asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, this Government strongly encourage such links. Assistance can come through the EU Socrates and youth programmes, and there are many other government and non-government linking programmes. Information on these can be accessed through the department's Global Gateway website.

My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's response and we are grateful for what is happening already. Many youth groups and others are involved in these partnerships. The Minister will be aware that in Wales we have a special link with Lesotho. Are the Government doing all they can at this time of great threat and when there is a mountain of hostility and prejudice? What is it like to be a child in Fallujah today? Will the Government encourage the provision of translation facilities, information packs and possibly even co-operation with the BBC World Service in fulfilling that object?

My Lords, I refer to the broad object of strengthening international links to benefit our own children in terms of understanding the wider world, of supporting other countries in being able to harness and connect with parts of our experience in education and other facilities that would help their own development, and of supporting UK competitiveness. For all those three reasons we are strongly committed to using these instruments to support our contribution to the wider world. As testament of that I would expect us in the very near future to publish an international strategy setting out how we want to take this journey further and faster in the future.

My Lords, the Government will be aware of the anxieties of teachers in today's litigious society about suits should anything go wrong when they lead an overseas visit of schoolchildren. Have the Government given thought to how teachers can be reassured on that concern?

My Lords, the essential approach of the Government on this matter has been to give clear guidance to schools and to teachers about carrying out proper risk assessment to try to identify foreseeable risks that could occur as a product of going abroad. That process, if done well, should reduce, if not eliminate, risks. I can see the thrust behind the question of an indemnity of some sort. I undertake that we shall give that further reflection. However, one does not want to do anything that reduces the risk assessment process and incentivises people simply to indemnify risks. Having said that, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we shall reflect on whether this is a fruitful avenue for further work.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that his Answer will be greeted with a great deal of pleasure by many of those working in this sphere? Does he agree that in the context of not only the reality of the age in which we are living and the prejudice to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred but also the growing reality of total global interdependence, we will fail our young if we do not ensure that all their education is undertaken in the context of a sense of global reality and global understanding? Therefore, the Government need all possible support in the road that they are taking. Will my noble friend assure the House that he will consult closely with those leading NGOs which have become convinced that this kind of activity is crucially important?

My Lords, I am slightly shocked to find that my answers give a great deal of pleasure; that has not been my custom. However, I indeed assure my noble friend, and agree with him, that we would fail our young in a global world if they did not understand their position in it, the richness and diversity of the world and the importance of fruitful educational, cultural and economic links in society. I assure him that when we publish our strategy, led with considerable zeal by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, we shall be pleased to have dialogue with a range of NGOs and others.

My Lords—

My Lords, may I join others in thanking the Minister for his Answer—

Order!

My Lords, there is enough time for both but I believe that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

My Lords, how many children coming from abroad will have the language skills necessary to take advantage of going to schools in Wales where the, instruction is in the Welsh language?

My Lords, I do not have exactly at my fingertips the numbers in Lithuania who want to learn Welsh, but I am sure that it is more than minimal. I expect that people will make their judgment on which part of this great United Kingdom of ours they target their twinned experience when they make such a decision. The UK is an enormously attractive destination for higher education both for European Union students and others for a variety of reasons, one of which is our language, or perhaps I should say our languages, given the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the British Council on the efforts that it has made over many years in encouraging schools, particularly primary schools, to twin with schools in other countries?

Yes, my Lords. That is clearly part of what the Global Gateway website seeks to do. It provides—would you believe it?—a website that tells one how to twin and how to get support for twinning. The British Council has done great work. As a rough guess we estimate that about a quarter of all primary schools have partnerships of that sort. If it is part of a serious curriculum development and is not just an add-on, that undoubtedly is of great benefit to pupils, schools and international understanding.

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the extra help on languages might do something to redress the disastrous effects of the decision to drop them as a compulsory subject from GCSEs? In one year, in three-quarters of all comprehensive schools, apparently the numbers taking French have already fallen by about 70 per cent.

My Lords, from personal experience, I know full well that foreign travel and relationships encourage one to treat language learning seriously. I do not agree with the noble Baroness on the decision to move from a position in which the national curriculum said that every child had to learn a language, even if they showed no interest or aptitude whatever at 14, to one in which every child had the opportunity to learn a language if they wanted to do so. We were wise to make that change and put further effort into giving an opportunity for language training to younger children, so that, we hope, we do not have classes of 13 year-olds who have not engaged strongly and no longer wish to learn. That is a sensible thrust of policy.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are very good examples of links between schools via e-mail and the Internet? Is he also aware that that then requires the teachers to have the opportunity to meet, which costs money?

My Lords, most things cost money apart from, to some extent, e-mail exchanges. That is one great benefit that the web has given to international relationships. I do not take away the thrust of the noble Baroness's question—face-to-face contact is sometimes required as well. It is, but we have been able to do much more because schools in different parts of the world can have rich dialogue at virtually no cost using web and e-based technology. That has been marvellous in terms of the shift that it has brought about.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the second phase of Ofcom's public service television review, published on 30 September, is out for consultation. In it, Ofcom has proposed that ITV1's regional programming obligations for the English regions should be reduced from three hours to one and a half hours a week. No reduction has been proposed for regional news obligations or regional programming within peak hours. At the same time, Ofcom proposes to increase the quotas for out-of-London production on the ITV network. Following the consultation, Ofcom will finalise and publish its conclusions and recommendations. It is not appropriate for the Government to comment during Ofcom's consultation.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern in the regions that the implementation of such a proposal would cause a number of job losses and the closure of many independent TV production companies?

My Lords, I am aware of concern that has been expressed very considerably in the media. However, my Answer said that Ofcom proposed to increase the quotas for out-of-London production, which is, after all, where any job losses might lie. I am sure that Ofcom will take that into account in the response that it will give to the consultation.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, while the voters in the north-east have recently roundly rejected the opportunity to have a regional assembly with virtually no executive powers, those same voters, if asked, would undoubtedly reject any proposal to reduce regional programmes produced by, for instance, Tyne Tees Television?

My Lords, without necessarily accepting the premise, I accept the conclusion.

My Lords, can the Minister go a little further on an aspect of the proposals that extends a little from the Question on Ofcom's suggestions about ITV's public service remit obligations? Is it not suggested that, as well as there being a reduction of those obligations, a discount will also continue in terms of ITV's access to the airwaves? How will that work? It continues what already exists, obviously as a quid pro quo for it having its public service obligations.

My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand the noble Viscount's phrase about a discount for access to the airwaves. Two sets of licence negotiations are in progress. One is for the digital replacement licence, on which a decision has to be reached by the end of this year. In some cases, there is the issue of the extension of the existing analogue licences. However, those are carried out without particular reference to the very limited reductions that Ofcom proposes in non-news off-peak regional programming.

My Lords, I must declare an interest as a former religious affairs adviser to Yorkshire Television. Does the Minister accept that there is a risk in placing too heavy a burden on the BBC's local coverage, not least in the duty to maintain a proper balance between private and public provision in the area? That clearly has an impact on the potential delivery of religious broadcast services. Will he ask Ofcom to bear those concerns in mind in making the proposals?

My Lords, I entirely agree. It certainly ought not to be left to the BBC to cover regional programming. Our position has always been that a plurality of public service broadcasting obligations is not only desirable, but necessary. It is not for me to make that suggestion to Ofcom, because it is listening and consulting, but it has already been done through the right reverend Prelate's question.

My Lords, what effect would the proposals have, if adopted, on the percentage of high quality public service broadcasting programmes currently available to children?

My Lords, I do not think that there is a single answer to that. Clearly, that is one of the issues which Ofcom will consider. I should say that Ofcom has published a very detailed volume as part of the second stage of its review, entitled Reshaping television for the United Kingdom's nations, regions and localities, which contains not only detailed factual analyses of what is on offer and the nature of the audiences, but a good deal of attitude research about people's views on these matters. I recommend the document to those who are concerned with this issue.

My Lords, does the fact that people in England seemed less enthusiastic than the Government had hoped regarding thinking of themselves as living in regions, would Ofcom not be wiser to talk about locally produced, rather than regionally produced, broadcasting? That sounds much more attractive and much more likely to bring in the viewers.

My Lords, again, without accepting the premise, I have just read out the title of the Ofcom consultation paper, Reshaping television for the United Kingdom's nations, regions and localities. If the noble Baroness looks at that document, she will find that she is right in the sense that people do have a strong identification with localities—in some cases a stronger identification with localities than with regions.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Russian Government approved the Kyoto Protocol on 30 September. It was subsequently approved by the Duma and the Federation Council; and President Putin signed the protocol last Friday. We are still awaiting the instrument's deposition in the UN headquarters in New York. Ninety days afterwards the Kyoto Protocol will enter into legal force. We believe that ratification will be in Russia's interests and is certainly in the world's interests. Therefore, we look forward to the completion of that process.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and positive Answer. Given the recent report by 250 scientists that the Arctic ice cap may well be ice free by 2070 and that sea levels may rise by a metre by the end of the century, and bearing in mind the statement by Her Majesty the Queen that she is concerned about global warming, will Her Majesty's Government use the forthcoming Washington summit as an opportunity to remind the United States, as the world's worst polluter, that it should either ratify the Kyoto Protocol or, at the very least, reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases?

My Lords, the precise agenda of the Washington summit has not yet been fixed, but noble Lords will know that the Prime Minster has clearly stated that global warming will be one of our main priorities in relation to the G8 process next year. Therefore, one can derive the conclusion that that will need to be discussed with the Americans. The latest information on the Arctic, and other signs that global warming is proceeding even faster than was previously thought, must give urgency to those discussions among all governments—even those who have hitherto been unwilling to regard the issue as a priority.

My Lords, is it correct that there was no ice in the Arctic 55 million years ago and, as far as we know, no one was burning fossil fuels? I ask that question in a general spirit of inquiry, rather than to stir things up.

My Lords, the noble Lord's memory goes back further than mine. It is true that the Earth has passed through many different phases—many of which would be inimical to life as we now know it. The fact that the Earth has been through such processes before does not mean that we or other species on this globe could survive a global warming of the extent that is now predicted, unless we do something about it. Even if there are natural processes at work in that cycle, the burning of carbon makes the situation significantly worse.

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord's noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, perhaps I may promote the report of Sub-Committee D of the European Union Committee which has been investigating climate change. The noble Baroness has done a brilliant job. Also, is it not the case that in the United States of America individual states are taking a very strong line on global warming and that the US Government are looking at technological ways of solving the problem?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Countess that the work of the sub-committee has been thorough, and the Government are taking many of its recommendations fully on board. Regarding the situation in the United States, in many respects central federal politics is well behind leading opinion in corporate areas of America and in many states. Noble Lords may know that the north-east and western seaboard states have begun to take serious measures to try to control carbon emissions—in fact, Mr Arnold Schwarzenegger is a leading campaigner in that regard. So, despite the fact that it does not seem possible at present to gain support in Washington for signing the Kyoto Protocol, the pressure within America is likely to begin to make that country focus on how it can contribute to combating global warming in the longer term.

My Lords, returning to the phase through which the Earth is currently passing, and looking beyond whether the US ratifies the Kyoto Protocol, which is desirable, does the Minister agree that the provisions of that protocol are fairly modest and that we need an international effort, not only to reduce emissions but to move to a fairer distribution of carbon use as the only long-term strategy to confront climate change, which, alas, affects the developing world disproportionately?

My Lords, it was clear that, the American political process being what it is, whatever last week's election result had been it was unlikely that the Americans would have been able to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The objective now is to engage the Americans at all levels in the longer-term process, which needs to go beyond the provisions of Kyoto. The importance of Kyoto is that we should establish mechanisms and commitments, but the objective of reducing carbon emissions must be much greater than that provided by Kyoto itself—not least because of the effect of global warming on developing countries that was pointed out by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the decision by the Russians is remarkable in some respects, because the Siberian growing season could become longer, the Arctic seaway could be easier to open and so on? But in the short to medium term the Russians—and the Americans—would benefit if Kyoto worked properly by the great transfers through the Global Tradable Permits Scheme, because Russia is a low user of carbon per head of population. This is the goal that must be pursued so that every nation—India, China and the United States—now that this ratification has rightly been made, can move forward on a united basis.

My Lords, yes. The noble Lord has raised a number of aspects. It is certainly right to congratulate the Russians on taking this step, despite some siren voices within Russia itself. The Russians have recognised that it is for their benefit, and the benefit of the world; and that it will make sense of the Kyoto process, particularly regarding countries such as Canada and Japan who trade with Russia in relation to emissions. The fact that some parts of the world will see a beneficial climatic effect in the very short term does not mean that we should ignore the very long-term overwhelming effects that unrestrained climate change would bring to the whole globe.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there are no reliable or comprehensive figures for Iraqi civilian casualties. Such estimates that exist are not comparable in terms of periods covered or methodologies used. The Lancet article suggests a range of between 8,000 and 194,000 deaths over the period March 2003 to September 2004, while the Iraq body count website suggests a range of just over 14,270 to just over 16,400 over the same period. The Iraqi Ministry of Health says that just under 4,000 civilians have been killed in the past six months. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has stated that when the Lancet estimates have been analysed, he will make a Statement to another place, and I shall put a copy in your Lordships' Library.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she not agree that if the upper end of the Lancet's estimates were right, that would make nonsense of the claim that the type of modern warfare waged by the coalition in Iraq was the most humanitarian in history? Is it not ironic that the Government are now defending what has happened by citing lower estimates of casualties, which previously they rubbished? And is it not regrettable that it has taken this article for the Foreign Secretary to say that he will do what he should have done long ago—that is, to make a proper estimate of the civilian casualties in this war?

My Lords, the fact that we have not had reliable figures has been a matter of enormous concern to Her Majesty's Government for quite some time. So I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that this concern has not arisen only in the light of the article in the Lancet. We take these estimated figures very seriously, and the Foreign Secretary has made that clear. But we are cautious about them because they are very different from the figures emerging from other sources, and they have been questioned by a number of independent observers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will have read the article in the Lancet, as, indeed, have I. I think that it bears more detailed analysis, and that work is being undertaken on the basis of the Lancet figures in order that my right honourable friend can put forward a detailed Statement.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us why we do not have the accurate figures? As the Lancet points out, we have responsibilities under Article 27 of the Geneva Convention. Those at the Lancet have carried out a survey. They have explained how they have done it and they conclude:

"There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to not be able to provide more precise tallies".

Why do we not have more precise tallies?

My Lords, again, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, is absolutely apposite. Obviously we do everything that we can, first, to avoid civilian casualties and, secondly, to try to collect the figures relating to those who have sadly been killed. However, due to the very nature of the fighting that has taken place, it is not always possible to collect accurate estimates. In many cases, we are not on the scene when casualties are incurred. When we are, often we cannot be certain of the numbers involved because the casualties are taken away by their families and others, and we are not then always able to discriminate between those who are insurgents but claiming to be civilians and those who are genuine civilian casualties. Therefore, this fighting is not of the type that lends itself to the accurate analysis that the noble Lord. Lord Garden, and, indeed, I should like to see.

My Lords, has the Minister any response to the statement by Kofi Annan relative to the assault on Fallujah, when he expressed deep concern about the possibility of a very large number of civilian casualties?

My Lords, the best response that I can give to the noble Baroness is that given this morning by the Iraqi interim Prime Minister, Mr Allawi, when he said with a heavy heart:

"I have today concluded, as did the National Assembly yesterday, that the terrorists and insurgents in Fallujah do not want a political solution. I have concluded I have no option but to take further measures now to protect the people of Iraq from these murderers and to liberate the people of Fallujah".

The fact is that many people in Fallujah have asked to be rid of the insurgents in their town and they have requested the help of the IIG to that end.

My Lords, on the question of minimising casualties, which I am sure is the Government's principal concern, can the Minister tell the House whether reports in the press that the commander of the Black Watch has expressed serious reservations about its deployment and the risk in which it is being put are accurate?

My Lords, I know of the reports of which the noble Lord speaks but I have not had the opportunity to discuss them with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. Of course, your Lordships will be aware that on 4 November three British soldiers were killed in an attack on the Black Watch, together with an Iraqi interpreter, and a further eight soldiers were wounded in a suicide car bomb attack. The fact is that, in these terribly difficult circumstances, sadly our Armed Forces take losses. That is why we take so seriously any decisions about deployment.

My Lords—

My Lords, in the absence of reliable official estimates of the number of civilian lives lost—estimates which, it is widely felt, should be available—it would be unfortunate if we were to become lost in a debate about the relative merits of particular estimates. Surely the most important point is that, if we are to win the battle for hearts and minds, every innocent civilian life lost in this war and battle is a negative. We must continue to make it a priority to keep civilian casualties to the absolute minimum. I know that my noble friend agrees that we must also make a priority—not as an afterthought but as something that is absolutely central to our position—our concern for civilians who have lost their lives and our concern for all their relatives and dependants.

Yes, my Lords, of course I can agree with that. The only point I would make to my noble friend is that our concern extends to every life lost. I refer not only to every civilian life but to every life—that is, every military life, every member of the Black Watch and every one of our soldiers. They are all negatives. I am sometimes concerned that we talk only about the loss of civilian life and our concern for civilian life as though the loss of military life is a matter of less concern to us. I know that that is not what my noble friend meant. Estimates are available. The question is how robust those estimates are, and that is why my right honourable friend has asked for a further analysis of the article in the Lancet and other available material.

My Lords, I shall say a quick word about business later today. With permission, there will be two Statements. The first—on the EU Summit—will be made as soon as convenient after 4.30 p.m. and will be repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Later, at around 6.45 p.m., a Statement will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Rooker on regional referendums.

In order to be clear, the business scheduled for the dinner break, which, as noble Lords know, normally comes at 7.30 p.m., will come immediately after the regional referendums Statement. A further minor adjustment, which I think is common sense, is that we shall return to the debate on the Pensions Bill no sooner than 8 p.m. In straightforward terms, that means that the minimum gap in the debate on the Pensions Bill will be from 6.45 p.m., when the Statement starts, until 8 p.m. I hope that that is clear.

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

Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 260:

My Lords, from these Benches let me clarify our approach to the FAS and to the matters that we are discussing this afternoon. I shall then deal with this first specific amendment. As I said in Grand Committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, says now, this is barely a skeleton of a Bill. There really is nothing for us to see here at all. We are trying to pin down to some extent, and in very broad terms, what this provision will mean and who it will cover. We know roughly how much it will cost on average over 20 years, although we have no idea of the cost in the early stages. Specifically, what the ASW workers, and many other people who have been suffering for years while they waited for this want to know is when it will start. That is what we are discussing under this amendment.

Last May, after a long period of the Government saying that they did not want to raise false hopes and that they were unable to do anything, with defeat in the House of Commons staring the Government in the face, suddenly this scheme was cobbled together—a tribute to democracy. We welcome it, but it was not the best way to do it. It is now right for us to scrutinise the provision and to put some limits on this use of public money.

Later we shall talk about eligibility; whether, in principle, what is called a solvent wind-up will be covered. On that, it seems entirely reasonable to us, that there should be a fixed starting date. Given how long people have been waiting and how desperate the need is, it would be inconceivable for the first payments not to be made within a few months after the Act comes into force. Whether it is a specific date as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has suggested, which we are happy to support, or another date, that is fine.

Specifically on this amendment, I pressed the Minister on the issue of money coming from private funds, and I thought that she gave me a fairly clear assurance that I would have been happy to accept in principle. However, I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, with his greater experience of Bills in this House and of government commitments in this House. If he wishes to put the Minister's assurance on this point more firmly on the record, we shall support him, although I invite the noble Baroness to be as specific and as clear as she can. I am sorry if I have given more of a tour d'horizon of our general approach to the Bill, but, before coming to the first vote, I believe that it is helpful for noble Lords to have an idea of where we stand on the financial assistance scheme.

Make no mistake, this is a matter of great public concern outside, not just to the 65,000 or more people directly affected, but also to the many who fear that, before the PPF comes into effect, they may be affected. The injustice of the 65,000 people, who already are clearly suffering, is deeply felt. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Higgins. We are unclear about exactly who will be covered by this financial assistance scheme and how the £400 million will be measured. I suspect that if the financial assistance scheme is restricted to only £400 million—or £250 million at the present day value—the level of benefits pensioners receive will be considerably smaller than those under the PPF.

In the light of the decision of the electors in the north-east last Thursday perhaps the £200 million set aside for regional government could more sensibly be redeployed to boost the amount the Government will put into the financial assistance scheme.

My Lords, I am sure that that suggestion will be received with enthusiasm in the relevant government departments.

Perhaps I may also ask the House's indulgence to do what the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Oakeshott, did to some degree, which is to make a slightly more general statement about where we are in our approach to the amendments. That will perhaps allow us to be much tighter in discussion on the subsequent amendments.

I accept, particularly from the Official Opposition Benches, that the way we are handling FAS is not the most desirable. It would obviously give me profound pleasure to be able to bring a polished scheme to the House, which could then be properly scrutinised. To do that, we would probably need to delay the introduction of FAS for another year. That is our dilemma. I think that your Lordships will understand the pressure we are under. The matter came up late in the day as we saw schemes beginning to collapse around us. The provision responds to our concern to offer decent and honourable support to those schemes, which were never intended to come within PPF. The financial assistance scheme has come up late. It is in a broad form. Its regulations will come before your Lordships and will be affirmative. So there will be ample opportunity to scrutinise the matter then.

I wish that we could handle the matter in a different way, but, frankly, we are between a rock and a hard place. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, stated that there is real concern outside. For that reason we thought that it was better to go with a less polished scheme—an outline framework scheme—in order to progress the Bill, and to fill in the detail through affirmative regulations under the full scrutiny of the House. It is not the ideal solution, but it seems to be the least worst in the situation we are facing.

We are discussing Clause 284. We all share the desire to give greater certainty about how and when FAS will operate. Perhaps I may state where we are. Since FAS was announced in May—only five months ago—we have made good progress in identifying the scale and magnitude of an extremely complex problem, involving hundreds of different pension schemes with differing scheme rules and at different stages of winding up.

We have consulted with scheme members and trade unions and have been working with industry experts to gather and analyse data and explore options. Let me give one example. In many schemes perhaps 30 or even 40 per cent of potential beneficiaries are deferred members. Trying to find out exactly what they might be entitled to in working through the scheme system is extremely labour intensive and time-consuming. Many noble Lords have practical experience of operating pension schemes so they will understand that very well.

The report we published in June was based on an information-gathering exercise which enables us to provide estimates but only at scheme level. We are now undertaking an exercise to try to find out the profile of individual members, including deferred members, and the position of schemes' sponsoring employers. That will help us in implementing the FAS. When it goes live we will already hold details of a large number of schemes. So we shall be able—I hope—to progress more quickly towards paying members, which again I know is a matter of concern to noble Lords.

Your Lordships should bear in mind—and those who have previously been on these Benches will understand this—that this is the first time that government have sought to collect such comprehensive information from private sector occupational pension scheme trustees and actuaries. We do not hold this information as a rule. So we have had to devise systems and processes from scratch in a very short time. Even GAD has sometimes found it difficult to collect this information; so for us to do it on a very different basis is extremely laborious.

We are grateful for all the help we have received. There is a range of options. The first is to collect the information; the second is that there are some difficult policy issues behind what we do. Each option for the structure of FAS could have very different consequences in terms of the security that it would offer to FAS beneficiaries; the certainty it offers to trustees; the value for money it offers in terms of administrative overheads; how we treat fairly members of schemes whose schemes are still in the process; how we use the commitment of taxpayers' money so that those who have been hardest hit receive the most help; and/or should we have a de minimus provision? Should we give more to those closest to retirement? These are all difficult policy issues that we have to deal with and which must rest on the facts of the data we have collected.

The choices are not simple. We are looking at the pros and cons of those options and discussing with the relevant stakeholders.

It is instructive to compare where we are on the FAS with the development of PPF. For PPF we had a Green Paper published in December 2002 and it was announced in June 2003. We are operating FAS in less than five months. So unfortunately we have not been able to develop FAS in order to dovetail tidily with the Pensions Bill. I repeat what I said earlier. We will bring forward all the regulations which flesh out the provision through the affirmative procedure. Therefore, I do believe that your Lordships—admittedly belatedly—will be able to have full parliamentary scrutiny and control. I do not believe that noble Lords would want to say, "We are not going to have the FAS unless we see all the details now". Your Lordships will want FAS, but I am sure that you will also want to ensure that you can have a full debate about the particular details. I can offer your Lordships that.

So, with that explanation, I hope that your Lordships will accept the position we are in. I fully accept that it is not desirable. I can perfectly understand that the Opposition have the right to be unhappy with the situation we are in. But to meet the Opposition's wishes would be to delay significantly the introduction of the FAS to those who will most need it. That is the dilemma we are in.

Turning to the amendments—and again perhaps I may give the quickest of oversights—my judgment is that the amendments tabled on Clause 284 fall into four main categories. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I give some indication of how we might wish to respond to the amendments.

The first group is mostly about timetables and dates—for example, Amendment No. 264. I have to say now that we cannot accept the amendments. It may be that your Lordships will have a different view; it may be that the Commons could have a different view. But from these Benches I cannot accept the amendments for strictly practical reasons. The statutory dates proposed in the amendments are simply not deliverable. I hope to persuade your Lordships that in looking at any legislation introduced by Members opposite—who had a far more extensive run-in period than they are apparently going to allow the Government on these—we have no option, should your Lordships decide to go for the amendments, but to seek to unpick them if we want to implement a sensibly designed workable financial assistance scheme.

I am not predicting how your Lordships will go; I am not trying to predict how the Commons will go; but the Government's position is that we cannot accept the amendments because they are too much of a straitjacket. We simply cannot meet them. They cannot be delivered. It would be foolish of me to pretend otherwise.

There is a second group of amendments where we are willing to consider whether acceptable wording could be put on the face of the Bill—Amendment No. 260 is one such amendment—or whether the concerns could be met through statements in Hansard. The amendments relate to any compulsory levy. I am happy to give reassurances, but if your Lordships are sufficiently concerned, perhaps we could consider whether to return to the matter.

Another such amendment is Amendment No. 266 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. It requires three-yearly reports to be laid before Parliament on the financial assistance scheme. Whether the noble Lord is content with a verbal assurance or whether we need to revisit the matter we can discuss, but we do not have any substantive policy debate on this at all. We sympathise with where members of the Opposition are coming from. The third group of amendments covers topics where policy is still being developed—I cannot give your Lordships answers on these matters today—such as whether an individual's other income and capital should be taken into account when assessing his assistance from FAS—Amendment No. 261—or whether eligibility for FAS should extend to schemes which wind up all the way to the point where PPF becomes operational. These are topics where we are broadly sympathetic with the concerns that have been expressed, but we cannot yet have our hands tied before a final analysis of the complex problem is completed. Amendments Nos. 261 and 263 fall into that category. We are not unsympathetic, but we are not yet clear about what our final position should be.

Unsurprisingly, I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships that the amendments in the fourth and final category are simply wrong headed. They would require, for example, the scheme to be funded by the Treasury rather than from funds voted to the Department for Work and Pensions. Amendment No. 262 would disregard assistance payments in other income-related benefits. Somebody whose pension scheme had collapsed and gone into FAS would thereby be better off than somebody whose scheme had not collapsed at all. I cannot believe that that is what noble Lords intend, but maybe they have misunderstood the consequence of the amendment.

Those are the four broad categories of amendments. Where I can meet your Lordships' concerns, either through assurances in Hansard or even at Third Reading, I shall be happy to do so. However, there will be some areas where I cannot satisfy your Lordships with the detail that they require—I fear that we shall have to await regulations—and other areas where I hope to persuade your Lordships that the amendments as set out on the Marshalled List are simply misguided.

On Amendment No. 260, which relates to compulsory levy, I made it clear—the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was gracious enough to accept it—that we have no intention to use the Bill to impose a statutory, compulsory levy or charge on private business to fund the financial assistance scheme. I cannot emphasise that strongly enough. However, I am unhappy about the amendment because it would have a second and far more damaging effect. By prescribing that the financial assistance scheme should make payments "entirely from public funds", the amendment would make it illegal for the scheme to receive voluntary donations from the private sector. It may be that that would not happen, but it would nevertheless be made illegal. As the scheme will increase confidence in pensions and benefit industry as a whole, we would like to keep that option open. I am sure that your Lordships will understand why that is so.

We are grateful for the voluntary and valuable expertise that we have had on this matter and we hope that it will be further supported. I cannot stop the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressing his amendment, but I can give him a categorical assurance that there will be no compulsory levy. However, the amendment would go further than we would wish and make it illegal for any voluntary assistance in cash or kind to be made available to FAS and it would be unwise to rule that out should organisations or sectors of industry wish to give that help either in cash or in kind. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, but if he remains anxious about the matter, there is nothing to stop him or the Government tabling an amendment on the compulsory levy alone at Third Reading. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that the House will forgive me for addressing the amendments widely at this stage. I hope later to provide more tailored replies.

My Lords, throughout our discussions on the Bill, we have been grateful to the Minister for the sympathetic way in which she has dealt with these issues. We are all concerned to help those who suddenly find, through no fault of their own, that their prospects for retirement have been devastated.

I shall take up three points which the Minister made. She rightly summarised our amendments as falling into four different categories: timing; cash; policy; and whether we have simply got it wrong. On the latter category, I have some sympathy with her view on one of the amendments, which is why we shall not move it, but we shall come to each of the amendments in due course.

However, the Minister was being naïve, if I may presume to say so, as far as the procedural aspects of the matter are concerned. She said that the provision will be dealt with by affirmative resolution and reassured us that it will receive full parliamentary scrutiny and decisions. I have two points about that: first, such regulations are not amendable, either in this House or the other place. The way in which one would like to change what the Government propose is therefore limited simply to saying "yes" or "no", as opposed to debating the issue as we are now and tabling amendments and so on. The Minister's reassurance is therefore unsatisfactory.

Secondly, although we on this side of the House reserve the right to vote against regulations on a "yes or no" basis, the Minister will know that that is very rarely done and only on matters of very great importance. It certainly would not be regarded as normal for this House to deal with regulations on this Bill by totally rejecting them. For both those reasons, it is important that we should do what we can to make amendments to the Bill at this stage.

On the issue of contributions, considerable concern has been expressed outside this House that, in addition to a levy, the private sector will suddenly find that it has to produce assistance in other ways. The Minister referred to the report, Insolvent Pensions Wind-Up—Report on Numbers Affected, which was published by the Government on 30 June 2004. Paragraph 8 states:

"In addition there is the question of what private sector contributions to the scheme may be forthcoming".

Paragraph 11 states:

"We continue to work with the business community and others to explore the scope to garner support in terms of finance".

This is a worrying matter. It would be better if the situation were made absolutely clear. Therefore, I shall test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 261:

My Lords, we, too, on these Benches support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on Amendment No. 261, particularly in the light of his comments on Amendment No. 262, which would have muddied the waters somewhat. Along with our colleague in another place, Steve Webb, we believe that this is the right thing to do.

The one common factor to all people who fall within the auspices of the financial assistance scheme is that they had planned for their financial future, which has now gone. What people require more than anything else from the financial assistance scheme is certainty. It is quite clear from the way in which the scheme is set up that we are not talking about the full replacement of income or anything like it. It should be a scheme which enables people not only to recover some of what they have contributed, but to begin to put together the financing of their later life.

One reason in particular why we support this amendment is that we believe it is highly likely in practice that people who made sacrifices to belong to occupational pension schemes are more likely than other pensioners to have capital behind them. Therefore, we believe that, taken as a whole, this is an important statement of principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, in making sure that the money gets to the right people. Therefore, we support the amendment.

My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that when assessing entitlement to assistance under FAS, any income or capital that the member might have is disregarded in full.

I would like to remind your Lordships that in Grand Committee I said:

"Planning work on the FAS is proceeding on the assumption that we will not determine eligibility for assistance from the scheme through an assessment of any income or capital which an individual may have, other than … the pension income that they have lost through a scheme winding up underfunded".—[Official Report, 13/10/04; col. GC 128.]

However, we are still examining in detail various options relating to how assistance from FAS will be paid out. My concern again here is trying to close down options too early. If we completely ruled out taking some account of other assets in advance of fuller information and analysis on the individual members, this could compromise our ability to design a coherent scheme. We need to make best possible use of the available funds which will ensure that those who have lost the most will receive the most help.

As I said in Committee, although we are working on the assumption that we will not take account of other assets, it is surely not sensible to rule that out completely until we know more about individual members' losses. Some element of this approach could—it is a very tentative "could"—prove to be the best way to target a significant, but cash-limited pot of assistance at those who need it most.

I understand the concern of noble Lords, but in light of what I have said, I hope that they will support us during the design phase and allow us the time we require to gather the data we need and to explore the options available to us to make FAS deliver what we all want. It is not a path I want to go down. It is possible, and just conceivable, that it may be a path one will have to use in order to protect those who are poorest under the scheme. As a result, I hope that noble Lords will be willing to withdraw these amendments.

My Lords, this again follows on from the opening debate and the same issues apply. We and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, are quite clear where we stand on the issue. We believe that effectively it is a question of policy, but the noble Baroness said that the Government have not made up their mind for sure. The problem is that if we do not vote on the matter this evening, the Government may suddenly return, after the Bill has become law, and introduce a regulation which states that they have decided that they should means test after all. Given the Chancellor's propensity for that, it would not be a great surprise to these Benches. We shall then find that we cannot amend the amendment. Our only option would be to vote against the regulation. We would then find ourselves in a position which I described earlier where the only option is whether to vote against the matter completely. It might be better to amend it. But we will not have the option to fine tune it.

The noble Baroness said that there are various detailed arrangements to be made and so forth. I believe that voting on this amendment will not close down the options but clarify the situation. I believe that the House would be doing its job in taking a clear view on what is a very straightforward issue. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No.263:

My Lords, we think that this amendment speaks for itself. Given the two new protection structures being set up, it is quite clearly unthinkable to leave a gap between them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I cannot see an issue of moral hazard here, but even if there were, would that be the fault of members of schemes who have been paying in honestly for many years? I would not want to have to face the workers at Turner & Newell if it turns out that they may fall into that gap or, indeed, any other group, and give them a lecture on moral hazard. Simply to state the words makes that ridiculous.

I am always impressed by the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, but for the life of me I cannot think of a credible argument in support of reserving the right, frankly, to leave people in the lurch between the two schemes. I cannot see how that could possibly be fair or how it could arise. I hope that she will accept the amendment.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will empathise with me rather more after my speech in response.

This amendment would permit members of all underfunded pension schemes that start to wind up until the introduction of the PPF to have access to the financial assistance scheme. I appreciate the intention behind this amendment and, like others, I am keen to ensure that members of schemes that start to wind up before the introduction of the PPF from next April—we hope—are not subject to the kind of devastating losses that have inspired the Government to set up the financial assistance scheme.

As noble Lords will be aware, non-pensioner members of schemes that start to wind up after 10 May 2004 benefit from the change to the priority order. As a result, they will be less likely to suffer the scale of losses to their pensions that they would have experienced under the old priority order. While this may not provide a panacea to the problems of underfunding, it should help to ensure that the assets within schemes are distributed more equitably between scheme members. Your Lordships will recall that this is where indexation will come at the bottom.

It is for this reason that we were initially minded to exclude schemes that started to wind up after May 2004. However, we have stated on numerous occasions that we have not ruled out help for members of schemes which start to wind up between May this year and the introduction of the Pension Protection Fund next April. We continue to monitor the position of these schemes and to undertake further research and consultation before taking final decisions on eligibility. Those, in turn, will be based on sound principles and fairness.

I ask noble Lords to appreciate, however, that there would be significant risks in providing assurances of financial assistance scheme qualification for schemes which have not yet started to wind up. That would present an issue of moral hazard. We have all read newspaper articles, many within the past couple of weeks, about pension schemes that are threatened with wind-up. And we have followed with interest the negotiations between employers and trustees to increase scheme funds. Providing an assurance on the face of the Bill now that such schemes might qualify for assistance could seriously affect any such negotiations. Indeed, we have been advised by OPRA that this is already influencing people's considerations. It would not be right to announce a decision now on the inclusion of members of such schemes before we have had an opportunity to assess their circumstances and until the moral hazard risks to which I have referred are minimised.

I do not want to focus too long on the unintended effects of the amendment. However, as drafted it does carry an additional risk. It has not been timed by reference to the coming into force of any relevant PPF provision. As a consequence there is a risk of overlap of eligibility for both the PPF and the financial assistance scheme, and thus further amendment would be required. Not all of the various PPF provisions will be in force from the same date. For example, due to the fraud compensation provisions, the PPF will not assume responsibility for any scheme until at least 12 months after the introduction of the PPF.

My Lords, would the noble Baroness be kind enough to repeat the last point she made?

My Lords, I am sorry. Not all of the various PPF provisions will be in force from the same date. For example, due to the fraud compensation provisions, the PPF will not assume responsibility for any scheme until at least 12 months after the introduction of the fund, thus allowing for the assessment period. PPF compensation payments cannot be made before that time has elapsed. To all intents and purposes, the PPF will not truly be fully operational until such payments can be made. Thus, as the amendment stands, members of qualifying schemes could be eligible simultaneously for compensation from the PPF and for assistance from the financial assistance scheme. If this amendment were accepted, it would be seriously technically flawed.

In view of the risks I have outlined, which I think are serious ones regarding moral hazard, although with my earlier acknowledgment that we will continue to monitor the position of schemes, together with the effect of the amendment as drafted producing overlapping access, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she clarify her point about overlap? While there is clearly the danger of a gap, I do not fully understand her remarks as regards an overlap. Is she saying that an eligible group that was entitled under the financial assistance scheme could also become eligible for benefit under the PPF? Given the interim period at the beginning of the PPF, will there be a problem with overlap? Could any group receive two lots of benefit?

My Lords, the trouble is that the amendment does not make clear the point at which FAS protection would end and PPF protection would begin. Because schemes would come within the protection of the PPF from 5 April 2005, or least they will do so potentially because they would be included in the assessment period of the PPF which is to last a year or so even though payments are not to be made until around a year thereafter, and given that the noble Lord's amendment as drafted does not indicate a terminal point for qualification under the financial assistance scheme, there is a potential for groups ultimately to be able to access both schemes.

My Lords, our objective on this side is to improve the Bill so that when it is returned to another place, despite the arguments originally advanced in this House, the Government will have been persuaded that these are the right things to do. Given the size of the majority in the other place, it is very much a question of persuasion over there rather than winning votes. Regrettably, at the moment it is difficult to win a vote at the other end. Having said that, I am reluctant to press this amendment to a vote if the argument at the other end would be simply that it is technically flawed.

We need to give this point some further thought between now and Third Reading, and I hope that the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches will take the same view. Perhaps we shall be able to devise an amendment which is not so technically flawed and deals with the problem of overlap mentioned by the noble Baroness. In the light of those considerations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 264:

My Lords, we are quite happy to support Amendment No. 264 or, in the light of the Minister's remarks, we may prefer to press Amendment No. 267 a little later—but the principle of a fixed and early start date is very important for the reasons I gave earlier.

On various occasions in Grand Committee, when we tried to probe or help in some detail on the FAS, the Minister kept saying, "Don't chip away. Don't chip away at this". Frankly, at the moment there is very little to chip away at. Laying the firm foundation of when this scheme will start is a simple and clear thing to do. It is something for which people have been waiting desperately for years.

This is a reasonable matter for Parliament to decide. I would be happy with either the start date set down in the noble Lord's amendment or the one set down in our own, but we must have a firm date. In the absence of a firm date, we will press this matter to a Division.

My Lords, I very much hope the noble Lords will not do that. I want to persuade them that what they are asking for cannot be done—and therefore the amendments would have to be unpicked later—not because we do not wish to do it but because we cannot do it. I do not say that lightly; I say it in absolute good faith.

Both amendments seek to impose a date by which payments must start to be made from the FAS. As to the direct question of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in regard to when payments from the PPF would come into play, we would expect them to begin to be made from the second year. The first year will be an assessment period and payments will begin to be made from the second year.

It should be remembered that although a scheme may come into the PPF, it does not mean that liabilities will be immediately paid out. Liabilities will be paid as they fall and the bulk of people will not normally, unless they are existing pensioners, be required to receive payments within a month or three months. This is rather different from what may turn out to be the case with the FAS, which might involve a question of purchased annuities. I shall come back to the House on that in due course.

I have to repeat what I said in Grand Committee—we all want the money to be made available by government as quickly as possible. I understand and fully accept the decency of the motivation behind the amendments in seeking to give people guarantees as to when they might be paid, but when I say I cannot do so I am being realistic.

Let me make some comparisons. The Government's proposals for pension credit were published for consultation in November 2000; the State Pension Credit Act gained Royal Assent in June 2002; and the first payments were made in October 2003, some 15 or 17 months later. We published a consultation paper on tax credits in 2000; the Tax Credits Act gained Royal Assent in July 2002; the first payments were made in April 2003. Under a previous administration, there was the Social Security Act which received Royal Assent in 1986. I am sure noble Lords can tell me when the first payments were made on that, but if they do not recall I will remind them that they were made in April 1988, nearly two years later. I see that I am getting an endorsement from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I am sure the subject is dear to his heart. So, in all those Acts, there was a timetable of at least a year, sometimes more, from the date the Bill received Royal Assent to when the first payments were made.

My Lords, how many millions of people were affected by those Acts and how many people are we talking about in respect of the FAS?

My Lords, that is not the point. It is simple if everyone is receiving the same sum of money, but if you have to assess every individual entitlement, that is very different. The FAS will certainly be making payments to much smaller numbers but, whether a payment scheme is large or small, a set of pre-conditions have to be in place: the regulatory framework to enable payments to be made; a detailed business design; IT; accommodation; telephony; and properly trained and supported staff.

I stress that, unlike the situation with income support—whether it was called supplementary benefit or whatever—which we have been delivering since Beveridge, this is an entirely new area for government. It is the first time that a government are seeking to pay taxpayers' money directly to members of winding-up pension schemes. We have to devise systems and processes which mesh with those already being operated by independent trustees and administrators during a complex winding-up process—and we have to devise them from scratch.

Committing to a statutory deadline for making first payments—and in particular one which would be only a few months after the principle of the Bill has been, I hope, accepted by your Lordships' House and the other place—could seriously compromise the successful delivery of FAS. We cannot do it. Noble Lords may argue with me, but I tell you that we cannot do it. I wish we could. There is no difference between us in that we want to see the scheme flowing as quickly as possible, but it cannot be done. It is an important principle that FAS should determine levels of assistance and make payments only when it is ready to do so.

Even if your Lordships pass the amendments today—and I do not doubt that you may have the numbers to do so—it cannot be done. We are a grown-up House. When we are dealing with matters such as technical dates, there is no point in going for gesture politics that will have to be unpicked. This is not about a statement of principle where it may be important to flag up such a gesture; this is about a technical handling of when we start to pay.

It cannot be done. If your Lordships pass the amendments against the advice of the Government, we will seek—and I am reasonably confident that we will succeed—to overturn them because we cannot meet the deadlines proposed. I wish we could, but we cannot. It is an administrative matter, not a political one, and Members opposite who have been in Government know that perfectly well. I hope the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a case for a deadline? If she does not like this particular deadline, is there not a case for ensuring that the matter does not drag on indefinitely between one department and another? If she does not like this date, does she agree there is a case for a deadline of some kind?

My Lords, the noble Lord must accept—I am sure that he does—that we want payments from FAS to be made as soon and as speedily as possible. It may be that we can make payments earlier to some people nearer retirement and be more confident about it than for members of schemes coming in later but only when we have the regulations to bring before your Lordships' House—probably in the spring—will I be in a position to give your Lordships a deadline I am confident of delivering.

I am not trying to be awkward. I cannot do what noble Lords ask. I wish I could but I cannot. As I say, I expect the bulk of the regulations to be brought forward in the spring of next year. At that point we should have some idea of a deadline. If I can give any information to noble Lords before then, through correspondence and so on, I shall be delighted to do so. Indeed, I suspect that my right honourable friends in the other place will wish to make a Statement to that effect because the matter is of such major importance.

But I cannot do it now and I cannot accept the amendments. I am afraid that whatever your Lordships may do today, they cannot remain on the face of the Bill because they are undeliverable administratively.

My Lords, one of the most difficult tasks for Ministers—and, by extension, for the House—on decisions of this kind happens when officials say that something is impossible. I can think of two past examples: when the late Barbara Castle was told that something was impossible, she said go ahead and do it none the less. The thing turned out to be impossible, and it was a total disaster. The other example was when officials told my noble friend Lord Barber, when he was Chancellor, that something was impossible. He said do it none the less, and it turned out to be all right. But it is a fairly high risk strategy.

My Lords, has the noble Lord taken into consideration the fact that my noble friend did not say it was impossible just because the officials said it was but because of what we called in Committee the blank cheque problem? Once you have the regulations and you know that there is a likely number of claimants with regard to the £400 million, you have better leverage when it comes to how much to pay each person. Unless I have got it wrong, that seems a very substantial reason indeed. It is not simply a matter of officials talking about maintaining flexibility. I am not sure that I have heard the noble Lord address what I think is a very strong argument.

My Lords, I was not necessarily rejecting the argument. There are official impossibilities and there are other impossibilities. I accept that there can be very real problems with a timescale of this kind. I am not totally persuaded that there is not a case for a deadline of some sort, no matter how far away, to concentrate minds, not least those of officials. But on balance, I am persuaded by the argument, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made earlier by the Prime Minister.

I begin by sharing the noble Baroness's horror and the Prime Minister's horror and outrage at the attacks on the Black Watch. I extend the deepest sympathy of all those on this side to the families of those soldiers who have given their lives or been seriously injured.

Those who know this great regiment know that its resolve will not be dimmed at a time when US troops are launching an assault on Fallujah, which the Black Watch was deployed to facilitate. I strongly support the words of the Prime Minister on the need to confront and destroy the terrorists who are fighting the establishment of democracy in Iraq.

Like the noble Baroness, I much welcomed the presence of Prime Minister Allawi in Brussels. He is proving to be a courageous leader. So was it not disappointing that President Chirac found himself otherwise engaged when other leaders joined Dr Allawi in lunchtime discussion?

Mr Solana says that security is a problem. So can the noble Baroness tell the House what pledges were given by France and Germany at the summit to join in peacekeeping in Iraq? Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to try to persuade them, or has he now given up?

I gather that President Chirac also visited Mr Arafat in hospital. Was he able to brief EU leaders on his condition? Has the noble Baroness any news for the House on that?

I support the reaffirmation of the EU commitment to the road map and its support for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The communiqué says that the EU is ready to support the Palestinian Authority in upholding law and order. Can the noble Baroness explain what that might mean in practice? Can she tell the House whether there are any circumstances in which British troops would be committed on that?

On nuclear proliferation, the communiqué talks of building confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme. Do the British Government share that apparent EU belief that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful? If not, what do they propose to do about it?

I welcome the reference in the communiqué to the deeply troubling situation in Ukraine, whose stability as a democracy is vital for Europe's future security and prosperity. Apart from calling on the Ukraine Government to assure the fair elections that they worked to pervert in the first round of voting, what will the EU do to make sure that fair elections take place?

Was there any discussion in the Council on the critical situation in Ivory Coast, where France has destroyed that country's air force and put tanks on the streets of the capital? Has there been a call for a debate in the United Nations? Have the British Government raised the crisis urgently? What will the EU do about it?

The communiqué talks about considering sanctions on the Sudan Government over Darfur. How long will it be before the EU response matches that crisis? I have noticed, yet again, that there was no mention of Zimbabwe on the communiqué. I am sure that many will share my dismay at the renewed failure of the Prime Minister to use a summit to step up pressure on the Mugabe regime. Can the noble Baroness explain the Prime Minister's uncharacteristic silence on the tragic problem facing Africa?

I turn to the institutional aspects of the summit. What progress was made in bringing the EU agenda in the British way, as the Prime Minister has boasted? There was talk in the communiqué of action on regulation. Perhaps I can repeat a question that I asked after a previous summit. How many EU regulations have been withdrawn since 2001?

It is well known that we oppose the signing by the Prime Minister of the EU constitutional treaty. We would guarantee the British people a chance to vote on it in a referendum next year. What assurances can the Labour Party give? Can the noble Baroness speculate by what date such a referendum will take place?

On the Hague programme, the communiqué states:

"This programme reflects the ambitions as expressed in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe".

It is certainly ambitious. It reads as a text written by people who take the agreement of the British people to the treaty for granted. It also pre-empts—indeed, it makes a laughing stock of—the claims of the Prime Minister to keep control of national policy on asylum and law and order.

It commits member states to a common European asylum system, stresses the importance of the abolition of internal border controls, and calls for approximation of substantive criminal law between member states, as if our separate legal evolution meant nothing. So, who does the Prime Minister think he is kidding when he says we will retain complete control of those aspects of policy? The Prime Minister claims that we retain an opt-out power. Yet he has chosen to opt into all the major measures on asylum.

The summit takes the EU further down an integrationist road. If the British people are eventually given their chance to vote against that in a referendum, will the noble Baroness assure the House that it will be respected as the full and final answer of this country?

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the EU summit made in another place.

I also strongly associate these Benches with her tribute to the Black Watch—one of the most beloved and admired of all British regiments. We hope and pray that their courage in going into the very centre of this terrible war will bring closer the prospect of a genuine and lasting democracy in Iraq.

The Statement is rather thin at a time when there are such huge issues confronting the European Union and this country, as a member of it. I shall follow what the Leader of the Opposition has said on some of the main issues that are touched on in the communiqué and, more briefly, in the Statement. It is something of a curate's egg. There are some things that we welcome and some things about which we continue to be unhappy.

First, we associate ourselves with the importance of a free, fair and open election in Iraq at the earliest feasible point. It is in that context that we are profoundly concerned about Fallujah. We are concerned not only because of what was said by the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan about the danger of an escalation of violence against civilians. There is another reason for our concern.

The Statement makes much of the victory against terrorism. We know already that Samara, which was effectively militarily reoccupied and controlled a month ago, is now the centre of a range of atrocities, even though it was supposed to have been brought within the control of the coalition forces. Many of us recognise that victory against terrorism does not happen as a result of a single battle. It requires a consistent, enduring and continuing effort to limit the influence and effects of terrorism.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said earlier, there is a real danger that the deaths of innocent civilians will turn a section of the public against those who are attempting to support the coalition. It is disturbing that the President of the provisional Iraqi government. Sheik Ghazi Al-Yawer, who is a Sunni, has made it publicly clear that he does not see eye-to-eye with Dr Allawi, the Prime Minister. The outcome will turn on whether the Sunni people believe that there has been as much restraint on the deaths of civilians as is conceivably possible in a military situation. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say something about the rules of engagement, or at least the strategy that is in mind for Fallujah.

Secondly, I turn to an issue on which I strongly commend the Government on what they are trying to do, and which I hope will be successful. That is the recent effort made by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and his French and German associates to try to bring about a diplomatic solution to the extremely troubling situation in Iran. I had the pleasure of meeting one or two of the British negotiators of that discussion at the US embassy today. It seems that there is a real chance that Iran may now decide to abandon its effort to enrich uranium for what could be military purposes, provided that we can make a clear distinction between that and civilian nuclear reactors in Iran. The noble Baroness will know, as will her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that that will depend very much on whether we can get sufficient inspectors to ensure that there is no merging of the border between the two, which we on these Benches appreciate is not an easy border. We commend the Government's tremendous efforts with a government who are not always easy to understand, comprehend or negotiate with. Perhaps the Leader of the House can bring us up to date, in so far as it is possible while negotiations continue.

On the third issue, we on these Benches have been somewhat critical—and I think justly so—about the relative stagnation of the Middle East process. There is a prospect of something of a new beginning, and let us hope and pray that that is true. But in that context there are two questions to ask. First, will Her Majesty's Government press for careful consideration to be given to the line of a wall or fence running so deeply, as it does, into the West Bank, as to make the West Bank less and less a viable economy for a future Palestine?

Secondly, can the Minister bear in mind the prospect of trying once again to get a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank, which eat up so much land that a possibility of a viable solution becomes increasingly distant? We recognise that the Government have tried hard in that respect, but there must be more enthusiasm from the EU and the United States within the "Quad" if we are at long last to get anywhere at all in bringing some kind of momentum back to the peace process.

There are only two other points I want to make. First—and, again, there are grounds on which to commend Her Majesty's Government—we on these Benches believe that the Government were absolutely right to enter into a new system of co-operation with the rest of the European Union over the issues of asylum policy. In that context, I should mention not only the importance of preventing illegal immigration, which is very difficult to do unless one accepts a common European policy of some kind, but the importance for many of us of recognising that there are genuine asylum seekers—men and women of colossal courage—who fought for human rights and democracy all over the world. In that context, it is vital that the European Union should accept its fair proportion of genuine asylum seekers. Frankly, that is possible only if one has a common approach and does not try to split it up into a set of national bargains and see how few people one can get away with. On that, we commend the Government and believe that they are walking very much in the right direction.

Finally, it is of course true that the Lisbon process has been very slow. There are features of the European economy that we can particularly commend, especially the training of young men and women in crafts and skills, which has not been one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. We have huge shortages of skills throughout our industry. However, against that, there is a need for the continent of Europe to understand the need for greater competition and higher levels of productivity. In that area of the Lisbon process, we need to recognise good practice throughout Europe and ensure that the rest of Europe follows that good practice wherever it has been inaugurated.

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their comments, particularly with respect to the Black Watch. Our hearts go out to all the families.

I shall go through the issues raised in order. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the security situation in Iraq and asked specifically what the European Union would be doing about it. The noble Lord will know that the European Union has made a commitment to provide immediate financial and personnel support to assist the election process in Iraq. In addition, a commitment was made at the weekend to deploy a planning team by the end of the month to scope out an EU police training and rule of law mission. Other commitments were made with respect to enhancing our trade and political co-operation—but the issue of police training answers the noble Lord's point about security.

The latest news on Mr Arafat is that his condition remains critical. We all agree with the statements that were made by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Symons, and all wish him a speedy recovery.

The noble Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, both referred to Iran. The United Kingdom and the EU believe that it is vital that Iran takes steps to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. It must comply with successive IAEA board resolutions, including putting in place full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. That would help to build the confidence of the international community in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the issue of Ukraine. We, together with the European Union, have called upon Ukraine to remedy the shortcomings identified by the OSCE in the first round of its presidential elections on 31 October, before the run-off ballot on 21 November. It is clear that that second round offers an opportunity to Ukraine to demonstrate its commitment to internationally recognised democratic standards and European values.

The noble Lord also asked about Côte d'Ivoire, which was not, I believe, discussed at the Council meeting. He will know that we are concerned about the government's breach of the ceasefire and the violence in Abidjan. We deeply regret the deaths of nine French peacekeepers and, with our UN Security Council partners, have condemned the breach of the ceasefire, calling for an immediate end to military action and a resumption of the peace process.

I pick up on the noble Lord's point on Zimbabwe—and I would have been very surprised if he had not raised that matter. We continue to be concerned about the food shortages in Zimbabwe and the way in which the government there are using food as a political tool. Of course we have kept up the pressure, with our European Union partners, the United States and others, but the noble Lord will be aware that we must be very careful about the way in which UK pressure is used in a negative way politically in Zimbabwe itself.

The noble Lord raised the issue of Sudan. The European Union continues to play a central role in the resolution of the conflict in Darfur and Sudan. The noble Lord will know that the EU presidency issued a statement on behalf of the EU condemning the forced relocations of 2 November in southern Darfur. We are deeply concerned about that situation ourselves, and there has been press reporting of that. We have made it clear to the government of Sudan that on a bilateral basis they must involve the UN, the international organisations for migration and others, to ensure that all returns are voluntary and appropriate.

The noble Lord knows full well that we have made a commitment to having a referendum. There has been speculation in the press that one will take place in early 2006; indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has speculated that it will take place then. That commitment remains.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was positive about the role that the Government have played on asylum and immigration and law and order, and I thank her for her words. She is entirely right: of course we need to co-operate and, of course, the European Union has a responsibility, as does the United Kingdom, as regards its international obligations with respect to asylum seekers. But we also have a responsibility as a country to deal with the issue of failed asylum seekers—and the European Union has that responsibility, too. That is why we have made it absolutely clear that we will not lose control of our asylum and immigration policy. The opt-in protocol we negotiated at Amsterdam remains. It is not under threat. It will not be eroded. Noble Lords may wish to consider what has happened over the past five years when we have successfully used our opt-in, retaining our border controls but co-operating with our EU partners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, it is clear that immigration and asylum demand international solutions. We, of course, want to continue to influence EU immigration and asylum work. The noble Baroness said it was important that we accepted our fair proportion. It is clear that this Government accept their responsibilities in that regard. I do not agree with the way that this was put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I do not think he expected me to agree with him on those points.

On Iraq, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, raised concerns about Fallujah and the importance of having free, fair and open elections. That is absolutely the point. That is what we want to achieve and it is absolutely what the Iraqi Interim Government want to achieve. Prime Minister Allawi's statements on that make that absolutely clear. My noble friend Lady Symons repeated some of his words today. I, too, repeat them. Prime Minister Allawi said:

"I have reached a conviction that we have no other option but to take necessary measures to protect the Iraqi people from these killers and to liberate the Fallujans so that they will go back, back to their homes and lead a normal life … There is a division between the Iraqi people and the terrorists, we are after terrorists we are not after anybody else and all the Iraqi people including people in Fallujah … want us to go ahead and finish the terrorists and have the rule of law prevail in Fallujah and this is what we intend to do".

The commitment to having elections in January remains.

Of course, the security situation remains a matter of grave concern because if the security situation is not controlled it raises questions about the extent to which elections can be held across the entire country. That is why Prime Minister Allawi, we, the Americans and others take this so seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, congratulated the Government on what they are trying to do in Iran. I am afraid that at this point in time I cannot add to that. However, if I have further information I shall, of course, write to the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness pressed very hard on the Middle East peace process. That is something that she has raised many times at the Dispatch Box. The noble Baroness will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that now that the US elections have concluded this is something he will take up as a matter of urgency. It will be a key element of the agenda later this week. We have made our views absolutely clear with respect to the barrier and the road map. We have said that the construction of the barrier on occupied land and Israeli settlement activity risk jeopardising the two state solution. The barrier, settlement construction and road building are effectively carving up the West Bank. As we have said repeatedly, building a barrier on occupied land is unlawful.

We are also concerned about continuing settlement activity in the West Bank and Israeli plans to expand settlements further. We have repeatedly pressed Israel to freeze settlement construction and we will continue to do that. With respect to the road map, this remains the best way forward in the peace process. I do not think that anyone is under any illusions about the effort needed by the parties to implement it but the obligations are fair on both sides.

Finally, I turn to the Lisbon process. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pressed the issue of regulations in relation to that. The noble Lord will know that there have been a number of initiatives focused on making business more effective. We recognise that we need effective and efficient regulation to make the markets work properly. We are leading the regulatory reform effort.

On the wider questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of course there are problems with respect to moving to higher productivity and greater competitiveness. These have been identified in Wim Kok's report but our commitment to the Lisbon process remains very strong.

My Lords, is it not fair to say there is a danger that some of the comments about the EU not doing enough in many parts of the world such as Darfur result in some people wanting to have it both ways? One minute we are asked to believe that the EU is getting ideas above its station but right through this Statement there has been example after example of where the EU needs to do more.

My Lords, sometimes there is a contradiction in the way that we talk about the European Union and what it can do. My noble friend is quite right. There are any number of areas where we look for greater EU action while at the same time we often hear complaints, particularly from the Conservative opposition, about the extent of EU activity. It is my view that we have the balance about right. It is important that where we can get added value from EU countries operating together we should push for that while at the same time recognising that there are different national characteristics.

My Lords, in pursuing the road map and a true peace between Israel and Palestine, on which the Prime Minister and the whole Government should be commended and supported—we understand that the Prime Minister will be raising this matter in Washington—will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House also emphasise the need to raise one very important item with the Israeli Government and the Israeli authorities which is frequently overlooked; namely, the detention of Palestinians? The number now is apparently in excess of 7,000 Palestinian detainees held in various kinds of Israeli camps, prisons, detention centres and so on. Very little information comes out about that but apparently very harsh conditions prevail in many of those instances. Surely that must be a legitimate matter which puts Guantanamo Bay in a slightly miniature context in comparison with 7,000 plus Palestinian detainees held by Israel, some of them for a long time now, with no prospect of their release. That must be one of the important negotiating aspects of the road map.

My Lords, there is a list of issues that we raise on a regular basis with the Israeli Government, including the detention of Palestinians. This is an issue that my noble friend Lady Symons has herself raised with representatives of the Israeli Government.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in pursuing this matter of the Middle East and trying to get a peace process under way on the basis of the road map, one of the most important things is for the President of the United States and the European Union leaders in backing such a thing to ensure that a process once started is not derailed by acts of violence against it? Hitherto, again and again, such acts have been taken as an excuse to stop the process in its tracks. This time surely, if we are not to enter into another period of frustration, it really is important to have a process that can be sustained through such acts of violence because the people who perpetrate the acts of violence have no interest in the peace process at all; indeed, they want to kill it.

Further, does the noble Baroness agree that welcome though the signals are that perhaps the Iranians are not proceeding with their enrichment activities, it is only part of the problem? If we are to prevent real damage to the non-proliferation system, we will have to work for a wider system that means that countries with civil nuclear energy are assured supplies of low-enriched uranium and the ability to reprocess their spent fuel without constructing the plants themselves, whose proliferation risks are so great. It really is necessary for the International Atomic Energy Agency to be given encouragement to try to put together a broader scheme that will mean that we do not have to address the issues one by one.

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord's points about needing a process and then not allowing it to be derailed by acts of violence against it. That is precisely the point of having the road map, as he will be aware. He is quite right that we would leave the process in the hands of terrorists if we were not absolutely clear about what we were trying to achieve and the benchmarks along the way. On Iran and the wider question of the IAEA, the noble Lord will know that we are in active negotiations. They will be extremely sensitive over the next few days, so I do not want to comment on them in any detail. However, I entirely take his point about encouraging some kind of broader scheme. I am sure that we can take that forward.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, repeated Mr Allawi's statement on Fallujah earlier today. Although we recognise that it regrets the need to take the action that will be embarked on there, we still believe that taking that action in the holy month of Ramadan in a primarily Sunni town will send a very poor signal to the Muslim world, particularly if casualties are inflicted in large numbers. Will the noble Baroness exercise what political leverage we have with the Allawi government to suggest that one more round of trying to reach a negotiated settlement might be the way forward?

My Lords, it is very important that we take on board what the people on the ground think. Prime Minister Allawi is the interim leader in Iraq. We really must recognise that. It is clear that the interim Iraqi Government have made every effort at negotiations in Fallujah. Regardless of what we think about what is going on in Iraq and our positions on whether there should have been a war, we should recognise that. The interim Iraqi Government continue to talk to Sunni leaders from the region. Prime Minister Allawi has made it absolutely clear that any military action in Fallujah is taking place purely to create the conditions for free and fair elections for the Iraqi people. The top priority must be that all Iraqi people be allowed a say in how they are governed and whom they are governed by. Terrorists and insurgents cannot be given the power to stop that process.

My Lords, although I welcome the Prime Minister's tribute to the Black Watch, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirm whether the press reports that its commander has expressed reservations about its deployment are accurate? Will she indicate whether the Black Watch will be home by Christmas, as the Prime Minister has promised? If so, will it come back as a secure regiment, with no question of its being disbanded or amalgamated into another force?

My Lords, the noble Lord will understand if I do not want to comment on unsubstantiated press reports. I saw them over the weekend. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have made it absolutely clear that the Black Watch will be home by Christmas.

My Lords, at the Council meeting, did the French Government discuss with other governments in the European Union their further intervention in Côte d'Ivoire without the approval of the government of that country?

My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that Côte d'Ivoire was not discussed at the Council meeting; I made clear our support for UN and French action in Côte d'Ivoire. Further measures are being considered by the UN, but it is a very difficult and sensitive time in Côte d'Ivoire.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House answer the third question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth? When the Black Watch returns by Christmas, will it return as a secure regiment, or will it be amalgamated into a larger regiment? We need to know, as it is unfair for it to fight in that dangerous place so gallantly without knowing the answer. I hope that she can reassure us.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows that I am not obliged to answer more than two follow-up questions, and I answered two. On the noble Baroness's question on the longer-term future of the Black Watch, she will know that there are ongoing discussions on the configuration of our defence forces. That has been said a number of times from this Dispatch Box, and I repeat it again.

moved Amendment No. 265:

My Lords, to some extent we touch on previous issues. The noble Lord asked me regarding the previous amendment whether I could provide any guidance at all on when FAS payments might begin to flow. This matter also affects Amendment No. 267.

What I can say has the strictest health warnings attached, due to the genuine issues that the Government have to address. If, for example, all goes well and we have complete information about scheme members at an individual level and we can therefore design the scheme and allocate resources appropriately, and if schemes are close to completion of winding up and members have reached the appropriate age, and the administrative infrastructure is in place—which I was particularly worried about—including the helpline, staffing and so on, then I would hope that by the end of next year, that is November/December 2005, we should be in a position to calculate and administer payments. That is the sort of timetable to which we expect to work at the moment. In terms of Amendment No. 267, which has been ungrouped, if the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was thinking about six months after April 2005, we would not be so far apart.

I must emphasise the health warnings that I have attached. Noble Lords opposite will remember that when they wished for firm deadlines regarding the jobseeker's allowance, it had to slip by six months and return to us, and so on. So I have stated our best endeavours, but all the elements have to be in place. The noble Lords pressed me for this information and I have been trying to use the opportunity given by the Statement to find out whether I could be more helpful than I was earlier and give people some sense of when we hope to be in a position to begin FAS payments.

That leads me on to the point regarding the dates. We want to make the best possible use of the available funds, and we fear that if we prescribe or announce assistance levels too early we may not be able to do so. We risk either overstretching the FAS budget or making a highly conservative estimate of benefit levels which may disappoint people unnecessarily. If we said that everyone would receive at least 5 per cent, we would probably have no problem in fulfilling that undertaking. But if people required a more accurate statement, we might not be in a position to meet the timetable specified in the noble Lord's amendment. Indeed, if we are required on the face of the Bill to prescribe levels of assistance before we have completed collecting data on schemes and members, and before we have actuarial assessments, we would have no option but to set levels of assistance with the utmost and extreme prudence so that they might bear little relationship to the outcome sums. From the Government's point of view that would be gesture politics and unwise.

To meet the timetable sought by the noble Lord we would have to lay the draft affirmative regulations before the end of this year to be sure of having them debated in both Houses and enforced by 1 March. We cannot do that again. We simply cannot have draft affirmative regulations considered by this House in the next four weeks or so, when we still have not collected all the data that would allow us to see how this works out in terms of likely levels of benefit. I wish that I could. I cannot. We are back to the same problem regarding limitations.

We have a genuine difficulty here. Unless we are to end up saying that in March we will lay down that everyone gets 5 or 10 per cent, or something like that, which would not be helpful, we cannot do what the noble Lord asks. He pressed me regarding the sums of money and the £400 million. We have pledged £400 million of public money to be paid over 20 years. The allocation of the funds across different years must depend on the assistance that the scheme will have to provide and on what would work best for it. So we are looking at issues such as any provision needed for inflation as part of the work that is now under way on how the scheme will work. In other words, we are not yet in a position to determine whether, for example, it ends up being front-end loaded or back-end loaded, or in which pattern liabilities will fall.

So I cannot give the noble Lord the answer he seeks. All that I hope is that he will accept, regarding this amendment and Amendment No. 267, that I have genuine good reason for not being able to give him the information. Even the information that I am offering must have health warnings attached because we may find obstacles that we have not yet foreseen, even regarding being able to give guidance in terms of benefit levels by the end of next year. I hope that with those assurances that we are using our best endeavours that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Perhaps I should also say that I made much of the point earlier that the detail of this matter will be carried by affirmative regulations and I said that that would allow the House to scrutinise and debate them. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, perfectly properly, said that that would make it difficult for the Opposition Benches, because one could not amend them and there would be heavy pressure not to overturn them, because it would then seem that the unelected House was vetoing the elected House. I am willing to say that, because those affirmative regulations will be circulated in draft form for consultation with the industry, would be happy to ensure that at the same time your Lordships receive them in advance. If noble Lords still had concerns, whether we met with officials or noble Lords chose to write to me regarding their concerns, I would see to what extent I could meet them before we laid the formal regulations. So there would be an informal process of amendment and consultation on the regulations, which is not normally offered to this House. It would at least give your Lordships the opportunity which otherwise I would wish to provide by putting more detail on the face of the Bill.

So, given that movement on what are perfectly legitimate concerns, I hope noble Lords opposite will withdraw their amendments.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that that is an extremely generous and unusual offer. We appreciate the fact that we will receive the draft regulations.

Could the Minister clarify one point regarding the amendment? Are we to understand that the £400 million is a set sum, or one adjusted for inflation over time, which will then effectively be divided up, allowing for the dates of payment, between the total number of people who become eligible? Or is the £400 million not a set sum, but will depend upon the demands on the fund?

My Lords, no, the £400 million is the set sum. The amount that will be paid in any particular year will depend to a degree on when the liabilities fall. So, although the sum will equate to £20 million a year over 20 years, it is not our intention at this stage to say that in each year there will be £20 million, no more and no less. I am not yet sure, until we have the data, to what extent payments might be front-end loaded or back-end loaded and, therefore, how the pattern will fall. That is still to be determined and the noble Lord will understand why I cannot give him that information.

My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding the regulations—and I understand the problems that she faces. None the less, my reaction is that the £400 million spread over 20 years—and it is not clear whether it will be inflation linked—will be totally inadequate. The amounts paid out would be tiny. However, perhaps we may return to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 266:

My Lords, my own amendment—Amendment No. 283—is grouped with Amendment No. 266. As we have heard this afternoon, Clause 284 has been described as something of an empty box. We know that there will be a financial assistance scheme but the Bill puts no flesh on the bones, and we had a great deal of discussion about that this afternoon. We know the Government's intention, but we do not know what the accepted anticipated liabilities of the FAS will be. We have a cash limit, but we want to know what proportion of benefits will be paid.

The intention of Amendment No. 283 is twofold. First, FAS benefits should be paid at the same level as benefits payable by the PPF in the case of schemes taken over by the PPF after the appointed day. Secondly, the FAS should be adequately funded on actuarial principles to ensure that those benefits are paid. Those actuarial principles will not assume that the FAS will receive in year one what it pays out in year one. It is pre-funded for liabilities which it already knows of or reasonably anticipates in much the same way as an ordinary pension scheme is funded. Benefits will be paid as and when they fall due and actuarial assumptions will be made by the GAD about future financial investment return, inflation and so on, and demographic matters.

It seems to me that Amendment No. 266, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is reasonable and sensible and my amendment is meant to support that concept. I cannot move my amendment; I am simply speaking to it because it is in this group. I wait to hear what my noble friend has to say.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said that this is a modest amendment, and I think that that is so. One feature which has been completely missing from our deliberations has been the Minister standing up and saying, "I accept that amendment". Not once in the whole of the Grand Committee stage did such an event occur; and it has not occurred in the first or second sitting of the Report stage or even now. This is the noble Baroness's opportunity to do so.

I consider the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, to be admirable. In particular, the publication of such a report would give occasion for those who feel strongly on these issues to assess whether the scheme had worked out as they had hoped. As we said earlier, there has been enormous pressure from Back-Benchers in another place for the introduction of such a scheme. It may well turn out to be, as we hope, a success or it may be a disappointment.

At any rate, a report of this kind will give an occasion for those who are concerned about the issue to express a view on how things have worked out. No doubt, if sufficient pressure is applied, they will be able to obtain an increase in the level of benefits paid and to make a comparison of those benefits and those being paid by the PPF. As I said a moment ago, I think that £400 million will probably be a very inadequate sum, and the report will be able to include an assessment of whether or not that turns out to be so. I strongly support the view expressed by the noble Lord.

My Lords, before the Minister fits in, as I am sure she will do, with the proposal of my noble friend, I want to say one word. As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, this is a modest proposal. Nevertheless, it is an important proposal and one with which I very much agree.

It raises an important point—that is, that there should be post-legislative reviews of what we do. As my noble friend Lord Higgins mentioned, we should be checking the progress of the legislation as we go along. Although we have had pre-legislative scrutiny in Parliament, I think that we should consider the far wider use of post-legislative scrutiny. Many of the mistakes and errors which occur when Bills become Acts could have been prevented had such scrutiny taken place. Frankly, I believe that there is a great case for doing that with all legislation but, in particular, there is a strong case for doing so with legislation on pensions.

In a sense, such scrutiny would also serve notice on the government department in question that it was expected to report back. Frankly, Secretaries of State change, and the new Secretary of State does not necessarily regard it as his number one object in life to carry out the work of his predecessor. Rather than concentrating on the No. 1 Pensions Bill, he probably wants his No. 2 Pensions Bill to be brought forward. Under those circumstances, the department has a responsibility to report on its stewardship—that is, on how it has operated the legislation passed.

Therefore, although the amendment proposes a modest step, it is an important one. It would be brilliant if the Minister could now accept a post-legislative review of this pensions legislation as I think that that would be of great benefit.

My Lords, on the last point, there is nothing to stop any Member opposite using a Wednesday afternoon debate—rather like an Opposition day in the other House—some time down the line in order to review the operation of the Pensions Bill and to call the Government to account. Again, I am entirely in favour of learning loops, which we normally have through pilot and pathway schemes. There may be other devices and I have no problem with that. But, some time down the line, it would be sensible to have a debate, whether or not it was initiated by the Opposition, as to the efficacy of the Bill and as to whether it was working as Parliament intended. I do not have a problem with that but it will be for your Lordships to determine.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why I cannot accept Amendment No. 266. He also said that I had not accepted any others. I have to say that that is a bit rich. When I sat on the Opposition Benches, the only time that any amendment was ever accepted by the government was when a negative regulation was made affirmative. That was the only time that I could be sure that I had the drafting right. At times, we have not been able to get the word "sheriff" right—with a decision on whether it is "a sheriff" or "the sheriff".

Noble Lords will see that the Government have effectively made a number of concessions in response to pressure, but they have brought back the changes as government amendments to ensure that they work. I have responded in dozens and dozens of ways but am being blamed for the inadequacy of the drafting of opposition amendments. Perhaps I may gently suggest to noble Lords that it is a piece of effrontery to blame me for not taking the amendment on board and thereby ensure that the provision will go before the courts at some point. But I do not blame them for having a go.

At the beginning I said to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and I repeat it now, that I have no problem at all with three-yearly reviews. I believe that is absolutely right and they may need to be more frequent than that. I have no difficult with that. That part of the amendment is fine, but the rest of it causes me difficulty. I am bothered by the weight that any court could put on some of the words.

The reports that we will expect to be brought forward, and that the FAS will have to publish, will set out how the funds have been used. I expect them to detail the number of members who have received assistance. I do not believe that there is dispute between us on that. But how can a report be made on the adequacy of the funding. Is it the adequacy in the eye of the beholder? Or does it mean how the sums have been worked out, which will be in the information about how much people receive? Against whose judgment and whose standards is "adequacy" to be viewed? That is where the polemic comes in, which is why I cannot accept the amendment as it is drafted. That can be judged only against a promise that the Government have made, and we have promised that we shall provide a worthwhile package for those who have incurred the most significant losses.

Secondly, in relation to the amendment tabled by my noble friend—Amendment No. 283—I am concerned about comparing the FAS level of assistance with that provided by the PPF. At a mechanical level, any Member of your Lordships' House, any member of a trade union or any member of a pension scheme will be able to make that comparison. We know that there will be 90 per cent for members coming within the purview of the PPF. We have always said that the FAS, as my noble friend acknowledged earlier, will be less generous than the PPF and the Minister of State in the other place said:

"it seems unrealistic to expect that assistance will be set as high as future pension protection fund levels, as in future members will benefit from cover paid for by a premium to the pension protection fund".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/04; col. 991.]

In other words, there will not be a levy there.

My key point is that scheme members who will benefit from the PPF in the future will enjoy a level of assistance paid for by a levy on all defined benefit schemes. Because there is a levy, the PPF will be able to offer 100 per cent to some categories of scheme member—those already in retirement—and 90 per cent to others. In contrast, the financial assistance scheme benefits from £400 million of funding from the taxpayer. We believe that it is right to use public money in recognition of the severe losses suffered by some scheme members, but it would not be reasonable to expect taxpayers, most of whom are not members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes, to fund assistance to the same generous levels as the PPF.

Let me give an obvious example. The PPF will offer 90 per cent compensation to all those not coming in. With the FAS we might want to take account of how close people are to retirement and, therefore, to what degree they can remedy the situation they are in by a shortfall in the scheme. If someone has been in a scheme for only five or eight years and it collapses, he is in a different position as regards rebuilding than if he is two or three years away from retirement, when clearly there is very little capacity to rebuild. Those are different kinds of considerations.

I might add that Amendment No. 283 would require the FAS to determine levels of assistance according to the rules devised for the PPF. I hope my noble friend will accept that it would be in no one's interests to squeeze the FAS into the regulatory framework—including a regulator—that has been tailored to fit the PPF. They are different kinds of schemes, and there should be a clear understanding of the water between them, if I can put it like that. This framework has been finely tuned to respond to the needs and concerns of a pensions community—the PPF—that will contribute financially to a compensation scheme. This framework would sit uncomfortably on the shoulders of an assistance scheme financed by the taxpayer. The schemes will be very different.

I return to the original amendment. I have no problem at all with regular reports, whether three-yearly or more frequent, of the FAS. I would expect that to happen anyway. I would expect the FAS to include what I would call the objective information about how many members have been helped, what level of assistance they have been given and so on. However, words like "adequacy", particularly when tested in a court, might seem to imply some other form of judgment with which I would be unhappy and could not accept on the face of the Bill.

With the set of signals coming from the Government—they are not confused but involve "on the one hand" and "on the other hand"—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, will be able to withdraw his amendment. At Third Reading he may wish to return with a more tailored amendment, which pins down the issue on regular reporting, while leaving out words such as "adequacy", let alone a comparison with the PPF. People would have no difficulty with that because they would be able to put the two reports side by side. I seek to resist the linkage that one can measure the adequacy of one by the payments of the other. With those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and, when the time comes, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.

No, my Lords. We have had a thorough, interesting and revealing debate. I believe that the time to resolve this issue is now rather than at Third Reading. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for her support of my modest amendment that does not go as far as hers, but supports the principle of reporting. I appreciate that very much. I say to her that ultimately we hope it may be possible that the FAS will pay the same benefits as the PPF, but, at this stage, it is fair to say that that is not something that we would want to support because we do not yet know the scale of the problem. We shall have to see how it goes. I hope that the noble Baroness will support my more modest proposal.

My Lords, as the noble Lord appears to be indicating that he wishes to test the opinion of the House, is he saying that because these two amendments are grouped, that means that a vote on his amendment would also carry the amendment in the name of my noble friend, which would require that the FAS pay at the levels of the PPF?

My Lords, I am moving Amendment No. 266 and asking for support for that. I have just made it clear why, were Amendment No. 283 to be pressed to a vote, I would not support it.

I was most unimpressed, to be honest, with the reasons given by the Minister. I do not want a report every year. I believe that three-yearly is the right period for a proper report. I am in the investment management business and we have proper performance reviews at regular intervals. I was very taken with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that the prospect of a regular review on a reasonable basis like this concentrates the mind wonderfully. I believe that it will concentrate the minds of those running the FAS, of the civil servants and of the Minister of the day. I believe that that is the right time period, that that should be set out, and that one should work towards and expect that.

I was sorry to hear the spat about amendments just now. I hope the Minister will accept that we on these Benches have tried not to get into a large number of drafting amendments, but on this one we feel strongly. I cannot accept her argument, if indeed she is arguing that this is defectively drafted because of the word "adequacy". It is quite clear in whose eyes that is; it is in the eyes of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is being invited to bring the report and to report on the adequacy of the scheme. We would be testing and measuring it against the statements that were made when the scheme was set up. To me that is quite clear and that is the basis on which I am moving it.

The more I think about this and the more I listen to the interesting points about post-legislative scrutiny on a regular basis from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, the more strongly I feel that this is a sensible amendment. To be frank, I am most unimpressed with the reasons given for not accepting it and I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.