely follow from a change to British Summer Time?

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's strength of argument. Agriculture has always been a very important consideration with regard to the extension of summer time. But not just agriculture has to be considered: there are other industries and interests that are worried about darker mornings or mornings that remain darker for longer.

The noble Lord will recognise that that is certainly true with regard to certain parts of northern England and, of course, Scotland.

My Lords, the Minister is correct. There are considerations other than road safety. Does the Minister recognise that UK industry and commerce suffer, at best, great inconvenience and, at worst, loss of trade at the start and the end of each working day by not being in the same time zone as our European customers and competitors?

My Lords, there is no doubt that there would be an added convenience if we were in the same time zone as other major European countries. But nevertheless I think that the noble Lord will recognise that there is a balance of interests to be struck. Perhaps I may make the obvious point: when British Summer Time was introduced on an extended period between 1968 and 1971, it led eventually to the other place voting against its continuation because of these other interests.

My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there is a Bill going before the other place. I think that the Second Reading of the Lighter Evenings Bill is in October. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that proper parliamentary time will be given to that Bill if it ever comes to this House? There have been Bills before on which nothing has ever happened; yet we have given a great deal of parliamentary time to the welfare of foxes, children and adults. The implication of the Bill is that, if passed, we shall have not only lighter evenings but also the deaths of a great many adults, children and, indeed, foxes would be saved straightaway.

My Lords, at this stage, I am not in a position to indicate the amount of time that could be allocated in this place to such a Bill. However, obviously, to coin a phrase, the Lighter Evenings Bill is being introduced rather late in the day in the other place. There is a problem of it clearing the other place before arriving here. As noble Lords will recognise, we have fairly limited time at our disposal in this parliamentary Session.

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there would be a huge opportunity for the tourism, leisure and hospitality industries in Great Britain, including Scotland?

My Lords, that is a strong argument. There is no doubt that the tourism industry would see benefits from the extension of summer time. But my noble friend will also recognise that the Bill in the other place proposes that Scotland should take its own decision on this issue. Therefore, that would leave the decision for England and Wales quite separate from Scottish considerations.

My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there would be a huge disadvantage to Scotland if it had a different time from that south of the Border? Does he ever use his imagination to think about what it would be like in Scotland if in the winter the sun rose at 10 o'clock and set at 5 o'clock? How would that affect accidents and the working world?

My Lords, having enjoyed a superb holiday at Whitsun in Glencoe, I do not need to use an excess of imagination to recognise the point being made by the noble Baroness. Her words represent one of the factors which makes progress in this area something that must be approached with due care.

My Lords, how would the costs of implementing a further trial compare with the savings suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and what is the cost in economic and social terms of the 400 killed and seriously injured?

My Lords, I do not have figures on the costs of those killed and seriously injured, but obviously they would be enormous. However, I think we measure such costs more in terms of human suffering than in terms of financial consideration. Not all these matters can be effected on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. We conduct our politics in this country on the proper representation of interests rather than simply on calculations of cost and benefit.

My Lords, my noble friend just mentioned human suffering. Does he agree that some of us will find it very hard to accept that the saving of 400 lives can be set against these other interests that are somewhat difficult to define? Can he think of any other situation in which 400 lives saved would not be the first thing the Government would tackle?

My Lords, my response to my noble friend repeats that which I indicated earlier. He will recognise that over the length and breadth of the United Kingdom many interests must be respected. In 1971 we did carry out an experiment. I should point out that the other place was the same in composition in 1971 as it is today; namely, English MPs were in a substantial majority, while the addition of Welsh MPs only increased that majority. But they reached the decision that, despite all other considerations, the experiment should be concluded and we should not continue with extended summer time. However, times change and we shall wait to see the response to the Bill now before the other place.

My Lords, as this Question also relates to road safety, does my noble friend believe there would be any road safety benefits as a result of raising the speed limit on motorways to 80 miles per hour?

My Lords, I think that that is probably a long way from the Question before the House.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government take very seriously all forms of racism and hate crime. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been working closely together in response to the material published in the BBC documentary. Five people were arrested yesterday. The case is still being investigated and so the Home Office is not able to comment further.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Will she join me in congratulating the BBC on its documentary, especially its brave reporter, Jason Gwynne? Will she also congratulate Barclays Bank which today has frozen the accounts of the British National Party? Does she agree that the British National Party is a nasty Nazi party whose policies bring back the smell of Hitler's Nazism, which some of us can remember and some of us fought against? Will she now ensure that the Government probe, monitor and investigate the activities of this evil party and of its leaders, and do everything possible to promote the decent good will with our minority groups in this good country which the Nazi British National Party has been trying to destroy?

My Lords, I join my noble friend in saying that the BBC programme was indeed a startling and shocking revelation of the true face of what appears to be happening within the British National Party, certainly at the meetings that were filmed. Of course I have to accept that the British National Party is a political party in this country. No one in this House will be surprised if I say that its policies are abhorrent both to me and to my party. However, we must accept that the British National Party is a legitimate, democratic political party in this country. A huge amount of work must be undertaken by all those who disagree with its policies to make sure that it does not thrive.

My Lords, has the Minister noted that, among those of the British National Party who were arrested, not included among them was Mr Nick Griffin? However, had he made remarks about Jews and Judaism like those that he made about Muslims and Islam, he would have been liable to prosecution under public order legislation. Does that not mean, as has been pointed out by the Muslim Council of Britain, that it is important that we get on with the legislation to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred in order to parallel that which is already on the statute book against incitement to racial hatred?

My Lords, it would be quite wrong for me to say anything about the first matter mentioned by the noble Lord. Noble Lords know that both the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are continuing their investigations. Given that, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I do not respond to the first part of his question.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been anxious about these issues and our need to address them. He has made it absolutely clear that he will seek to address this matter in the short rather than the medium term.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Janner for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to some extent pre-empted my question, does my noble friend the Minister feel that the Muslim community is a specific target of the BNP, and that of late it has directed all its efforts against Muslims? Does she also consider that the legislation proposed by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary, which would bring the issue forward in terror legislation, will not go far enough to ensure proper protection of the Muslim community from acts of the kind being suggested by the BNP?

My Lords, I should say to my noble friend that, regrettably, I do not believe that the Muslim community is the only group in the sights of those who want to spread hatred, dissension and division among us. The tragedy is that they have us all in their sights. That is why I can reassure my noble friend that the work we are doing in the publication of the consultation paper Strength in Diversity and the speech of the Home Secretary to the Institute for Public Policy Research is so important. I say that because we are absolutely determined to ensure that evil will not prevail.

My Lords, the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is very specific, with all that that involves. Do not the Government agree that the concerns which lie behind it could be addressed by better teaching on racial and religious awareness in the early years; namely, starting in our schools?

My Lords, teaching is very important, as is building better communities in our society, as well as sharing and being together. Anything we can do to enhance the good will that exists between people of good will is a task that we should all set ourselves. Teaching is one such task.

My Lords, did the Minister notice the discrepancy between the percentage of votes secured by the BNP in the European elections and those it secured at the local government elections, suggesting that people find it easier to vote for a party than for the people representing that party? Will she bear that in mind when the Government contemplate any extension of the list method of voting?

My Lords, although that point is somewhat wide of the Question, I can certainly say to the noble Lord that all of these matters are extremely important. However, I would say to political parties of all complexions, other than the BNP, that this puts a huge burden on all of us to ensure that that party is given no room to breathe.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that challenging and exposing extreme racists and fascists is better than ignoring them?

My Lords, I certainly agree. I therefore say again that that is why our Strength in Diversity work is so important. I hope that I can say on behalf of everyone in the House that we are fighting extremism in all its forms.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the British National Party as "democratic". On reflection, does she feel perhaps that that is a word wrongly used in this context?

My Lords, I did not mean to say that its members are democratic. The party is a part of the democratic process, which I have to acknowledge. As I said earlier, noble Lords will not be surprised when I say that I find what it stands for entirely abhorrent, not only politically but also personally.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criterion for restricting free speech is not that it causes offence, however gross, but that it tends to provoke a breach of the peace? Does she further agree that the question of whether Mr Griffin passes that test is open enough for us to wish to hear the verdict of a court upon it?

My Lords, perhaps I may first warmly welcome the noble Earl back to his seat. Those of us who enjoy his contributions have missed him greatly.

Those judgments will have to be made by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service working together. However, I am sure that the views of the House are absolutely clear.

My Lords, however shocking and vile were the comments, we would hear them in many pubs and work places up and down the country. It is no good not recognising that fact. Does my noble friend agree that, in an attempt to draw attention to these fascists, neo-fascists and anti-Semites, we should give help to organisations that want to expel from their memberships those who hold a brief for the BNP? I refer specifically to trade unions that want to divest themselves of these evil people.

My Lords, I absolutely agree that we should do everything we can to ensure that they find no place to rest in any of our institutions or organisations.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, on Monday, my colleague, Elliot Morley, Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment, held a constructive meeting with representatives of the metal shredding and car dismantling industries to discuss their concerns over the disposal of end-of-life vehicles. Also present were representatives from the Environmental Services Association, the Environment Agency and the DTI. The meeting agreed a two-point plan that has resulted in the market for scrap cars resuming its normal pattern. That plan will be worked up to form a protocol that will form the basis of a working relationship between the car dismantlers, the metal shredders, the waste management industry and the Environment Agency for the foreseeable future.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It at least means that we will not have 45,000 defunct cars arriving on the streets of Britain every week with nowhere to go. Does he share my disquiet that there was so little planning on the part of both the Government and the Environment Agency that the landfill directive and the end-of-life vehicle directive were not co-ordinated? As a result, the guidance was unclear, the industry did not know what to do and nor did landfill operators. What is the Minister's department doing to put in place clear guidance for an industry that is doing its best to dispose of our waste?

My Lords, the guidance is clear enough; it is a matter of practicality for the metal shredding and car disposal industries, which are required to separate out the hazardous waste so that the rest of the waste can go to landfill, which no longer provides for hazardous waste. I think the practicalities have now been largely sorted out in the protocol agreed by my honourable friend earlier this week.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this issue goes very much wider than the disposal of cars? The Aluminium Federation and the non-ferrous industries consider that they may be brought almost to a standstill by the new regulations, as nearly all waste, no matter how small, from aluminium manufacturing is now classified and will not be accepted at any of the former sites.

My Lords, I do not think that that is the problem. The issue is not one of capacity for dealing with hazardous waste; in this case, it is to do with the practicality of separating out waste. A number of problems will have to be ironed out in that respect but the allegation, which I have seen in the media, that it is a capacity problem is not right. It is a practicality problem and, to some extent, an economic problem.

My Lords, the Minister's initial response is welcome. It is pleasing to know that there is at last a satisfactory outcome, but the problem was very well signalled and has been known about for months. Can the Minister explain to the House how it came about that we had to get right to the wire before there was a meeting between his department, the industry and the Environment Agency, agreement between which was necessary to reach a conclusion? The matter was taken beyond the eleventh hour of the eleventh day.

My Lords, we are not dealing with a sudden imposition of new regulations; they have both been in place for about two years, and the practicalities have been sorted out in most respects. In this case, there may have been a somewhat precipitate reaction on the part of the metal disposing industries. With the good will of all parties, that has now been sorted out.

My Lords, will the Minister consider giving advice to customers that in future when they buy their cars they will be able to choose one which can be recycled most effectively? That is one of the most important elements of an environmentally friendly car.

My Lords, it would be highly desirable if customers chose the most recyclable products of all kinds, including motor cars. It will take time before that situation exists. In the mean time, of course, a producer liability law is being introduced which will require producers to take responsibility for disposal. That law is not yet in place—I think it will be introduced in 2007—but it will resolve in part the issue of disposing of non-recyclable materials.

My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I thought that the Government had undertaken to introduce a car labelling scheme to give consumers that kind of information. What has happened to that scheme?

My Lords, there are a number of labelling schemes that are not legally required but have been discussed with motoring manufacturers and the industries that produce electronic and electrical goods covered by the parallel agreement—normally known as the WEEE directive—which also affects the situation.

My Lords, is it not a case of reclassification of the waste? Aluminium waste, which in the past was acceptable for landfill, is no longer acceptable.

My Lords, it is not so much a reclassification of the waste than an ending of the co-location of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. For landfills that previously could take both, separation was not a problem. It has now become a problem.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the past three months the price of scrap metal has more than doubled from about £40 a ton to more than £100 a ton? Does that not indicate that the arrangements described by my noble friend are beginning to work?

My Lords, I bow to my noble friend's knowledge of scrap metal prices. It is certainly true that the industry has gone through a relatively profitable time. That is why, to some extent, the complaint that this was a large economic cost on the industry needs to be seen proportionately and in context. We have now reached an accommodation with all elements of the industry that will enable us, at least for the immediate period, to deal with this rather difficult issue.

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

My Lords, before the two Statements, perhaps I may make a brief procedural point, which follows various representations that I have had from different parts of the House and a recent meeting that we had with Leaders and Whips. My point relates to the procedure during Statements. I simply remind everyone of the Companion, which says:

"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".

The emphasis is on the word "brief". My arithmetic tells me that the briefer the comments, the more contributions we shall hear.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

"With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the need to transform our Armed Forces to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Before doing so, however, I know that the House would want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve their country in the Armed Forces, as well as those who support them in the Ministry of Defence and British industry. Their reputation is second to none. The transformation that I am setting out today will help to ensure that our Armed Forces can continue to respond effectively to the global challenges that they are likely to face.

"This Government are absolutely committed to Britain's defence, and to our Armed Forces. That was made abundantly clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor's announcement last week of the budget settlement for defence. The 2002 spending review provided the largest sustained growth in defence spending plans for 20 years. This year it has been possible to make even more resources available to defence, providing the longest period of sustained growth for over 20 years—a defence budget rising by £3.7 billion. It is this sustained investment that makes possible the transformation to which the Government and the Armed Forces are committed.

"In the 1998 Strategic Defence Review we set out plans to develop defence capability to match the needs of the post-Cold War world. We built on this with the SDR new chapter, published after the appalling events of 11 September 2001, and we confirmed this direction in the defence White Paper of December 2003.

"That White Paper makes it clear that the threats to Britain's interests in the 21st century are far more complex than was foreseen following the disintegration of the Soviet empire. That is why the defence White Paper signalled that we should continue to modernise the structure of our Armed Forces; to embrace new technology; and to focus on the means by which our Armed Forces can work together with other government agencies to meet the threat of international terrorism and the forces of instability in the modern world.

"Our Armed Forces have enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation. It will see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people—the inputs which characterised defence planning in the past—to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes, and on the exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and Network Enabled Capability. We measured numbers of people and platforms in the Cold War because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces. That kind of campaign has fortunately passed into history as technology has moved on.

"The capability of our Armed Forces is growing year by year as intelligence is combined with target acquisition, modern communications and precision weaponry to produce results which have changed the nature of modern warfare. These new capabilities involve the rapid communication of actionable intelligence to the commander in the field to deliver a range of combined effects, involving all three services and our allies acting efficiently and effectively together.

"We are also able to respond more rapidly to crises through the improved deployability of our forces. We saw this in 2003 when forces were moved to the Gulf in less than half the time that it took 12 years before. With better target acquisition and precision weaponry, our Air Force was able to hit its targets with less ordnance—and hence fewer aircraft—than in the first Gulf War. The same tasks can now be completed in much less time, with far greater accuracy and correspondingly lower risk to our forces.

"The defence White Paper makes it clear that this shift in investment towards greater deployability, better targeted action and swifter outcomes would involve a reduction in the numbers of tanks, aircraft and ships. Drawing on our experience of operations since the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces have been identifying which parts of the Armed Forces are most in demand, and which are less well utilised. As a result, we have developed new plans to ensure that our Armed Forces can retain maximum effectiveness. I have set out these plans in detail in the Command Paper on future capabilities, published today.

"The majority of reductions will effect not the front line but support operations. We will exploit greater efficiencies in the delivery of logistic support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate this process over the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All of this money will be recycled to enhanced our front-line capabilities and other modernisation initiatives.

"Of course, we are investing more new money in defence. This investment will, for the Army, enable us to fund its transformation into a force which is structured and equipped to meet the demands of multiple, concurrent operations across the full spectrum of tasks. This involves a shift from the current structure which is strong at the heavy and light ends of the spectrum but thinner in medium forces, to one which is better balanced, right across the capability spectrum.

"The balanced land force of the future will consist of two heavy armoured brigades, three medium weight brigades, based around the Future Rapid Effects System family of medium weight vehicles—FRES—and a light brigade, in addition to the Air Assault and Commando brigades. We launched the assessment phase of the FRES project in April this year and we expect to sign a contract for technology demonstration work to start later this year.

"The shift in emphasis to more agile, deployable forces means that we will establish an additional three light armoured squadrons, re-role a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and re-role an AS90 regiment into a light gun regiment. Later, we will equip three artillery regiments with the new Light Mobile Artillery Weapon System. At the same time we will seek to improve our ability to engage land targets with precision and at range. The first Apache attack helicopter will go operational later this year, an important first step down this path.

"It will be followed by improvements in our missile inventory, through the progressive introduction of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a new infantry anti-tank guided weapon—Javelin—and improved artillery rounds to allow precision indirect fire over the second half of the decade. Collectively, these improvements will be balanced by a reduction of seven Challenger 2 armoured squadrons and six AS90 heavy artillery batteries by early 2007.

"Critical as these new weapons systems are, at least as important are the changes that we are making to enhance the Army's Network Enabled Capability. Digitised communications systems provide the network links. The entry into service of Bowman at the tactical level, and the Cormorant and Falcon systems at the operational and strategic levels, will represent a step change in our capability to pass data between commanders and the front line. We are continuing to invest in improved electronic warfare capabilities such as Soothsayer and in developing stand-off sensors, such as the Watchkeeper Unmanned Air Vehicle. I was able to announce yesterday that the preferred bidder for Watchkeeper is Thales Defence Limited. This will provide battlefield commanders with high quality, timely and accurate information. The new joint surveillance aircraft, Astor, recently made its first test flight successfully.

"Our battlefield and maritime helicopter forces, arguably the most capable in Europe, have demonstrated their versatility supporting the full spectrum of recent operations. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest some £3 billion in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance our existing capability. This substantial investment within a relatively short timeframe will make it possible to produce a future helicopter fleet focused on the key capability areas of lift, reconnaissance and attack, central to future expeditionary operations.

"The dominance in the air by alliance and coalition air forces shown in recent conflicts, together with our judgment about the likely threat on deployed operations and our continued investment in Typhoon and its advanced air-to-air weapons means that we can plan to reduce our overall investment in ground-based air defence. We will meet our requirement in future from 24 Rapier fire units and 84 high velocity missile launchers. Rapier will be deployed by the Army with the RAF Regiment relinquishing that role. Ground-based air defence will be commanded by a new joint HQ within the RAF command structure.

"We are reviewing the implications of these force structure changes for our future equipment plans. In the mean time, I can announce the procurement of additional missiles worth around £180 million for the high velocity missile system.

"I now turn to the infantry. We currently provide operational and geographical variety for the infantry by moving battalions between locations and roles every few years. This is known as the infantry arms plot. This process inevitably takes battalions out of the order of battle while they are moving and training for new roles. It also adds to turbulence. We need to ensure greater capability from the infantry and improved continuity with better careers for infantrymen and more stability for their families. The infantry arms plot will therefore be phased out.

"In addition, as a result of the improving security situation in Northern Ireland, we announced last month a reduction in the number of battalions committed to the Province by two. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the GOC have now conducted a further review of security requirements. As a result, I can today announce another reduction of two battalions, which will take place in the autumn. This in turn will reduce the overall requirement for infantry battalions from 40 to 36. This reduction will comprise one battalion recruited from Scotland and three recruited from England.

"These changes necessitate a new infantry structure. This must preserve the best aspects of the regimental system but must produce an organisation capable of adapting for the future. The new structure will be based on regiments of two or more battalions in largely fixed locations, allowing individuals to move easily between these battalions. Details of the new organisation will be worked out by the Army and announced by the end of the year.

"The Army Board wants to establish an infantry organisation that will last for the foreseeable future. The manpower released by the reduction of four battalions will be redistributed across the Army to strengthen existing infantry units, but will also be used elsewhere among the most heavily committed specialists, such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence. The overall size of the Army will be around 102,000.

"Our plans for the Royal Navy involve the further development of a versatile and expeditionary force that is capable of operating at distance from the United Kingdom and is focused on delivering effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint combat aircraft will provide the heart of our future ability to project military power from the sea. I announced on Monday the extension of the assessment phase to take forward further design work on the new carrier in the run-up to our main investment decision. I also announced that the principles of an alliancing approach have been agreed with our industrial partners. We are investing heavily in our amphibious capability. HMS "Albion" and HMS "Bulwark", which were delivered to the Royal Navy last week, will provide a step change improvement in our ability to launch the Commando Brigade and other forces ashore.

"By ensuring that our major warships are effectively networked and supported, we can deliver more capability from fewer platforms. Developments in network enabled capability—linking sensors and weapon systems—mean that we can meet future area air defence and command and control requirements from a force of eight Type 45 destroyers. With these hugely capable ships currently under construction, we plan to pay off our oldest Type 42 destroyers—HMS "Cardiff", HMS "Newcastle" and HMS "Glasgow"—by the end of 2005. We are still in the early stages of an ambitious procurement programme. We are working with industry to define a timetable that best matches our capability requirements and the need for steady work in both the shipbuilding and repair industries.

"The potential submarine threat to most future UK operations is likely to be very low. But where a threat does exist, we will still need the full range of advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities to deal with it. We have therefore decided to reduce our overall number of platforms optimised for antisubmarine warfare, while continuing to maintain our technological edge over potential opponents, including through the introduction of the new low frequency active sonar 2087. We will pay off three Type 23 frigates—HMS "Norfolk", HMS "Marlborough" and HMS "Grafton"—by March 2006.

"This shift of emphasis also allows us to meet our maritime reconnaissance needs with 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft. The requirement could in future be met by a fleet of around 12 more capable Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, subject to industry demonstrating satisfactory performance at acceptable prices.

"We require a total of eight nuclear attack submarines. The introduction of the new Astute class boats will hugely enhance the SSN contribution across the spectrum of operations. There has been solid progress on the first of the class, following the restructuring of the project. Work continues on boats 2 and 3 as well as on long-lead items for boat 4 but there is still more to be done before finalising production orders. We are also investing in the latest generation of Tomahawk land attack missiles and improvements to submarine communications to give our current and future submarines an improved land attack capability. Our mine countermeasure vessels have made a valuable contribution to recent operations.

"Against the changing threat, we need to retain a balanced force of eight Hunt class and eight Sandown class vessels. We plan to pay off HMS "Inverness", HMS "Bridport" and HMS "Sandown" by April 2005. The improved security situation in Northern Ireland also makes it possible to pay off the Northern Ireland patrol vessels HMS "Brecon", HMS "Dulverton" and HMS "Cottesmore" by April 2007.

"As a consequence of these changes, the manpower of the naval service will reduce to 36,000 over the next four years.

"Air power is critical to the prosecution of modern warfare. Over the next 10 to 15 years, an accelerating transformation of our air power will enable quicker, more precise and decisive operations at range, delivered by multi-role Typhoon and joint combat aircraft equipped with highly capable weapons. The Typhoon programme is now moving forward towards initial operating capability, with indications that the aircraft is demonstrating excellent performance and good reliability. We expect to sign a contract for the second tranche of Typhoon aircraft as soon as we complete satisfactory negotiations over price and capability.

"The investment in our air forces is already producing substantial improvements in existing aircraft. The Tornado GR4 is now one of the most potent offensive aircraft systems in the world, fully capable of day and night operations in all weathers. The Harrier GR9 development programme is on course to deliver a significantly more capable platform with much wider versatility, including for carrier-borne operations. The tactical information exchange capability project will examine how the effectiveness of the GR4 and GR9 can be further enhanced by improving their networked capability. The Tornado F3 aircraft is now equipped with AMRAAM and the world-leading ASRAAM air-to-air missiles and is fully networked through the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System. The new Storm Shadow long-range air-to-surface missile proved itself as a world-beater during the recent Gulf War. New precision-guided Paveway IV bombs will further enhance our overall capability in the short term.

"With these significant advances in capability, we now judge that we need to reduce the types and overall numbers of the RAF fast jet force, providing a firm baseline for the transition to the multi-role era. We will reduce the number of our air defence Tornado F3 squadrons by one, and bring forward the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007. These changes in the force structure and the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies will lead to a reduced RAF manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008. This will allow us to close RAF Coltishall airfield by December 2006. We will also be undertaking an extensive review of our future requirement for airfields. Following an extended period of consultations we have decided to rationalise the basing requirements of a number of RAF logistic support and communication units. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is writing today to those honourable Members whose constituencies may be affected.

"The RAF also plays an essential enabling role in support of expeditionary operations through its strategic and tactical airlift capability. The core of this capability remains the fleet of C-130 aircraft and, from 2011, the A400M. To accommodate larger items we have already announced that we were considering the options for retention of C-17s after A400M enters service. I am pleased to announce that we intend to buy the current fleet of four at the conclusion of the current lease arrangement and to purchase one additional aircraft bringing our C-17 fleet up to five aircraft.

"Amidst these structural and major equipment changes, we must never neglect the more immediate needs of our Armed Forces in the field and in particular their personal equipment. We already have a major programme under way in the light of experience from Operation TELIC. I am now able to announce some further enhancements. This year we will be procuring additional light machine guns for the infantry, together with night vision and target acquisition systems for forces in land, sea and air environments, as well as further enhancements to our Special Forces capabilities. We will also make major enhancements to our asset tracking capability to ensure the right materiel is in the right place at the right time. We have learnt the lessons from recent operations in Iraq.

"Alongside the modernisation of our conventional forces, as set out in last year's White Paper, the Government remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent including making the necessary investment at AWE Aldermaston, and to keeping open the options for a successor to Trident until a decision is required, probably in the next Parliament.

"In addition to the reductions in numbers of Armed Forces manpower we envisage reductions of around 10,000 in the number of civilian jobs. These flow from efficiencies as a consequence of the department's change programme and other initiatives. The reductions in Armed Forces and civilian manpower will be achieved as far as practicable through natural turnover. We will also retrain and redeploy personnel wherever possible. We have a commitment to enabling our people to develop their skills and abilities so that those who leave are well equipped for life outside defence and those who stay are properly trained for their roles. But inevitably there will be redundancies. We will use the normal consultation processes to achieve them.

"The White Paper makes clear that our Reserve Forces have evolved to become an integral part of the UK's military capability. We learnt many lessons from operations in Iraq about how we mobilise our reserves and how we need to strengthen the relationship between the services, reservists, their families and their employers. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement tomorrow about our plans to consult on proposals to update financial assistance to reservists when they are called into service and to compensate employers who incur additional costs as a result of their staff being called up.

"There will be those who will claim that the defence budget is under such pressure that it is impossible to sustain the department's forward equipment programme. In fact, the spend with industry will continue at the level of recent years. It is of the utmost importance that industry takes the maximum advantage of this substantial investment to produce what the Armed Forces need at a price that we can afford. We will take forward our defence industrial policy, implementing these changes, in conjunction with industry, to ensure a healthy and competitive defence industry that continues to play the leading role in our economy that it enjoys today. I am confident that it will respond to this challenge.

"For the third successive spending review, this Government have been able to announce real growth in the defence budget. This is without precedent since the mid-1980s. Even with these additional funds it is necessary to secure maximum benefit from efficiencies and make choices to ensure that our force structure matches the requirements of today's security environment. The plans that I have announced today show this Government's determination to make the choices necessary to ensure that the real growth in defence expenditure is targeted at what the Armed Forces require in the 21st century rather than what they have inherited from the 20th. They will ensure that the Armed Forces are equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future those tasks which they have so admirably undertaken in recent years".

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches join the Minister in paying tribute to the dedicated members of our Armed Forces. We remember the 61 servicemen killed in Iraq and are thinking of their families.

This Statement is an important one, as are all Statements on the defence of the realm. But like so many Statements that this Government have made, it is as important for what it fails to tell the House as for what it tells us.

We welcome the announcement on Watchkeeper and the C-17s. We welcome some of the steps to be taken to rebalance our Armed Forces for the threats of today and tomorrow. However, the announcement is about cuts. Members of the House and the Armed Forces should prepare themselves for continuing cuts in the months to come. The Government must not think that, by announcing cuts the day before the long recess, they will be able to draw a line under this. No, this is an issue that deserves respect and consideration. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to convey our request that there should be a full defence debate at the earliest opportunity.

We were told last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the resources to be allocated to defence over the next few years. We are now looking to the Minister and his colleagues to explain how that money will be rationed out, for it will have to be spread pretty thinly. We are short of hard figures, numbers and dates. We need to know the truth, without spin, about numbers being recruited into the Armed Forces; how the trained strength is developing; and how retention figures compare with those for premature voluntary retirement.

We need to know how the Army is to be reorganised. It is the regimental system that gives the British Army its character and makes it much more formidable and efficient, man for man, than even the high-tech American army. We need to know about numbers of warships and aircraft. We need to know about new equipment, planned and coming into service. We look for assurances that the equipment programme is fully funded on the basis of realistic through-life costs.

We need to be assured that current equipment will not be taken out of service until the new equipment is in place, up and running. We admire the Minister's confidence that the new carriers will be deploying the JCA. We hope that there is no gap between the commissioning of the first carrier and the JCA entering service. May I ask the Minister about the position regarding the Defence Communication Services Agency, which has such a critical role in network-enabling our defence capabilities across the board? Can the Minister indicate a specific timetable for the thorough reorganisation of the Defence Logistics Organisation as a whole? Can he also confirm that there will be adequate and specific provision for the costs of large-scale joint exercises—activities of the greatest importance?

It seems to us that, in pursuance of their policies, the Government are prepared to make the fullest use of the Armed Forces, including the under-equipped reserves. However, they continue to begrudge providing them the resources that they need to do their job. The result is, as an Army officer told me yesterday, that they are working at a pace that is not sustainable.

We cannot predict where our Armed Forces will be fighting in 10 years' time, but we can predict that they will be fighting for us somewhere and that we will be counting on them to win. We must ensure that they are not only properly and fully equipped, but well trained and available in the numbers required to fight the wars that we cannot predict today. We shall, of course, be told that the service chiefs will say that we have the best for which we could hope in the circumstances; they are bound to say that. It is the grudging attitude of the Government towards the necessities of strong defence that makes the circumstances wrong.

In conclusion, I commend to the Minister and to the House the express views of my right honourable friends Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin, who have said:

"We guarantee to maintain the fighting capability of our forces. We shall ensure that they are provided with the necessary funds and equipment to carry out the tasks and commitments required of them. If that requires increases in defence spending, we will spend it".

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for that 3,500-word Statement. It is certainly the longest Statement that I have heard read out in this House; the Minister did well to do it without even a glass of water. I shall start by taking a sideswipe at my Opposition Front-Bench colleague. He almost asked for it with his last comment, saying that the Leader of the Opposition would spend more on defence without further taxation. That will be an interesting trick, and I would very much like to look at those figures.

It is welcome that the Government have committed to more spending on defence. However, their commitments to defence recently mean that the excess spending will be swallowed up quite easily. On wading through the Statement, I finally found the figure of 102,000, which is the number of men in the Army. That is the important figure that we have been trying to winkle out of the Minister with a number of questions in the past few weeks. It has been our suspicion that the Government were to reduce the number in the Armed Forces to 102,000, and that has finally been confirmed.

We are looking at a number of debates and questions in future about the disappearance of regiments. It is obviously very sad that a number will be lost. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there has to be a change to the infantry system. We would welcome something that led to a more rational and modern system to address some of the problems faced by infantry personnel. They have to move every three years on rotation, which has caused so many problems of overstretch, as has been raised in many debates in this House.

An area of the Statement that will have to be looked at again is where the Government talk about making savings away from the front line. That goes back to a policy introduced by the Conservatives called Front Line First. It could be quite a dangerous policy. Under Front Line First, money was pumped into front-line services, at the expense of support services. We very much hope that the Minister will take on board the lessons learnt through the almost annihilation of the Royal Army Medical Corps, which caused so many problems, especially as logistics was one area particularly highlighted in the NAO report on the last Gulf War.

The reduction in naval capability seems extremely stringent. It is not possible to look at those cuts without a careful eye. However, it is good that the Government are looking at not cancelling the carriers as yet. At this point, after the reviews, has the Minister worked out how large the carriers will be? That seems an issue of some concern, especially in the area of timing and cost. Has any progress been made with the Americans about technology transfer over the main armament of the carriers, which will be the Joint Combat Aircraft? On that basis, we welcome very much the introduction of Watchkeeper, and the fact that we will go with Thales. It seems ridiculous that we would go with an American company as, under the present legislation, some of the technology involved in those aircraft systems would not be revealed to us even though we were buying the system.

We support the A400M and the target date set out in the White Paper of 2011. I very much hope that the Minister can confirm that that time scale will not shift too much in future, although that may be difficult for him. We also support his words about the reservists and looking at financial issues that have arisen through their serving in the Gulf. On these Benches, we recognise the service given not only by regular servicemen in the Gulf, but by reservists. In that review, will the Ministry of Defence also look at the training of reservists? Although it is possible to talk about remuneration—that is an issue at the moment—it seems ridiculous and extremely unfortunate that the man-training days and the period in which reservists have been trained have been continually under threat for the past few years.

I welcome the Statement but, considering its size and detail—we have had only a brief time to scan it—I hope that the Minister will look as an urgent priority at introducing a debate on the White Paper.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what they have had to say. Their mild and good manners, and the way in which they put forward their cases, are very much in the tradition of this House. However, their approach in thinking about the Statement covered one or two gaps as to what their respective parties—both ambitious for power, we are led to believe—would do if they found themselves in that position.

We will take away the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on reserve training and come back on it. So far as a debate is concerned, both noble Lords know exactly what I am going to say—that it is a matter for the usual channels. We will see where that goes. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about defence logistics and the transformation programme. We believe that it will revolutionise the delivery of support to all three services, improving the operational effectiveness and flexibility of such support and saving about £1 billion per year by 2008. I hope that that is some sort of answer for him.

I was asked about the size of the aircraft carriers, which will be the largest warships that this country has ever built. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that they had not been cancelled as yet. Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue; we have no intention whatever of cancelling them. I would like very much to hear what his party and that of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, have to say about that. No doubt in due course we will hear whether they will commit themselves, as we are committing ourselves, to those amazing ships.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor, quoted his leader and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer making a pronouncement that is very different—certainly in the shadow Chancellor's case—from what was said a few months ago. At that point, he made it clear that the only two departments to have their expenditure ring-fenced would be health and education. Indeed, I believe he said that there would be zero per cent growth for the first two years for other departments which, as the noble Lord heard me say before the announcement of the spending review, implied a cut of £1.5 billion. Now that figure is £2.6 billion. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Astor, to quote what his leader and the shadow Chancellor may have said. But what does that actually mean?

We were delighted to hear the noble Lord say this afternoon that aid expenditure would be ring-fenced. This morning the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said that defence spending would be ring-fenced and we are also delighted to hear that. It is beginning to look as if everything will be ring-fenced. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a word of warning. The experience of this side of the House was that we used to go into elections saying that everything would be ring-fenced, we would not cut anything and we would spend more on everything; but look where that got us. My warning is that we will be asking him and his colleagues over many months—

Oh!

My Lords, that was up until 10 years ago to the day when the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour Party. Then we began to tell the public what we would do realistically. That is why we are on this side of the Chamber and the noble Lord and his colleagues are, for the moment, on the other side. Please, let us have some realism from the party opposite. What does it intend to do regarding defence? We have absolutely no idea what its policy is. It is about time that we were told.

Regarding the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid that I have absolutely no idea what their defence policies are and what they stand for because we hear completely different versions of their policy depending on whether they sit in this House or whether they are engaged in by-elections. There was not much Liberal Democrat support for the Armed Forces at the time of the recent by-elections.

My Lords, with the utmost respect, will the Minister recognise that we have a very short time to ask questions on an important issue and we do not, as a House, wish to hear a series of party statements? We are concerned about defence. I should be grateful if the Minister would refrain from discussing various party issues and let us get on with defence.

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's intervention. I always listen carefully to her comments. But the time that I take in responding to what I believe were party points from both the other Front Benches—

No!

My Lords, they were. That time will not influence at all the time that the Back-Benches in this House will have to ask questions in a few minutes' time. The time that I take will not eat into the valuable Back-Bench time.

I wished to make the point that on the streets of the cities where the by-elections were held we heard nothing at all about praise for the British Armed Forces either in this country or in Iraq. We heard crude anti-Americanism and, "Get the British troops out of Iraq as soon as possible" At least the political party Respect does not speak with two tongues.

My Lords, the Minister said that our policy was to get the British troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. After the handover of power, I thought that that was the Government's policy, too.

My Lords, if the noble Lord had been on the streets to which I referred, he would have heard his people say that we should get out of Iraq now rather than at some time in the future. It would be helpful if the Liberal Democrats could speak with one voice rather than many, depending upon where they happen to be. We would listen to what they have to say on this important matter if they were slightly more consistent with what they said elsewhere.

In summary, I detect from the attitudes of the two noble Lords to my comments that they require a longer time to examine the contents of the Statement and then to come to their judgments. They are entitled to that. But I do not think that they disagree that we need to modernise our Armed Forces, that we need to spend within the resources allowed for them and that sometimes that means that hard choices have to be made. That was the case when the party of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, was in government; it is the case now that we are in government; and, I am afraid, it will be the case for evermore. This document goes a long way towards modernising our Armed Forces. It follows what we have said before and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. These are major changes. A Statement with brief questions does not give the House any opportunity to consider them in depth. So, I, too, strongly support the request for an early debate on defence and security.

The Statement reveals some welcome new capabilities that lie in the future. Meanwhile, are we not taking a major strategic risk by cutting back and withdrawing capabilities long before the new systems are operational? Is there not a basic contradiction in the Government's position? If we are to operate alongside the US, they will rightly expect from us not only technical synergy but also a reasonable contribution to the joint effort. Have these proposed cuts been explained to the United States?

Has any allowance been factored in for losses? We have been fortunate in recent conflicts, but the lessons of the Falklands with the loss of eight highly capable naval platforms and all but one large helicopter inflicted by a far from world-class air force must not be forgotten. So I deplore the major reductions proposed in naval and air platforms before new capabilities are available.

Finally, what chance is there that these changes will see an end to year-by-year snap savings in recruitment, training and exercising, which are hurriedly adopted to stay within cash limits but enormously inefficient and wasteful of defence effort?

My Lords, I respect the noble and gallant Lord's concerns in this field. I can say only that we are confident, as are the Chiefs of Staff, that the balance of today's proposals will not have the adverse effect that the noble and gallant Lord fears. We cannot wait until all-new equipment is on stream before beginning to reduce some of the assets that need to be reduced. That has to happen at the same time. We do not believe that his fears will be realised and I want him to believe that careful judgment has been taken over a long period to establish exactly where the balance lies. I should emphasise to the House that these Government proposals have the absolute backing of the Chiefs of Staff.

My Lords, perhaps before asking my question I should mention that I lived through the World War 1 and served in the territorials throughout World War 2. I am conscious that however good our regular Army is—and it is splendid—we always have to have big enough reserves and a big enough Territorial Army. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Territorial Army is not only big enough, but also well enough trained and equipped?

My Lords, regarding reserves, the lengthy Statement talked about the vital role that reservists are playing within the Army. It is arguable that they have never had to play such an important operational role as they are playing now. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about training for reserves and I promised him that I would take that back and ensure that the position is reviewed.

I made it clear that my colleague Ivor Caplin will make a Statement on future reserves tomorrow and that the role they play now is enormously important in the fighting force that the UK Armed Forces provide. We are determined that they will not have a more difficult time in their capacity as reservists—in other words, we are determined that their employers will be satisfied by the terms that they are offered when their people are taken away. We shall continue to ensure that reservists, who are often of great importance in the enabling roles where there are sometimes shortages in the Regular Army, are employed in a proper and full way. The future for the reserves is extremely promising.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we have heard a point from the Cross Benches. It is now the turn of this side to ask a question. We shall then no doubt hear from the Liberal Democrats and I am sure that there will then be an opportunity for a question from the Cross Benches.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in the Kosovo conflict the European members of NATO struggled to provide 40,000 combat-ready troops for peacekeeping duties, even though that was one-fiftieth of their total Armed Forces? Does he agree that what this country needs is a modernised and readily deployable 21st century military based on precision weapons and network capabilities able to fight the battles of the future rather than the past? Does he concur that the Government's seven years of real-terms increases in defence spending contrast starkly with the Tories' planned real-terms cuts, despite the U-turn announced today? Does he agree that those cuts would decimate the armed services and threaten the country's security?

My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I basically agree with what he says. I do not understand why there are groans around the Chamber. In our turn, when in opposition, we were attacked all the time by parties opposite for not having a credible defence policy. From this side, we are simply saying mildly that neither of the parties opposite has a credible defence policy, and this White Paper makes it clear that we do. I agree very much with what my noble friend said.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us in this House who do not have military experience were none the less very impressed a few weeks ago by the words of someone who does have much military experience; namely, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall? He said that the one thing we should not cut at a time of modernisation and uncertainty regarding future threat is the number of people. That seems to run counter to the Government's Statement. Does the Minister also accept—I speak as someone who represented the Scottish Borders for many years—that on the ground the importance of family pride in a particular regiment is a significant factor in recruitment and that, in cutting numbers, the Government should be careful that they do not throw away important parts of our heritage?

My Lords, notwithstanding—

My Lords, if the noble and gallant Lord will forgive me, I believe that his question may be somewhat similar. I do not know why I say that but I think that it may be. Of course, I listened carefully to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said some weeks ago and he certainly made an important point. I want to try to explain why we believe that the numbers that we have decided on are appropriate—in particular, so far as concerns the Army.

With regard to the organisational changes in the Army, we believe that we can move from a manpower requirement of 108,000 to one of 102,000. At present, I should tell the noble Lord that the figure is 103,500. We believe that we can make that move because organisational change, the introduction of the new capabilities and equipment and the revised timing assumptions, which are made on the basis of the strategic environment as we now see it, have allowed us to reduce the Army's manpower requirements to that limited extent.

However, the strength of the Army will remain broadly as it is today until full normalisation is achieved in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will have heard me say that four battalions are being taken from Northern Ireland, and the reduction referred to in the Statement is predicated on full normalisation there. For those reasons, in the balance that we have to make here—the noble Lord will accept that all these decisions are ones of balance—we feel that what we are suggesting is a very minor decrease.

My Lords, first, notwithstanding the Minister's remarks about real growth, defence is facing cuts and those cannot be disguised as anything else, however hard Ministers try. But growth is not sufficient. What is the reason for the cuts? Is it purely financial? If it is, I think that that is surprising, considering that the Government continue to express great confidence in the economy.

Secondly, in view of the very many commitments that the Armed Forces have today and are likely to have over the coming years, no government of late that I can think of have used the Armed Forces more often and in more different places. I am delighted that the Chiefs of Staff, like the noble and gallant Lords who were also once Chiefs of Staff, are loyal to the Government. But I have talked to a large number of people who are not Chiefs of Staff and I get a very different picture. They believe that, if the forces are to be used, they should be funded properly.

My Lords, anything that the noble and gallant Lord says is well worth listening to. But I reject his suggestion that defence spending is not rising. It is rising each year. As he knows, the Chancellor has allocated an extra £3.7 billion to defence up to the year 2007–08, and that represents average annual real growth. Of course, every department would like more money than it receives. But we are content that this is a generous settlement and we realise that we have to work within its confines.

The noble and gallant Lord described the attitude of the present Chiefs of Staff as "loyal". I think that it is a matter of rather more than loyalty. With regard to some fields—for example, the future Army as it is envisaged—that attitude is very much in line with the view taken by the Army Board in terms of the infantry. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept that these decisions are not only politically led; they are taken, as they were in his time, jointly by the politicians, the military and the Ministry of Defence.

I accept that for many of our people the changes may be unsettling. These are difficult times. But I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept that, within the resources allowed to us—as I said, there is real improvement in that respect—we have done our very best to get the balance right between what we need to do to ensure that our Armed Forces can meet the needs of the 21st century and, at the same time, ensure that taxpayers' money is properly spent.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked the Minister the size of the two aircraft carriers. He did not receive a reply. In the original Statement, we were told that it was 65,000 tonnes. Since then, rumours and statements have been circulating widely that it is 55,000 tonnes. The difference in capacity and capability between those two sizes is fundamental. Can the noble Lord say which it is?

My Lords, I cannot say which it is because no final decision has yet been taken. The noble Lord will know that in the very important assessment phase of a project such as this the key design parameters are established. Those include the size as well other aspects of the aircraft carriers. But the noble Lord and others can rest assured that these will be the largest warships that this country has ever built. They will be extremely large. I cannot give the noble Lord the tonnage or the size at present, but it would be surprising if I could. We are still working out the requirement and how we can best meet that important requirement. However, I can say that the two new aircraft carriers will form the basis of our future naval defence policy.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on at least one thing; that is, his recognition of the fact that investment in what I believe is now called C4I is an absolute and total priority, and it is that which is forcing us to make some of these very unwelcome cuts in the numbers of platforms.

My noble friend said that in some cases more capability could be delivered from fewer platforms. That is certainly not the case with strategic air transport. I therefore welcome what he said about the C17, although he did not go nearly as far as I would have liked. Can he confirm, as it was not quite clear from what he said, first, when or if this mythical A400M will appear—I am prepared to take a substantial wager with my noble friend that that will not be when the Liberals think it will be—that there will be no question of getting rid of our C17 fleet at that time? Secondly—I do not expect my noble friend to have this answer at his fingertips, but I should be grateful if he could inform the House—how many Typhoons will we have to give up in order to get another five C17s?

My Lords, as far as concerns the first question, I hope that I made clear when reading the Statement—if I did not, I am sure that it was my fault—that the aim is to have those C17s working alongside a fleet of C130s and A400Ms. I hope that that gives some satisfaction. As to my noble friend's second, rather hypothetical question, he is quite right: I am unable to answer.

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, I hope that he will have recognised from the debate we have had so far and from some of the detail we have gone into, the need for debate in this Chamber on defence issues, which are so important, not only to the Armed Forces but to the nation as a whole. Such debate is to be greatly encouraged.

I hope the Minister also agrees that although some restructuring has taken place, it will not be welcomed by all elements of the Armed Forces. The question of morale in those areas will need careful handling, as it will have a knock-on effect.

I welcome much of what was said by the Minister about the importance of network-centric warfare and the need to improve our operational, expeditionary warfare capability. The problem is that much of what is promised is "jam tomorrow" in terms of the Future Rapid Effect System for the Army. That vehicle has not even been designed, let alone being ready to come into service. So, much that has been promised is a long way down the track.

I recognise also the rebalancing that is needed for command and control and operational logistics. Equally, I believe that cutting Army manpower is part of the real problem. Taking it down from 103,500 to 101,000 creates part of the problem. What I really do not understand—I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—is the need to cut four infantry battalions out of the order of battle, given that they are the workhorse of the Army. They may not be needed for network-centric warfare, but they will be needed to help keep the peace in places such as Africa, the Balkans and elsewhere. I stress that I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—my own regiment is very vulnerable—but about a skill that the British Army has that no one else has. We are in danger of taking four very important major units out of the order of battle. I should like to hear the Minister's reaction.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who always talks with huge experience on these matters. I understand that the feeling that there is a need for debate is high all round the House. I shall pass that on, but it will be a matter for the usual channels.

We are all aware in the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces that morale is very important when a Statement such as this is made. The noble and gallant Lord will understand that the Chief of the General Staff is very aware of that fact and is no doubt acting on it as we speak.

Many of the plans that we have will emerge only in some years' time. The noble and gallant Lord knows better than most how long it takes for equipment to come into force, particularly sophisticated, modern, complex defence equipment. However, we have to start and to continue with the projects that we have in mind. I can only repeat that the proposed reductions in the Army are very small. They are predicated on full normalisation in Northern Ireland. The balanced view is taken that, as things are in the Province at present, it is sensible to remove four battalions, and as things are elsewhere, it is also a sensible thing to do for the total Army.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is the fourth major rebalancing of the Armed Forces in the past 13 years, all of which have affected and reduced platforms and personnel? Can he explain what is special about his proposals that overcome the defence inflationary effect; that is, the fact that costs of defence rise faster than normal inflation? Can we expect yet another rebalancing exercise in the next four years?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not know that this was the fourth such exercise in that time. He, no doubt, took part in a different role in the first three. I cannot promise for a moment that this is the last, but it is one of the most important. We have reached a point where, as has been said in the Chamber today, quite rightly, our Armed Forces have been asked to do a great deal in the past few years, and we have learnt a number of lessons which perhaps took a long time to learn after the Cold War; that is, what sort of warfare or peacekeeping we would need in the years ahead. That is the basis for the changes that we suggest today.

We accept that when full structure changes are made, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, these issues are of great concern to those who serve us so well in the Armed Forces. However, it is important that the Armed Forces in this country evolve. They have evolved from time immemorial. That is the only way they have retained their skill and high reputation. I do not apologise if this is the fourth such exercise in 13 years. We have to ensure that we have the right structure for the difficult years ahead.

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating a Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. We too are pleased with many of the aspirations set out in the Statement, and that the Government recognise there are areas of deprivation within our rural communities—a matter on which it has taken a little while to persuade them.

However, we do not agree with the Government that these matters and hopes are best resolved by working through local regional government development agencies. We believe that such decisions should go through elected county councillors, district councils and parish councils. In that context, the Statement refers clearly to wanting to get decisions made locally.

We as a party do not believe that regional development agencies are local enough and we fear that some of those decisions will not be taken with the best regard to the needs of very rural areas.

We agree with many of the recommendations in Haskins. The Statement deals only very briefly with it. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I raise four points with him because we will not have the advantage of a Statement and questions tomorrow on the broader aspects of Haskins. So, if I may, I should like to turn to that.

I think that we would all agree with the Haskins report that at the moment Defra is "overblown and inefficient"—I use the words of the report, not mine—and therefore there are great opportunities to make savings and better use of money, both in manpower and time, to improve services for everybody.

We accept that rural policy must be driven by government Ministers and therefore formulated in Whitehall, but we view Defra as being overblown and inefficient. It has 12 in-house delivery agents, 15 inspectorates, six executive agencies, 20 executive non-departmental bodies, 20 non-executive non-departmental public bodies, two public corporations and representation in eight out of the nine government offices. There is definitely room for doing something about that.

I turn to the four points I want to raise and ask the Minister to comment on them. On recommendation 16, which is the drawing up of this new integrated agency, we are very concerned that English Nature should retain its independence to advise government, whatever the government of the day may be. It is to be merged with part of the Rural Development Service and some of the Countryside Agency. That, as the Minister said, will need primary legislation. What will happen in the mean time, because obviously the agency will develop? Who will be the lead person until the new legislation comes through?

In addition, we are told that a strategic group will be set up above those three agencies which will also include the chairs of the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. Can the Minister tell us more about that? Will he comment on why the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, did not look at the Environment Agency? It employs a lot of people and its responsibilities interact directly with those providing rural services. The Haskins report also mentions the levy-funded organisations. Will the Minister comment on those?

Recommendation 27 refers to the whole farm approach. The Minister has clearly said as part of the Government's response to the report that it is not possible to accelerate that programme. Why is that so? What is holding us hack? Is it the fact that the IT systems required to integrate those services are not in place? Alternatively, are there other reasons which were not disclosed in the Government's response? Clearly, anything that will reduce red tape, regulation, costs and the numerous on-farm visits will be welcomed by those within the farming community. Will the Minister also tell us whether the farm management plan, as proposed, will be a condition of cross-compliance or is it to be a separate issue?

Recommendation 31 deals with the funding streams. As the Statement said, there are currently 100 schemes. The Government say that they will sweep away any unnecessary rules and regulations in the current schemes to leave just three major funding programmes. It is obviously recognised that there is a huge wastage in the current system. Will the Minister tell us how quickly those three new funding programmes will be set up?

The Statement said that an extra £27 million will be given to the RDAs. Will the Minister confirm that that is for one year only? Will that £27 million be divided equally between the RDAs or are any priorities envisaged? Will that money be ring-fenced for rural activities, as opposed to being swallowed up by other RDA responsibilities? As the Statement refers also to rural areas, will the Minister define his interpretation of "rural" as accepted across all government departmental divisions?

The Statement mentioned the importance of transport, of affordable housing, of broadband and of rural access. As the Minister will know, those are not uniformly available. Will there be any improvement and how soon will that be? Will the new IT systems which will be set up within the new agency and others be compatible? In other words, will they be interchangeable? We do not want information to be given and not then to be accessible.

Finally, the Statement refers only briefly to farming. As the Minister will know, farming represents only a small proportion of rural employment, but if it is not profitable, the rural changes which the Government wish to see will not take place. Although farming is a small but vital part, will the Minister address an issue which time does not permit me to dwell on longer? Will the Government grant us the courtesy of a fuller debate on the Haskins report?

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and also for having sent me the Defra document, Rural Strategy 2004, with an explanatory letter. It was very helpful to have that at the same time as the Statement. Indeed, having read the Statement, it was perhaps essential to the have the document. I may come back to that if I have time.

First, I welcome the Statement's recognition of the vital role that local authorities play, not only as deliverers of quality services, but also as community leaders. It is important that that is recognised. However, the Statement adopted a slightly different tone from that of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—whom I am glad to see in his place today—in Recommendation 14. It states that local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for the delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. I shall not go further into that recommendation due to lack of time, but the Statement seems to lay more emphasis on the regional development agencies, although I recognise that that was in the context of economic development.

However, if the development is to be sustainable, the Minister will appreciate that the regional development agencies are not well-placed to undertake the local social or environmental development. For instance, they have only one rural member as of right on the board and as yet their emphasis in all regions has not been sufficiently rural.

Secondly, the Statement mentions voluntary and community sectors with which local authorities will work closely. It goes on to say how essential they are—a sentiment with which I fully concur. It also mentions that the money for this sector will be managed by government offices. Surely, that will introduce yet another strand of funding while the statement talks of reducing the 100 strands to just three. I had cause to worry about a few inconsistencies.

Thirdly, we welcome the integrated agency. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for initially identifying the fact that land should be managed not only for biodiversity, but also by taking into account environmental and economic issues. An integrated agency dealing with all land management issues is much better placed to do that.

The Statement talks in specific terms about the value of our seas, coasts and rivers, but I am concerned that the integrated agency is to address only land. However, as the Statement indicates, seas, coasts and rivers are very important. The Environment Agency has specific responsibilities under the water framework directive—for example, for eels and salmon—yet English Nature is left as the marine conservation body. Will the Government consider a more coherent approach for the near-shore coastal waters and estuaries?

The Statement makes no mention of young people. Indeed, the complete rural strategy mentions them only briefly. The Government, in the first instance, need to place a greater emphasis on the role that young people will play in retaining and developing the life of rural areas.

The comment about affordable housing is opaque:

"My Department will act as guardian"

for the sustainable housing money. I find that hard to disentangle. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that the money will not be spent in urban areas? Such a comment underlines some of the proposals that are well-meaning and well-founded, but at the end of the day mean little to me. I hope that the rural strategy will mean considerably more and that while I welcome the Statement I would like far greater clarity from the Government. I would welcome a debate in the near future on some of the issues we will not have time to address today.

My Lords, I thank both Opposition Front Benches for the guarded welcome they gave to the Statement. As regards the delivery agents, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was rather too hostile to the role of the RDAs. I know that the Conservative Party has not supported the RDAs, but they are our main economic regeneration instrument and it is important that they have a strong rural dimension. The changes implicit in the Statement and the funding channelled through the RDAs will mean that the agencies will have to pay far greater attention to the rural dimension than has previously been the case and fit it in with the overall regional perspective.

That seems very sensible. It would not be appropriate to diffuse that concentration either by having an entirely separate rural strand or by delivering entirely through local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, envisaged a great role for the RDAs, as do we. That is not to say that local authorities will not have a role—in response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Local authorities are also important in the delivery, although probably there has been a slight change of balance in favour of the RDAs. Nevertheless, local authorities will still have a significant role.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, repeated the calumny of my noble friend Lord Haskins that Defra was overblown and inefficient. Most of those inefficiencies are already being addressed, but it is important that the core policy department is reduced in size and that the delivery section of the department is consequently brought closer to those who benefit from it. That is why part of the plan is to shift some of the delivery mechanisms out of the centre of Defra into agency status, regional delivery or local delivery. That is certainly part of our approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins.

The noble Baroness asked what will happen before we get legislation for the creation of the integrated agency. It is important that we are clear on the lines of responsibility and that English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service—the parts that will go into the integrated agency—work together closely in the period before legislation. It will be complicated because those organisations will retain their statutory responsibilities in that period, but the three organisations are already working together very closely. It is very important that an individual is in charge of the overarching body; we will appoint someone to that role.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, both asked about the interface between the integrated agency and the Environment Agency. It will be important that the two agencies work very closely together. It was excluded primarily from the Haskins inquiry because the Environment Agency has very wide responsibilities over industry in rural and urban areas. It would not be appropriate to see the Environment Agency as solely a rural delivery agency in the way that some of the other bodies addressed were.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the whole-farm approach; we are developing it as rapidly as possible. I remember responding to a Select Committee when one of my officials had advised that it would take 10 years. I have speeded up the process substantially already; as the result of my intervention, we will now deliver it within the next couple of years. A 10-year timetable did not seem appropriate, but we need to bring all the complex systems of regulation, inspection and enforcement into line.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked what was included in cross-compliance and what was not. I am afraid that she will have to be slightly more patient: we intend to make a statement on cross-compliance very shortly. The noble Baroness also asked how the £27 million would be spent. It will be distributed between regional development agencies, not equally but according to the normal pattern of allocation.

On the timescale for the rationalisation of funding streams, by April 2005 we will have begun the simplification of schemes. We will also have provided money to Business Links to develop advice and information for rural businesses. By April 2007, we will have completed the replacement of the 100-plus current streams by the framework of three major funds.

The voluntary sector, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, is a very important feature of rural life that we wish to continue to nurture. The schemes that will go through the government office are those that formerly went through the Countryside Agency; they will be there for capacity building. Equivalent schemes under other funding streams will be delivered by the other agencies and through the RDAs, but the capacity-building schemes will go through the government office.

One of the features of deprivation in rural areas is the lack of affordable housing to keep workers in such areas. It is important that we build on the substantial measures that we have already taken to alleviate housing pressures in rural areas. The Housing Corporation, the Countryside Agency, Defra and other partners are involved in looking at how we can improve the availability of affordable housing. That is one of many elements in the strategy and the new delivery system that will be beneficial to younger people in rural areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely right that young people are the future of rural areas; they need to be attracted there, kept there and given jobs in those areas. To do that, we must deal with the issue of affordable housing. That will be one of the important priorities, not delivered directly by Defra but by other government departments, that will be the proof of our commitment and also the beneficiary of tighter rural-proofing through the new Countryside Agency and the other mechanisms that we have put in place.

I hope that I have covered most of the points made by the noble Baronesses; if not, I shall write to them.

Is my noble friend aware of how welcome this long-awaited Statement is? It says that 55 per cent of households in rural areas are above the median household income. Does the Minister agree that it would have been equally helpful if the Statement had quoted the indices of rural poverty and deprivation that exist? Some years ago I was staggered to discover how many families in relatively affluent rural Wiltshire did not own a motorcar.

We certainly welcome the streamlining of the funding streams from 100 to three. My noble friend may be aware of the danger now in rural society of large numbers of people rushing around and banging into each other, all trying to lock into the plethora of rural funding schemes.

Obviously, there will be a transitional period for the setting up of the integrated agency, which we all welcome. My hunch is that it will be 2007 at the earliest before the agency is fully operational. Is my noble friend aware of the effect that that could have on staff morale in the agencies during the transitional period, when people will be concerned about their future? In particular, what steps will the Government take against the dilution of the expertise that exists in the agencies in the run-up to the integrated agency's coming on full stream?

My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's point on rural deprivation. Indeed, one of the themes of my right honourable friend's Statement was that the social problems of rural areas are not generalised; they are in certain areas and pockets within otherwise affluent areas. That is why we must have delivery mechanisms that target support more closely to the communities and industries involved.

It is very important that we maintain both expertise and morale during the transitional period until we have fully legislated for an integrated agency. We are already engaged with the management, staff and trade unions in those organisations to ensure that people recognise the direction of the future structure and the importance of their role within it, so that we move seamlessly from three separate agencies with somewhat separate traditions and structures to one agency with a very wide range of expertise. The maintenance and enhancement of that expertise and the interaction of different levels of expertise will be among the advantages of the integrated agency.

My Lords, the Minister did not mention the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about agriculture being the profitable underpin of the whole rural scene. Will he comment on that? It is vital to a healthy rural environment.

My Lords, the Statement makes clear that farming continues to be a focus of a large part of rural activity. A large part of that approach to land management is reflected through all the delivery mechanisms that we are talking about here. Farming is central to that delivery. It is important to recognise the changes that we have introduced in the common agricultural policy. Free farming means that farmers can pursue the most profitable means of using land to maximise return. At the same time, it delivers environmental benefits which will themselves create and maintain a countryside that attracts more visitors and more money and develops rural tourism and other rural businesses.

Not only will that approach play the key role in ensuring a profitable and sustainable farming sector; it will contribute to the profitability of the rest of the rural economy. Our proposals recognise both those factors. The more direct and larger part of the support that the Government give to farming is, of course, through the common agricultural policy. As I indicated, I intend to make a further statement on that shortly.

My Lords, I declare an interest as having been involved in the countryside all my life. Everyone seems to have welcomed the Statement. I do not welcome it for two reasons. First, its content is wholly bureaucratic. Secondly, its tone is wholly bureaucratic. The Government seem to think that they can organise the whole of the countryside, and that if they provide policies, the countryside will react to those policies. I was surprised when the noble Lord said:

"Fresh evidence we commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas".

He has only to look at what has happened to agriculture over the past seven to 10 years, and what has happened to forestry, to see that that is not so. Although he says that the profitability of farming is important, he will find that that is not what has happened.

When the noble Lord makes these Statements, could he make them in unbureaucratic language? For instance, the Statement says:

"The evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation".

What on earth does that mean? It seems most extraordinary. He went on to say:

"I therefore intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities".

That might be good Civil Service speak, and everyone in the Civil Service might understand it, but ask the average person in the countryside what that means, and they will say that it is complete mumbo-jumbo.

It is not as if it ends there, because the noble Lord went on to say:

"This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners".

That is all completely divorced from reality. People in the countryside are fed up with bureaucracy and with government intervention on every scale. Will the noble Lord see if he can try and make his Statements less bureaucratic, and if he can try to cut out such bureaucracy as there is and as is increasing in the countryside?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his textual critique of the Statement. It is pretty clear to me what it means. "Sustainability" means lasting; and one of the problems has been that we have not had lasting support. "Deprivation" means poor; and it is important that we focus the support that the State gives to rural areas on those who most need it and those industries that are most deserving of it. "Innovative" means new; in other words, we intend to provide new support systems which are more understandable and deliverable. If the terms of the Statement obscure that, there is something wrong with the Statement; but I thought that it was pretty clear.

In relation to profitable farming, as I said in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, profitable agriculture is obviously an important part of the jigsaw. It is not, however, the main employment source of the vast majority of people who live in the countryside, or the vast majority of poor people living in the countryside. It is an important contribution to getting them out of that situation, and an important area of government support.

With all the doom and gloom that the noble Lord referred to, it is important to recognise that, although profitability was very low three years ago, since I have been in this job the average income of farmers has increased very substantially. So he cannot blame me for it. I think that there has been a mood of greater optimism in farming. Although that is more pronounced in some sectors than in others, those sectors recognise that they have a much better future freed up from the kind of tightly written subsidies under the common agricultural policy, and now also with a broader-based system of support in the rest of the Government's rural measures.

I do not think that people in the countryside want government to disappear from the countryside; they want government to give the kind of help that is actually useful in developing their businesses and enhancing the landscape. That is exactly what these policy changes are intended to bring.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a positive Statement which was ambitious and recognised what is to be achieved. It is to be applauded that the Government have clearly identified the major priorities of rural areas; namely rural businesses, rural communities and the rural environment. I welcome the increase in the Budget for Business Links, and I underline to my noble friend the good work of the agricultural colleges in helping diversification and entrepreneurship. On the funding streams, can my noble friend confirm that this will be a major priority of all regions?

The Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance is a sub-regional body which is the enterprise hub of part of the north-west rural areas. The Northern Way programme helps to build on the strength of the great cities of the north, such as Manchester and Liverpool. There is concern that it might overlook the significant contribution that rural areas, such as Cheshire, make to the success of neighbouring cities. Will the Minister assure rural areas that this will not cut across delivery through the RDAs, and take full account of the need to improve infrastructure, which is so vital as a gateway to the north-west as a whole?

Defra has been recognised in rural areas as their champion. There might well be concern that the changing structure will loosen that association. Will the Minister outline how Defra will improve its interaction with farm businesses? Concerning the rural communities, will he confirm that the delivery strategy through local government will fully appreciate the priority of affordable houses in rural areas?

My Lords, I have already referred to the importance of affordable housing, which must be part of the wider government strategy for rural areas. On the importance of Business Links and the agricultural colleges, it is important to recognise that part of the plan is to ensure that rural businesses, farmers and others can receive advice from a single source, or at least guidance from a single source, rather than be faced with the plethora of a whole range of potential sources relating to how the Government provide help and advice to rural business. It is important that Business Links deliver a substantial part of that, but I also recognise the importance of agricultural colleges.

As to whether RDAs concentrate too much on the cities, Liverpool and Manchester are pretty important to the economic prosperity of the north-west. However, the fact that the RDAs are now being given substantial resources and a much clearer role in rural regeneration will ensure that Cheshire and other rural areas of the north-west receive equal and mutually supportive help as well.

As for the relationship with Defra, clearly there are a number of mechanisms by which Defra policies can be delivered. Not all of them are within the Defra family. Our most important relationship with farming businesses, and to some extent all rural businesses, is that we can provide a point of advice for the whole range of local, regional and national government schemes which will help their businesses rather than confuse them or impose too much red tape. As a result of the efforts of my noble friend Lord Haskins and our response in this Statement and elsewhere, we hope to go a long way down that road.

My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on whether he has any plans to do something about the stranglehold that the big stores such as Sainsbury's and Waitrose have on farmers, and the inability of farmers to fight them and to get a fair deal out of them? Unless that is tackled, farmers, particularly those with small farms—which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, says, I think are at the heart of the countryside—will find it very difficult to survive in the future.

My Lords, those farmers, with either small or large farms, who can change with the changing context in which we are operating to make themselves more market oriented and more respectful of the environment will survive. It is not a question of size; it is a question of seizing the opportunity and meeting the challenge.

Part of that includes farmers collaborating among themselves and with other elements in the food chain to ensure that they get the highest value for their products and a fair and equitable share of the value of their products. One of the problems has been that farmers within the food chain have been too fragmented and lacking in focus, which was identified in Sir Donald Curry's report. Quite a lot of work is now being done to bring together farmers and the rest of the food chain in order to address those market issues.

In relation to supermarkets, it is also trite that the OFT is currently looking at allegations from the farming sector and others about trading practices that disadvantage small farming and processing enterprises. I look forward to the results of that.

My Lords, can the Minister indicate how many job losses will occur in Defra? Where will the axe fall—or will there be job redeployment into the regions? Indeed, the integrated agency can surely work only with good, efficient and effective IT. My understanding is that the IT systems are not yet in place. When does the Minister expect them to be?

My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps confusing a number of different things. As regards the reduction in the total number of the Defra family, there will be two different movements. There will be a movement away from the core Defra into the delivery agencies, some of which will also be geographical as a result of the relocation.

There will also be an absolute reduction in jobs over the coming few years, the vast majority of which are related to the improved IT system in the Rural Payments Agency, which is not of course covered by the Haskins report or the proposals today. The upgrading of IT is well on stream and should begin to deliver efficiency advantages, but it will also reduce the need for some employees. The other area of reduction of employment will be efficiency gains in various parts of the department. As I said in response to my noble friend Lord Carter, we will not be losing staff who have expertise in delivering the areas with which we are concerned today.

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may say that there are things within it with which I entirely concur. I support the sentiment that rural England's natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life. Will the Minister therefore impress on his colleagues in other departments that producing 20 per cent of our energy needs by the year 2020, mostly with wind power, will despoil whole areas of landscape? How can the Minister reconcile the claim that changes to the CAP,

"will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment",

on the one hand, with the requirement for large-scale wind farms on shore, on the other hand?

Is it an oversight that renewable energy—wind turbines in particular—is not mentioned in the Statement on the Rural Strategy 2004? I have not had time to examine it in detail, but can the Minister point to where that important new development in the countryside is dealt with?

My Lords, the noble Viscount is correct that it is not referred to in this Statement. But it has been referred to in a number of different contexts in this House regarding various policies where the main opposition party has seemed obsessed with stopping wind farm development. Wind farm development will be a significant contribution towards meeting our renewable energy requirements. That will improve the environment for all of us and, provided they are properly sited and go through the proper planning processes, they can also enhance rural areas. The utter opposition of those on the Benches opposite to wind farms seems to be hugely disingenuous, the worst form of Nimbyism and not doing a service to our countryside.

My Lords, that is a slightly incorrect statement.

My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a recent report on rural delivery and as a director of the Yorkshire Regional Development Agency. I was very impressed by the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about jargon. I sympathise with him entirely. However, I recommend that he reads the report in detail. Having fought a lifetime against Whitehall jargon, I was surprised at how concise and clear that is.

Obviously, one is pleased when 32 of one's recommendations are accepted—I shall come back to that point—but one hopes that the forces of darkness in Whitehall who do not want to let go will be persuaded to let go. Indeed, because the Government have accepted so many of my recommendations, I feel that perhaps I was not radical enough and that if I am getting too close to government there is something going wrong with me. However, if the aspirations that are in this Statement and the report are brought into reality, the Government will have done an excellent job in starting the process towards devolving power away from Whitehall to where the people are in this country.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support and endorsement of much of the phraseology of the Statement, albeit that no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has identified one or two infelicities in part of it. Most of it is fairly clear. Above all, I thank my noble friend for his original report. I certainly would not concur with anyone who said that my noble friend Lord Haskins had failed to be radical enough or—in some sense is sorry to say—that he was too close to government. But I think that he has given the Government a very clear and positive steer on this issue.

Ultimately, the result will be better delivery, a better outcome for our rural areas, a better relationship between the various agencies of government and those who live in our countryside, and, above all, a better, more prosperous and sustainable countryside for all who live in it and visit it.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 28:

Can the Minister explain what is the legal difference between the words "listed" and "mentioned"? I do not want to be pedantic, but there appear to be quite clear lists set out in Clauses 5(2) and 7(2), so I cannot understand why the word "listed" is to be replaced with the word "mentioned". That word suggests something that comes and goes while "listing" is more permanent.

Perhaps we could start the day in the way we mean to go on with a quiet and clear explanation from the Minister of the reasoning behind this amendment.

It will be a very quiet explanation because I do not have one. I am intrigued by the desire of the noble Baroness to focus on Amendment No. 28. As I have said, it is a minor drafting amendment. In essence I think it has been tabled because we prefer the word "mentioned". I take the point that the word "listed" may sound crisp, but "mentioned" sounds more friendly to me.

moved Amendment No. 29:

I would like to support this amendment. In doing so I declare a pecuniary interest as the owner of a good quality house, built in the 1880s, but which is now in need of some £10,000 worth of ordinary running repairs. That is not an uncommon situation. Although I have a pecuniary interest, I believe myself to be speaking in the public interest, although that is a matter for the Committee to judge.

The case has been made many times before. I first encountered it as far back as 1965 when Lord Kennett was at the Ministry of Housing. The ministry commissioned a study in Rochdale, known as the Deeplish study. It found a very high proportion of old houses that were basically good and sound, many of them capable of lasting a lot longer than houses built during the 1930s. The study concluded that if you wanted to house more people, repairing the existing houses and keeping them in a good state of repair was much better value for money than pulling them down or allowing them to fall into an unsightly mess, and then building new ones. I see no reason to believe that that analysis has ceased to be true.

One can observe around any big town that the older houses are very much more reliable. The Victorians built houses to last, but they do not last without ordinary, standard maintenance. Of all the things from which people may be deterred by financial disinducements, repairing their homes comes high on the list. The costs are often considerable, usually unknown, and builders do not always keep to their estimates. It is very easy, for someone for whom money is tight, simply to leave their house unrepaired and let it deteriorate. However, when they do that, they are wasting a public asset, which is to the detriment of the whole public.

It then becomes necessary to build new houses, taking up more land and destroying green fields—which are not in that plentiful a supply—while leaving behind an unsightly mess in the old place. I do not believe that to be in the public interest. So, if we can diminish the disincentive of VAT on bills to repairing one's house, it would be in the public interest. I understand that that can be squared with the EU directive—I take other people's word on that—and I hope that the Minister can enlighten me further.

If we want to house more people at less cost and to do so comfortably, without all the upheaval of moving and without all the estate agents' commission, this seems to me a good, sensible, cost benefit-suitable way of doing it. I am happy to support the amendment.

My Lords, I appreciate that this is a probing amendment designed to draw attention to the cost of repairs and the way in which reduced VAT could, in some circumstances, help deal with improvement and repair, but there are implications in giving this activity the benefit of a 5 per cent VAT rating.

There is no doubt that reducing VAT on property repair and maintenance would encourage the improvement and repair of property, but it would come at a considerable cost—estimates from the Exchequer suggest that it would be some £700 million a year—and it would have the perverse effect of subsidising those who have the resources to make repairs and improvements to their homes themselves. The responsibility for improving and repairing private sector homes primarily rests, as is obvious, with the owner. Government support must be targeted to those who do not have the necessary resources to do the work themselves and who are at risk from living in poor conditions. In our estimation, this measure would not go very far towards helping that group of people.

The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, in any event, gave local authorities wide powers to provide assistance to vulnerable owners and tenants to repair and improve their properties—for example, through grants, loans, or more practical measures such as the provision of materials and labour. It provides authorities with the flexibility to devise tailor-made solutions that address the problems and priorities they face with poor condition property in their localities. We have allocated an additional £30 million in both 2004–05 and 2005–06 through the regional housing boards to boost local authorities' use of those powers. I am conscious that we will debate further home information packs, but it is perhaps worth reminding the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that a home condition report will make a real difference on property conditions, including measures to improve and assist energy efficiency.

We will make real inroads into the issue of disrepair in the private sector only if home owners take more responsibility for the condition of their home. Our aim is to help those who are least able to help themselves; for others, we need to raise awareness of the importance of these matters generally. That is where the home condition reports will be of considerable importance.

The other issue with the amendment is the question of how the reduction would be applied. How would it work practically? What evidence would a person have to produce to justify a 5 per cent VAT rating? Who would produce the evidence—the person served with the notice or the contractor? This is a probing amendment and does not deal with any of those hard-nosed, practical questions, but this is a hard-nosed practical issue and, while I understand the interest of those who have moved the amendment, I believe that, at the very least, some further thought and reflection is needed on its practical application and how it will work. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

No doubt, the amendment requires further thought, but I cannot help feeling that the answer requires further thought also. The Minister said it would cost a great deal—yes, it would—but the important question is not how much it will cost but whether it will cost more or less than the alternatives.

The Government know that building new houses, with all the attendant confusion of planning permission, is a very expensive process—and we have a considerable net shortage of housing. So the alternatives are either to repair property that is at present perfectly habitable or to build new property. I do not think there is much question about which is the cheaper of those alternatives.

The Minister is right to say that nothing will be done until home owners are prepared to take responsibility for their own properties. The object of the amendment is to ensure that they shall not be deterred from so doing when they wish to do so. An extra 17.5 per cent on a four-figure bill is a considerable sum in most people's budget. People who are on the kind of margins on which most ordinary people live react to such costs at the margin. We are suggesting that the Government should simply refrain from deterring people from taking responsibility where they are willing to do so.

I do not think it is any use quoting deliberate and ad hoc grants, well intentioned though they may be. I am sure we all understand quite how little most of our fellow citizens—and, indeed, many of us—know about what the Government are actually doing in detail. If I went to my next-door neighbour and told him about this £30 million two-year scheme, I do not think—even though he is a builder and careful of his house—that he would know anything about it. Such schemes must be known before they can act as an incentive.

That is why we need a general rule. The Minister said: "To what should it apply?". I think the criterion is that it should apply to repairs. It is perfectly easy to distinguish a repair from an addition; it is perfectly easy to distinguish a repair from ornamentation; it is far easier than the kind of judgments that the courts make day by day.

So, before the Minister dismisses the amendment out of hand, he should consider the alternatives and whether they will get him into more trouble than this does. I hope that that thought will be productive.

I am grateful for the support of my noble friend. The Minister criticised the amendment on several grounds with regard to how it would work. I thought I had made it fairly obvious when I moved the amendment that if I was serious about the Government accepting it and incorporating it into the Bill, it would not have been in this form.

People are interested in improvement and repair in general, and the Government should look at the issue of VAT. Indeed, the Minister referred to costs of £700 million a year. What cost-benefit analysis have the Government carried out on this issue? When I consider the problems caused for the health service by people who live in poor, cold and damp homes, I cannot totally accept what the Minister said about that.

At the moment, new house building enjoys zero-rated VAT, but for repair, maintenance and improvement work it is 17.5 per cent. I explained how that affects those who are the least well-off in our society—and, again, I do not accept the Minister's criticism on that issue.

It is important to note that a reduced rate of VAT on improvement and repair work would not interfere with new house building. In fact, it would probably reduce the pressure on land and industry. We shall discuss the issue of new properties, I hope, later in the Bill.

I agree that zero-rated VAT on new house building is necessary if the Government want to realise an expansion of the housing supply, as they have indicated they do. However, supporting new housing with fiscal incentives while penalising the upkeep of existing housing goes against the principles of sustainability. As my noble friend said, ultimately it is counter-productive to the economy as a whole. I hope that the Government will keep this issue at the forefront of their agenda because it supports much of what they want to do in their housing policy.

I made clear when I moved the amendment that I did not expect the Government to accept it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 29A:

I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's remarks, but I understand that there is some difference of opinion among environmental health officers in particular about whether such powers as he has described are needed. Some of those people are concerned that a parallel system of regulation could divert local authorities' attention away from the needs of occupiers towards the repairing of dwellings. Both are important, but the one important thing about the new system is that it is actually concerned with what is happening to the people as well.

There are concerns, however, that the housing health and safety rating system—gosh, we should be able to say that well by the end of the passage of the Bill—does not as currently proposed address all aspects of decent home standards. That is what the noble Lord has just said, and was something that we discussed yesterday, when he may not have been present. The Government's target of increasing the proportion of vulnerable people living in decent homes will not be effective unless local authorities have the power to compel reluctant landlords to carry out necessary works.

I look forward to the Minister's response. We have a bit of a problem here, but we need to think carefully about how the two systems would run together.

At the beginning of the noble Baroness's speech, I said to myself, "She has got my notes". Unfortunately, I shall have to elaborate.

As my noble friend made clear, the group of amendments includes two new clauses, which are basically designed to retain the powers in Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985, in a modified form, together with some consequential amendments.

I know that key housing bodies support the replacement with the housing health and safety rating system—and I shall quote a few of them in a moment. We also know that some concerns have been expressed by a small number of stakeholders about the repeal of Section 190.

The purpose of the section was, as my noble friend said, to enable local authorities to deal with properties that were not unfit but needed substantial repairs to bring them up to reasonable standard. The housing health and safety rating system makes a significant difference to the position under fitness. Although HHSRS still has a threshold, it is not the same as the threshold between unfitness and fitness. Part 1 of the Bill gives powers and duties to authorities to deal with all hazards, however serious and however minor. Disrepair may feature in any hazard—the amendment overlooks this, which is a fundamental oversight.

The amendments would remove reference to fitness, but do not acknowledge the hazard rating system. Therefore, any retention of Section 190 in the terms of the amendments would seriously overlap with the new housing health and safety rating system on the treatment of disrepair and would, as the noble Baroness said, provide an alternative route for dealing with it. We are confident that the housing health and safety rating system will enable local authorities to take action to deal with properties needing repair, whether substantial or otherwise, and will be an invaluable tool in area renewal.

While the Minister was talking, it struck me that the amendments were framed in terms of compulsion, whereas Amendment No. 29, in the name of my noble friend Lady Maddock, was concerned with permissive action to allow people to do what they wanted to do. There is necessarily a place for compulsion, but it is an unpleasant, expensive and labour-intensive process that will not become easier while the Chancellor is engaged in reducing the number of civil servants. So where something can be done voluntarily and compulsion rendered unnecessary, it is a good thing. It is somewhat illogical to introduce a disincentive to do something immediately followed by a compulsion to do it. That is not letting the left hand know what the right hand doeth.

I do not accept the noble Earl's logic. We live in a property-owing democracy. People are responsible. They freely enter into owner-occupation and are responsible for the asset they own. I do not see that it is a disincentive that they have to pay VAT. I accept that sometimes the effects of the tax system seem to contradict other parts of policy. The noble Baroness mentioned a good example that we can come on to later in the debate about the construction of new properties on greenfield and brownfield sites. It is quite clear that the policy is construction on brown fields first and green fields second; yet, they are on a level playing field for taxation purposes, and everyone knows that it is cheaper to build on green fields. We have regular discussions with our colleagues in the Treasury about these issues, which were floated in the Barker review. It is not as though this is the way we deal with it and this is the only chance we get. There are ongoing discussions about these issues.

The noble Earl has slightly complicated the issue that I wanted to have illuminated by this amendment. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the offer he has made to look at the form in which guidance will be given. It is particularly important that the issue of potential hazards is addressed. The Minister is clearly an able detective because he somehow guessed that some of the concerns were emanating from London local authorities. The concern of some local authorities is that they will be bereft of powers that they need to tackle issues where there are defects that have some degree of hazard but are not yet so major that a local authority feels it can properly intervene or where a local authority can see that there is going to be deterioration over time. They are not confident that a voluntary system will work, which is why they require these powers.

An example has been drawn to my attention of a property in Harrow Road in E6. This is a rented property where the entire back addition is subject to extensive subsidence. Although immediate health hazards could be addressed through patch and bodge methods, the work would only need to be repeated at regular intervals thus increasing the costs. The landlord has failed to come up with a plan to address the current failings and so the local authority concerned is likely to use the existing powers to require the demolition of the back addition and complete rebuilding to provide modern kitchen and bathroom facilities. At the end of that work the property would, of course, be fully compliant with the decent home standard. I hear what my noble friend says about not making that mandatory. However, the concern of that local authority is that those works would not be possible under the present Housing Bill. All that would be possible under the present Housing Bill would be a series of fairly minor actions to remedy the immediate hazards rather than the potential long-term hazards. The extra costs associated with that are, I think, clear and important.

I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at what form of guidance can be given to address the potential hazards and the more holistic issues that I have just described in terms of the property in E6. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill he will have been able to give us rather more detail on how that guidance might address this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 30:

If I may, I shall deal with Amendment No. 31 first as it is the main amendment.

Concerns were expressed in Committee in the other place about a tenant who may fail to co-operate with a landlord in the carrying out of remedial work required under an improvement notice. We can see why some may take the view that in those circumstances the improvement notice should be suspended until such time as the occupier allows the work to proceed or the landlord acquires vacant possession. However, we would be very reluctant to agree to a provision that relieves the person on whom the improvement notice is served of the responsibility for complying with it even if he or she is obstructive as regards carrying out the necessary remedial works.

There are two issues involved in this. First, an improvement notice that is suspended contains the conditions relating to the suspension; in other words, it is suspended for reasons that the local authority has already taken into account following its assessment of the hazard and its possible impact on the occupiers. Secondly, it cannot be in anyone's interest that the enforcement action which the authority will have embarked upon for good reason—an authority does not do this lightly—should be deferred simply because the person on whom the notice is served has run into some difficulty.

We are not altogether unsympathetic. However, while Clause 29 makes it an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice that has come into operation in any proceedings, it is a defence that the person on whom the notice was served had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. In our view we must get the balance right. We need to bear in mind that the improvement notice has been served in order to deal with a hazard from which people—in most cases those occupying the premises—need protection.

As regards Amendment No. 32, the whole point of Clause 14 is that it enables a local authority to revoke an improvement notice. In the case of a notice served in response to a category 1 hazard, the authority may revoke that notice only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances which make it appropriate to revoke the notice. In the case of a notice served in response to a category 1 hazard in a house in multiple occupation, the local authority might well come to the view that reversion of the premises to a single household occupancy amounts to special circumstances. That would relieve the pressure on the occupier. There is a legal view on this but it is common sense that it is no longer a house in multiple occupation if it is occupied by a single family.

We cannot agree that Amendment No. 30 is needed. I accept what the noble Baroness said about its purpose but the intention appears to be that the operative date for the commencement of remedial works should not fall from 28 days to 21 when the suspension of a notice comes to an end. However, the owner does not need 28 days as he will already know about the notice and does not need as long to prepare the works. As I say, the central issue is that of tenants interfering with work to the property. However, the fact is that the work is more than likely intended to protect those people. We must get the balance right here.

I hear what the Minister says. I am most concerned with Amendment No. 31 because I can see that the Minister sees some merit in Amendment No. 32 although I am not sure that he will accept it.

Amendment No. 31 concerns specifically the situation where you have a hazard of an obstructive tenant. We are talking about category 1 hazards. You may have a category 1 hazard of a tenant who is not prepared to allow works to go ahead. There may be umpteen reasons why that might not happen but equally there may be reasons why it would happen. Anyone who has anything to do with property knows that from time to time people come to very different views on what should be done to the property in which they live. It seems to me that the whole onus is still on the landlord to carry out the works in the face of obstruction. Such a situation renders it almost impossible for landlords to comply with the notice.

We need an escape clause here. I accept that both the amendments that I am discussing constitute escape clauses for the landlord which, judging from what the Minister said, I am not sure that the Government are happy to accept. In all fairness it is right that the landlord, if he cannot get the works done, has a reason for the notice to be suspended—there would have to be very clear and justifiable reasons—and the local authority would have to recognise that reason. On the other hand, if there is not something in the Bill that allows that, no exceptions will be allowed. That also counts where a house ceases to be in multiple occupation after the notice has been served, and where the landlord may have vacant possession for some reason—one hopes, legally—and would ultimately be left with a house for which they put in planning permission.

In the light of my words about an escape clause, is the Minister happy to review the matter? If not, I would feel strongly about it.

Perhaps I was not clear. I do not have a barrister's brief on the matter, but I was more or less saying that Amendment No. 32 is not necessary. That is because the local authority is allowed to revoke the improvement notice only if it is satisfied that special circumstances make that appropriate. If the dwelling has reverted from a house in multiple occupation to a single-family dwelling, those are special circumstances. Amendment No. 32 is not needed as the matter is more or less covered. I am happy to get legal opinion on that, because the local authority would see it as common sense that the house would not be in multiple occupation.

So far as concerns Amendment No. 31, life is full of people who will not co-operate or who have an axe to grind, but there are penalties in Clause 205 for obstruction. Of course, there is a defence for the person who fails to comply if he has a reasonable excuse. We might need to bear that in mind. I am happy to try to clarify the matter again. We feel that we have to get a balance in respect of not withdrawing a notice simply because there is a stroppy, destructive or obstructive tenant. There are penalties for obstruction, which could be used in the circumstances described.

I thank the Minister for that explanation and accept what he says about Amendment No. 32. However, it is still our view that there should be an escape clause, as provided in Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 33:

moved Amendment No. 36:

Perhaps I should start with a few words of background to Clause 21. It sets out the mandatory contents of prohibition orders. The order must set out the nature of the hazard, the category into which it falls, the deficiency giving rise to it and the remedial action which, if carried out, would result in the revocation of the prohibition order by the local authority.

An order may prohibit the use of part or all of the premises for some or all purposes unless approved by the local authority, or occupation of the premises or part of them by a particular number of households or occupants, or by particular descriptions of persons, unless approved by the authority. That is how we see the clause working.

The amendments would appear to be intended to enable an authority to identify particular individuals for the purpose of prohibiting them from residential premises—although the noble Baroness put us right on that. The second amendment removes the possibility that descriptions of persons could be prohibited by an order. The amendments appear to be intended to enable authorities to use prohibition orders under Part 1 to identify specific individuals, perhaps with a view to preventing occupation by particular individuals who are thought to be likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. That was one thought we had regarding the proposed change of wording. If that was the intention of the noble Baroness, I cannot see that it would fall within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill, which primarily addresses concerns about housing conditions and the means by which hazards arising from deficiencies can be assessed and mitigated rather than the condition of certain individuals in a particular house.

The amendments also fail to take account of the basis on which an order has been made and why it may be necessary to prohibit particular classes of occupants. The assessment may or will have identified a hazard that cannot be removed by an improvement notice. It may therefore be necessary for the authority to prohibit occupation by those groups of people most vulnerable to the hazard—perhaps the elderly or young children.

It should be remembered that the purpose of prohibition orders is to protect people and households from the hazards to which they are vulnerable. These amendments appear to our way of thinking to turn that purpose on its head. While we understand that the noble Baroness wants to bring greater precision through the amendment, we believe that it would cause obfuscation.

In practice, an authority will not choose to remove current occupants, thereby possibly creating a rehousing issue for itself, unless the hazard poses an immediate risk. It might suspend the order until it is triggered by a chance of tenancy. Those are the sorts of issues that can be dealt with more precisely in enforcement guidance. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I said at the outset that I was seeking to bring greater clarity to the clause through the amendment. I am not sure whether the Minister's response helped in that regard. It has slightly obfuscated what I was trying to do.

I turn to the identification of the "occupation of the premises" and the premises to be identified by the local authority. I make it clear that the prohibition would be brought about on a property identified by the local authority as the property in question, but perhaps that is not necessary. Paragraph (b) states,

"occupation of the premises or part by particular descriptions of persons".

Our approach involves the phrase "specific individuals".

Most properties are lived in by not a great number of people. I am not sure what "a particular description of persons" means. The Minister suggested that my amendment might involve a person associated with anti-social behaviour. However, that is not what this is all about. If there is a prohibition notice and one is effectively stopping people from living in a property, even for a short time, what would be a "particular description" of a person? Would it be that the person opposite had only one leg or was a mother with a pram? Particular descriptions appear to involve a group, but if one had to identify specific individuals one would have to name them and say, "Those people cannot live here" for whatever reason. I believe that our amendment is better but I hear what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 39:

This appears to involve a somewhat unprecedented position, but that may not be so. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give some examples of other cases. Otherwise, it appears to be rather de trop because the local authority will be close to the ground on the matter and its initiative can have that result. I am not sure what else is needed.

I am glad to echo the noble Lord's comments. This is a very peculiar amendment. I am all for Members of Parliament being thoroughly involved in constituency affairs. However, this is properly a housing authority matter and therefore a local government matter. At least, if we are to get into the question of local representations, one would have expected that local councillors would make representations on the issue. Frankly, it is hardly proper to put a Member of Parliament in such a privileged position in such a case.

I do not say that because I have anything personal against Members of Parliament; they are very worthy and honourable people and do very good jobs on behalf of their constituents. However, the amendment would give them too direct a right of intervention in affairs that are properly dealt with by a democratic authority that is specifically empowered to deal with the matter. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment or, if she intends to do something with it, that she will bring it back later with a proper mention of local democratic representatives. However, I suspect that the Minister will say that the whole approach is unnecessary.

This is dangerous territory indeed—the amendment has provoked internecine warfare on the Benches opposite and there have been claims from our Back Benches that there is no precedent for the approach. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. My notes say that it is not quite clear what additional wisdom would be brought to the professional judgment of a local authority's environmental health officer by having a local Member of Parliament who is able to do that. I am not sure that I should go too far down that road; that might upset someone. I certainly would not want to upset many of my friends in another place. I have to be very careful with my noble friend Lord Rooker on the Front Bench; he spent many honourable years in another place and knows what it is to be a Member of Parliament representing his constituents, which he did very effectively.

The proposal is unprecedented and this is a rather strange amendment. In any event, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right: this issue is probably more properly located with a local councillor. However, elected Members of Parliament are of course bound to make representations on behalf of constituents on particular issues. No doubt they would do so in any event by way of constituency casework. I do not believe that the amendment adds anything in practice. It is unnecessary and it would end up putting the local Member of Parliament in a rather difficult position from time to time when he or she was pressed by a constituent and he or she had to make a judgment. This is an extremely unwise departure from the accepted practice of simply making representations. Having heard that, I hope that the noble Baroness will think again and withdraw the amendment.