Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill

House of Commons, 8 April 2010.

Clause 1 — Amendment of existing procedure in Sustainable Communities Act 2007

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 5, clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert

'within six months of receiving such a proposal.'.

Amendment 6, page 2, leave out lines 28 to 32.

Amendment 7, page 2, leave out lines 33 and 34.

Amendment 8, page 2, leave out lines 35 and 36.

Amendment 9, in page 2, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Amendment 10, page 2, leave out lines 46 to 49.

Amendment 11, page 3, leave out lines 3 to 5.

Amendment 12, page 3, leave out lines 13 to 16.

Amendment 13, page 3, leave out lines 17 to 27.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 29, leave out 'or an order under section 5C'.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 39, leave out 'or an order under section 5C'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I much regret that I never got a response from the Leader of the House to my offer yesterday to forgo this one-hour debate so that we could deal with the business committee. The Government said that the shortage of time meant that they were not prepared to bring the matter forward. It is incredibly impolite of the Government not even to respond to my offer to allow this debate to go short to allow time to discuss that all-important business issue.

In facing the reality that the Government do not listen and are not interested in Back-Bench opportunities, I suppose it is something to be given an hour to discuss this important Bill. It is a pity that it has to be discussed on the day we are expecting Prorogation because there were many earlier opportunities to discuss it had the Government been willing to put the matter on the Order Paper for those several days before Easter when the House rose far earlier than it needed to under the normal arrangements.

The amendment relates to measures that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) expressed concerns about on Second Reading. From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend expressed concern on behalf of the Local Government Association about the proposed measures to allow the Secretary of State to publish regulations on the procedure for making proposals. He said that such regulations were likely to lead to increased prescription governing consultation and engagement with parish councils and petitioners, as well as confusion over the form, content and timing of the proposals. According to the LGA, the resource implications for local authorities of participating under the Act were considerable and should not be underestimated.

My hon. Friend cautioned against being too prescriptive on establishing a national template for what is best for everyone in terms of consultation and engagement with local community groups. He said that we should trust local authorities to be responsive and not to prescribe too much for them. Nothing was done to table an amendment along those lines to reflect my hon. Friend's concerns in the short time-

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in thinking that it is for the Serjeant to look into the issue that I raised earlier?

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I said that passes were issued in the usual way. The ultimate responsibility for the issue of those passes lies with the Serjeant at Arms, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. She will look into the circumstances of the issue of the pass. I hope that that is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

It is certainly helpful to me and I hope that the Serjeant at Arms will do so with great expedition. Obviously time is running short for a further ruling that might come as a result of those inquiries.

I have tried to articulate our concerns in the form of a group of amendments to which I shall refer shortly. I tabled amendment 1 because clause 1 is effectively a retrospective provision. It changes the rules of the game after the event. Local authorities, with community groups, were encouraged to participate in a bidding process under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. That process was always being delayed by the Government. For example, the Act came into law in October 2007. Under its terms, the Government had to invite bids within one year. Instead of inviting bids over a short period, they invited them over a nine-month period, so that the bids had to be in by the end of July last year. Those bids-there were more than 300 from 100 different local authorities-had then to be considered extensively by a panel, which had as its chairman Councillor Keith Mitchell of the LGA. The panel worked extremely hard to go through all the bids and assess them by using the criteria set down in the original Bill. It then presented them to the Secretary of State, whom I saw fleetingly for about a minute on the Front Bench just now, but he has obviously decided that this matter is beneath his dignity, which is a great pity. I know from experience how marginal the seat of Southampton, Itchen is, so I imagine he is heading off there to participate in a closely fought general election campaign.

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, I will helpfully say-I know the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) always likes to be helped-that we are focusing on the narrow terms of the amendment. Consideration of election campaigns either in Southampton, Itchen or elsewhere is quite out of the scope of the amendments. Being the very fastidious and committed parliamentarian that he is, I know he would want to be in order.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I certainly would like to be in order, Mr. Speaker. I was expressing my disappointment that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the Bill and the activities under it, was in his place momentarily but did not stay. Indeed, he was the person to whom the open letter to which I referred from Councillor Keith Mitchell was addressed. I admit that I went beyond the bounds by speculating about the reason why the Secretary of State may have left so soon.

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

I would just like to explain on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he came in to check progress and, having already heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution several times, he decided to come back later.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the long sparring game that I have had with the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). It goes back to when he was selected for Southampton, Itchen for the Labour party, before I was even selected as a Conservative parliamentary candidate back in 1983. So I would not be surprised if he is fed up of listening to my voice. The hon. Lady is retiring at the general election and I have always regarded her as one of the more courteous Members of the House, but I am disappointed with the explanation she has given.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

May I just say to my hon. Friend that I was sitting in the Tea Room just now and as soon as his name appeared on the annunciator, people immediately started rushing back to the Chamber to hear him? He is one of our finest commentators and this is a gross slur on the part of the Minister.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Labour Members have not rushed back.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Maybe not-

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was trying to make an orderly intervention, but unfortunately he failed in the attempt. I know that when the hon. Member for Christchurch gets to his feet, he will not spend time dilating on those matters, but will focus his remarks very narrowly on the specific terms of the amendment, because time is being taken that might otherwise be taken by other hon. or right hon. Members.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I have never been one for dilating. On subject of time, it is important to recognise that it is only because some of us have insisted on having the matter debated, rather than letting it go through on the nod, that we are discussing it at all. I am conscious of the fact that it is important that we have a chance to explain the amendments and get a response about them from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the promoter of the Bill. I am not sure that the way things are timed out means that we will have long for a discussion on Third Reading. We will have to rest the matter there.

Amendment 1 relates to the primary Act-the Sustainable Communities Act 2007-under which local authorities were invited to submit bids. I have gone through the process that the local authorities went through and I know that they are expecting to get a decision from the Government on those bids. Indeed, the open letter that Mr. Mitchell sent to the Secretary of State at the turn of the year, when the short list was put forward, states:

"We hope that the process"-

of discussing the proposals-

"will be completed before the Easter recess so that councils can get on with the job of delivering for their local residents."

He asked the Secretary of State to set up a series of meetings in January and February to that end. On Second Reading on 26 February, the Minister expressed lots of hope and expectation that progress was going to be made on delivering a response to the bids by this time-the last day of this Session. However, nothing has happened. In a sense, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire is giving an excuse to the Government for further delay because clause 1 changes the applicable rules. By doing so, officialdom is given an excuse to say, "Well, we've now got to go back and look at the bids again using different criteria." The Secretary of State previously had to say whether a proposal should be implemented, but now if clause 1 remains unamended, he can decide whether it should be implemented in whole or in part. That is a completely different concept. It is one thing to say that future bids should be assessed on that basis-indeed, that is covered in clause 2-but it is wrong in principle to change the rules at this stage of the game because such an alteration is retrospective and will be counter-productive. That change will cause a lot of disappointment to local authorities and those who are engaged in the bidding process with good will, as they had hoped something would be achieved.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who drove through the original Bill-I am pleased to see him in his place-were being frank, I think he would have expected to see some results from his efforts by the end of this Parliament. However, there have been no results. As with all these things, I suppose there may be a silver lining, which is that an incoming Conservative Government will be able to assess the bids de novo and come up with more sensible conclusions that might otherwise have not been reached. That does not alter my concern about the retrospective nature of clause 1, which is why I have tabled my amendment.

Amendments 5 to 15 relate to regulations. Amendment 5 states that if we are going to be prescriptive, we should be prescriptive in respect of the Secretary of State's timetable. That amendment, which applies to page 2, line 15 of the Bill, would require the Secretary of State to consider each proposal and to decide

"within six months of receiving such a proposal."

That seems to be a sensible element of prescription, because it puts the pressure on the Secretary of State to respond in a timely fashion. At the moment, the proposals are sitting on desks in the Department and nothing much is happening to them. We should at least learn from the past and ensure that, when we have future rounds of bidding, the Secretary of State has to respond quicker to the proposals.

We should pay tribute to the LGA for working so hard to go through all the original proposals and come up with a short list that sets out in detail the merits and demerits of each proposal and links them together in convenient categories-in other words, for doing a lot of the Secretary of State's work. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not respond in a timely fashion to such a proposal, but amendment 5 would ensure that in future the Secretary of State would have to so respond.

Amendment 6 would remove the provision-albeit a permissive provision-in subsection (3)(a) of proposed new section 5B that would require

"a local authority to take specified steps before making a proposal (which may, in particular, include a requirement to consult or otherwise involve the council of any parish which is wholly or partly within the local authority's area, or to consult local persons".

Surely we should trust local authorities to decide such matters. Obviously, if they do not consult and they do not demonstrate quite a lot of local support for their proposals, those proposals are less likely to succeed. Why do we need regulations to require them to consult? It just seems to be bureaucracy going too far.

Amendment 7 would remove from the regulations the requirement to specify

"the way in which consultation...is to be carried out."

Surely we should allow local authorities to decide for themselves how to carry out a consultation. Why do we need regulations? This is bureaucracy and centralisation of the very worst sort.

Amendment 8 would remove the regulations that require

"a local authority to try to reach agreement with persons consulted under the regulations."

It is far from clear to me what that means. As we know from dealings in this House, it is possible to get agreement between people with good will, but it is not always so. If local authorities want to put forward a proposal that has a lot of consensus, they should be able to do so. How can we require them to reach a particular type of agreement with people who have been consulted under the regulations?

Amendment 9 refers to the regulation that would require

"the local authority to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State"-

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Would my hon. Friend agree that the best regulator of local authorities is the people voting in local council elections?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Absolutely. The great thing about local authorities is that they are elected and, therefore, accountable. Later, we will come to my amendment that relates to the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire to widen the definition of a local authority to beyond that of a local authority with elected members. If we wish to empower local authorities and democracy, we should ensure that we trust local authorities to get on and do the job for which they have a statutory duty. Subsection (3)(d) of proposed new section 5B, which would be removed by amendment 9, is, in any event, contradictory. Local authorities should either have regard to the guidance, or they should be required to comply with the guidance. I do not think that we can have it both ways. In any event, the provision is far too prescriptive.

Amendment 10 would delete paragraph (h), which, at the moment requires

"the Secretary of State to specify one or more persons who must be consulted, and with whom the Secretary of State must try to reach agreement, before making a decision in relation to a proposal".

In other words, we are talking about the Secretary of State requiring himself to consult with somebody to try to reach an agreement, which is not at all clear. I know that this is, essentially, a Government handout Bill that my hon. Friend has been promoting with Government support.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

No.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If I am wrong about that, my hon. Friend should accept responsibility for the wording of paragraph (h) and explain it to us. I was trying to be generous to him. Given that this Bill has been given Government time today, I assumed that the Government were supporting it. Perhaps they are supporting it because they are embarrassed about their own failure to deliver on the original Act, and think that this will allow them to paper over the cracks.

Amendment 11 would remove paragraph (j), which currently requires

"the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report describing the progress which has been made in relation to implementation of the proposals."

That is redundant because it is open to any Member of this House to put down a question to the Secretary of State and obtain an answer. We know from the way in which the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been responding that they have not been exactly precise in setting out the progress, but that will not be remedied by putting into regulations a requirement that they must publish a report describing progress. It would be much better to set a deadline, which is what amendment 5 proposes, of six months to sort everything out.

Amendment 12 would leave out subsection (6) of proposed new section 5B, which extends the definition of a local authority. It says:

"A reference in this section to a local authority is to be treated, where an order has been made under section 5C specifying persons or classes of person who may make proposals under this Act, as including a reference to those persons or classes of person."

In other words, we are extending the definition of a local authority to include people who are not elected. My time in local government began in an era in which there were people called aldermen. I won my first election on Wandsworth council in 1974, and the first thing that happened was that the person whom I defeated was appointed alderman, which was not very good for democracy. I congratulated him and said that it was because of me that he was an alderman rather than a mere councillor. What we are doing in this Bill is extending the definition of a local authority, thereby effectively undermining the elected local authority members because we are, by implication, giving an equal or similar status to people who are not elected or accountable through the ballot box. That is a most unfortunate part of this Bill. It follows, therefore, that I am very much against proposed new section 5C, so my amendment 13 would leave it out. That brings me on to consequential amendments 14 and 15, which would follow as a result of removing proposed new section 5C. I know that you take a keen interest in such matters, Mr. Speaker, so I hope that you will appreciate that, in my submission, this Bill falls far short of the ideal. It is a pity that it is now being pushed through at the last minute without the chance of proper considered debate. I suppose that we still have time to divide the House on one or more of these amendments.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Why not?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I look forward to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). It may be that such Divisions would be a sensible way to proceed. In any event, if this Bill goes through and gets its Third Reading today, are we expecting the other place to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and Third Reading all before the end of this Sitting?

If debating the amendments today achieves nothing else, I hope that it will draw their lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill is far from perfect. If it has the support of those on both Front Benches, there is no reason why its contents could not be brought forward in a fresh piece of legislation in the next Parliament, if indeed anything is needed. All it really needs is an expression of intent. The Bill is really asking the Government to express an intent of good will towards the original Act. In all such respects, actions speak louder than words. We have seen the delaying tactics that the Government adopted in the implementation of the original Act and the proposals put forward under it.

I do not think that the world will be a better place for having the Bill on the statute book, but I will not go so far as to say that the ceiling would fall in as a result, because in the context of what we have to do in the House this is all relatively trivial. However, underlying it all is the fact that we have raised the expectations of hundreds, if not thousands, of people and organisations up and down the country who have put in bids under the original Act. Those bids have been shortlisted and the people are waiting for them to be resolved. Why do not we wait for those bids to be resolved before deciding on further legislation?

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

I am pleased to be here today because I thought that after the events of a couple of weeks ago we would not get the Bill before the House again. It is thanks to the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we have once again returned to this most welcome Bill.

Amendment 1 would remove the useful flexibility that the Bill introduces. In other words, instead of being able to make decisions on each of the 242 distinct requests contained in the 199 separate proposals that we have received under the Sustainable Communities Act, the Secretary of State would be obliged to decide on all requests contained in each proposal. Given that Oxford city council, for instance, submitted a proposal with 25 individual requests for action, amendment 1 would require us to take a blanket approach to all of them, which would mean that we could lose some good proposals. Also, instead of being able to introduce some proposals immediately and some a little later, we would not have the flexibility that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) gives us. Clause 1 is a common-sense clause. It will speed up and enable decisions rather than slow them down.

Amendment 5 would get in the way of flexibility in the process for inviting, considering and deciding upon proposals. It would remove the flexibility that the Bill gives us and make the process for deciding upon proposals much less flexible. The amendment and a deadline fixed by primary legislation would give less opportunity for organisations such as the Local Government Association to influence the Secretary of State's decision, and it could result in him deciding not to implement a complex proposal because he did not have the time to consider it in detail.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned extending invitations to unelected bodies. Parish councils might be on the lowest rung of local democracy, but in the areas I know well they are by no means the least important. We wish to see them included.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Parish councils are probably the perfect example of democracy in local government because they have to raise all the money they spend from local people and account for it. Would the Minister accept that the proposed new section 5C goes much wider than giving a power to include parish councils? It states that any

"other persons who represent the interests of local authorities as the Secretary of State thinks fit"

could be defined as local authorities, but it does not state that they have to be elected.

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

No, but it does exactly what we hope it will do: involve local people far more in local democratic processes.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

No, I must make some progress. Given the lack of knowledge of the number and complexity of proposals, it is not reasonable to set a deadline, because it would mean that the Secretary of State could go into default or would have to decide on proposals, which are extraordinary complex and affect many Departments, in a very short time.

We hope to issue the next invitation for proposals by the summer of 2011. Placing a date in primary legislation now would unduly restrict the Government and all those who want a say in how we move forward. The Secretary of State will inform the House by the end of the year of the latest date by which the invitation can be made.

The provisions within the proposed regulations, which would be affected by amendments 6 to 11, were the result of submissions of many of those who took part in the consultation on the first round. The provisions in the Bill are not prescriptive. They are a reminder to the Government of what local authorities and parishes feel are important in that process.

Amendments 12 to 15, and especially amendments 13 to 15, would deny the Government the opportunity to listen to the wishes of parish councils, which, as I have said, are an important part of local democracy. Denying the Government the power to invite anyone other than local authorities in any situation imaginable is neither an appropriate way forward, nor in the spirit of the Bill. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Christchurch not to push his amendments.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today and, I hope, to see the Bill through to a conclusion. I hope that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to deal briefly with the amendments in detail and say one or two words of thanks.

I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for finding time to bring the Bill back at this late stage. However, I know, as she does, that that is no Government handout. The time and effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) puts into scrutiny is much appreciated by the House. Although it is not always the easiest thing to listen to, the House would be much the poorer without colleagues like him, as what he tries to do is important. However, he rather unkindly suggested that the Bill was a handout and I am sure he is aware of the grass-roots movement that inspired the original Sustainable Communities Act. The Bill has been inspired by the same movement, rather than the Government. The Government were not happy with the original Act and had to be persuaded that it was the right thing to do by colleagues from across the House and in a series of public meetings. The Government then embraced the idea and took it on. The idea for an amendment to the Act has come from the same grass-roots movement, as it saw one or two deficiencies in the original Act, which is what this small, amending Bill is designed to put right. It is not a handout.

My hon. Friend might well be correct that an element of embarrassment, perhaps about the time it has taken for the proposals to come through, has enabled the Government to be more generous in their interactions with me and with those Members supporting the Bill so that the current amendments could be brought forward today, but there is a distinction between that and a handout.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I apologise to my hon. Friend for having inadvertently slurred him by suggesting that the Bill is a Government handout. However, I am concerned about clause 1. The Government are already charged with reaching a decision on the proposals before them, and clause 1 would introduce more flexibility, as the Minister said. Are the Government themselves asking for this flexibility, or is it something that has come from my hon. Friend and his friends?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I shall come back to clause 1 and deal with that point in a second, if I may.

The Bill and the amendments reflect interest outside the House in trying to do something different in terms of local activity. I briefly pay tribute to those who have put so much work into the Bill: Local Works, which is so often represented in the Palace establishment by Ron Bailey, who made considerable efforts to move this project forward; the LGA, which has worked so hard on it; the Minister and her officials; and, in particular, colleagues in the House, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) who introduced the original Bill, and friends such as the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), who put so much into this Bill. Its success is shown in the 100 local authorities who submitted proposals. There were 301 proposals submitted to the Government for consideration, 199 ultimately by the LGA.

The Bill has a sweep of support both in the House and beyond. If we can believe that, in these times, this kind of grass-roots activity can make an impression on Government, we are acknowledging that times are indeed moving on and that the new politics has a place.

One thing I share firmly with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is the wish that, in a few weeks' time, it will be our colleagues on the Front Bench who will be charged with the onerous responsibility of dealing with delivery of the proposals that are currently with the Department-a wish that he and I share most fervently. I believe that at that time I will be able to encourage my colleagues on the Front Bench to take forward some of the ideas contained in the amendments. I shall return to that in a moment.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am not universally hostile to the proposals by any means, but I am concerned about the definition of "local authorities". Could my hon. Friend explain, as I believe he more or less did just now, the reference to those who

"represent the interests of local authorities as the Secretary of State thinks fit"?

Does that refer exclusively to local government associations? If not, it raises all kinds of difficult problems.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I do not think that the reference is exclusively to local government representative associations. The definition can be taken quite widely, and there are several representative bodies, not least the LGA and others, which might be covered by it.

I shall run briefly through the amendments. On the amendments to clause 1, I take the Minister's view that the clause gives necessary flexibility in respect of decisions on proposals already submitted. I would like as many of those proposals as possible to be given the opportunity to come to pass. If that means that by being able to look at them in detail and decide that parts of some proposals are simply unworkable but other parts are workable, I do not think that it is a bad thing to have the flexibility that is in the Bill. That would have been wished for if the issue had been thought through when we considered the original Sustainable Communities Act. I am perfectly content that the clause gives that flexibility.

I am not completely hostile to the idea of a timetable. It is not in the Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch knows, we have to take what we can get in the wash-up. I heard what the Minister said about including a timetable in the Bill possibly constraining the flexibility of the Department, but I am not so sure that it would not be helpful to have some final deadline. Otherwise, there is a risk that it could take a long time for proposals to come through, and there could be much frustration outside. I would have been quite amenable to a timetable clause being added to the Bill to provide a final stop line to ensure that things come forward. In the meantime, I accept the assurances given by the Minister that there is a sensible timetable.

One thing I would like to urge on my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is that when he sits in a different office in a few weeks' time, one of the first things he should do is look at the proposals that are being submitted to the Department, and produce an early timetable so that the public may know when decisions will be made, and so that friends in Local Works and others will know that an answer has been arrived at.

It would have been nice to have seen a timetable in the Bill, but I am not prepared to press the amendment, bearing in mind the circumstances today. I am not hostile to the idea and I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is cautious about allowing the Government too much leeway: they have used the present leeway to allow things to pile up and have not yet produced any answers, despite their good intent.

The rest of my hon. Friend's amendments were, I fear, designed to unseat the Bill, and I agree and support the arguments made by the Minister. There are aspects of the guidelines on how local authorities might consult that are not too onerous on them, and one or two are very important.

A specific aim of those who brought the idea of the Bill to me, when I was drawn sufficiently high up in the Members' ballot, was to include a reference to parish councils in the Bill, and, through that definition of parish councils, a reference to town councils. I have five town councils in my constituency, and some 54 parish councils. They are of immense importance in rural or semi-rural constituencies such as mine, and, as my hon. Friend was generous enough to acknowledge, parish councils are a firm part of the bedrock of our democracy. They very much wanted to be included formally in the Bill because, although we would like to think that local authorities always work as we would want them to-another regulation deals with how consultation might be carried out-it is not always the case.

My hon. Friend made a fair point about over-regulation. It is a point that he makes often, and his concerns are shared by many colleagues on this side of the House. However, at one and the same time, he wants a regulation to ensure that the Minister and the Department deal with things by a particular time, yet seeks to deny a regulation that would encourage authorities to consult in a particular way. My argument is that, occasionally, one wants regulation to do a particular job. In this case, encouraging active involvement with parish and town councils is exceptionally important, and I am pleased to see it in the Bill. Another regulation that is very important is getting authorities to try to find agreement with those who make proposals.

My final point on the amendments as a whole and on the Bill, in case there is no time for Third Reading, is that we have learned much in the past few years about the sense of unease and dissatisfaction outside this House with how the process of governance occasionally works. I believe that we in this place have all learned that we need to be as flexible as possible in responding to an ever better informed public. The inspiration for the original Act was the sense of frustration that people felt as they saw their immediate environment change around them. They felt that they had no say over what was happening. Their concerns included worries about a ghost-town Britain in which the high street would change and local and rural facilities would be lost. It seemed that no one in power would accept responsibility, and that nothing could be done.

The Sustainable Communities Act arose out of that sense of frustration. Now that it has been passed, that sense of frustration has eased. People see that the different ways in which to engage the Government, their local authority and the community around them are good things that will not go away. Those of us on both sides of the House will have to learn to engage with that kind of community involvement far more than we used to in the past.

Yes, the bottom line for local authorities is a good, well-run Conservative local authority that will deliver better for the people than anything else. However, under the auspices of such authorities, close working with communities and the inspiration that has been triggered by the Sustainable Communities Act and by this little amendment Bill will do the process no harm.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will withdraw the amendment. His concerns are legitimate, but perhaps they have been eased by what the Minister and I have said. I hope that the amendment are either withdrawn or rejected by the House, because I believe that the Bill as it stands will do its job and be effective for communities for many years to come.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I echo that concluding passage because it encapsulates why the official Opposition support the Bill and hope that it will pass today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), having given the matter his usual, diligent scrutiny, will withdraw the amendment. I endorse the support for the outside bodies that gave rise to the Bill and for Ron Bailey and his colleagues in particular.

My hon. Friend raised legitimate points, but it is not necessary that the regulations under the Bill be interpreted by the Government in a prescriptive or onerous way. The Local Government Association's warning against that is legitimate. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that a Conservative Government would ensure that the regulations were interpreted in a proportionate and light-touch way and would put in place the timetable that he sought-whether it is in the Bill or not-because the principle behind it is important.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

As an eminent lawyer, does my hon. Friend have doubts about the attempt to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts in judicial review with respect to the definition of who represents the interests of local authorities? It is very broad. Furthermore, apart from the exclusion point, proposed new section 5D provides extraordinarily wide powers for the Secretary of State or anybody else to add, subtract, alter and

"make different provision for different cases or for different purposes."

The width of those provisions is rather over the top. Does he agree that we should be careful about that?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Like my hon. Friend, I might have drafted those provisions slightly differently, and I will make two points about that. First, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire is right that one must be pragmatic about what can be achieved in the wash-up. My principal objective on behalf of the official Opposition is to see the Bill on the statute book. Secondly, even if that risk stands in the Bill, sensible approaches by Ministers can alleviate it. Were I and my hon. Friends in the shadow Communities and Local Government team in Government, we would listen carefully to the legitimate warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about how the legislation should be interpreted. It may be that there will be further legislative opportunities in due course to tighten areas of ambiguity. In that spirit, I hope he accepts that I would prefer to have the Bill on the statute book as it stands so that we have something to work with and can think about those details.

Time is short so I will trespass no longer on the details of the amendments. They have raised issues that have been responded to sensibly and pragmatically by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I share his view that it is regrettable that the Government did not seize as fully as they might have done the opportunities in the original Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd). None the less, this Bill is a step in the right direction and I am grateful that the Government have recognised that and supported it.

Lest we do not have time for a Third Reading debate, perhaps I can trespass upon your time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to wish the Minister, as I did in Committee, every good fortune for the future. I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so on the Floor of the House. I have enjoyed being her shadow and hope that I am able to enjoy being a substance in due course. Whatever happens, we wish her well for the future because she has dealt with this and other matters with unfailing courtesy.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

The Liberal Democrats fully support this modest but important Bill, as we supported the original Act. Twenty-six years ago, I was elected to a district council. We would not have needed such proposals then, but times have changed. In the intervening 26 years, not only has the way in which the electorate engages changed, but there has been over-centralisation of this place under both Labour and Conservative Administrations. That must now be addressed and the Bill does so partially.

I am leaving the House today but hope that, whatever Administration are elected, they take local government issues seriously. The life of people's towns and parishes in urban and rural areas is one of the most important things to them. The way in which they can engage will be assisted considerably by the original Act and the Bill. We want them to engage in the process and should not put up barriers to that by passing these amendments. There is a great deal of licence and flexibility, but the more that people can engage in the process and shape their own communities, and the more they recognise that they have a part to play and that things will not be directed by Government and Parliament, the more sustainable will be the communities in which we all live. I fully support the Bill and hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I support at least one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), namely amendment 5, which would require the Secretary of State to take action on each proposal within six months.

I mean no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the movement or the Bill because it is no doubt entirely worthy. However, there is a regrettable tendency with legislation, particularly Back-Bench legislation, for grandstanding to take place and for worthy causes to be trumpeted by the Government when they could take action by other means. We already have an Act that was passed in 2007. The Government could have taken action, had they wanted to. We are now told that another Bill is necessary to make things more flexible so that action may be taken.

The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch a service. But for him, such Bills would go through on the nod and with no proper scrutiny in the wash-up. The House listened carefully to his remarks on a series of amendments relating to proposed new section 5B(3). We are told that we have to make things more flexible, but subsection (3) will introduce all sorts of regulations that put more onerous burdens on local government. In a powerful point, my hon. Friend referred to the extraordinary paragraph (h), which states:

"Regulations under this section may, in particular, include provision...enabling the Secretary of State to specify one or more persons who must be consulted, and with whom the Secretary of State must try to reach agreement, before making a decision in relation to a proposal".

When I spoke on the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill yesterday, I drew the House's attention to a clause that was gobbledegook and paragraph (h) is another example of that. It means nothing. The Secretary of State, in one of the most centralised states in the western world, can do what he or she wishes.

We are, willy-nilly, on a quiet Thursday morning, passing meaningless legislation that gives the Secretary of State powers that he already has. Why are we doing that? We are supporting a Bill not to achieve something, but to make a point. We all believe in sustainable communities and want local councillors to be given the powers and individual responsibility that they had many years ago. If the Bill will achieve that, I wish it well. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friend will at least press amendment 5, as it will put the Government on the spot. It says to the Government, "If you really believe in this, when you receive this proposal you should take action within six months." I hope that my hon. Friend will press the amendment to a Division so that we can make that powerful point.

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

In the few minutes that remain-

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The Minister needs the leave of the House to speak again.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has already spoken once. These are my amendments. Do I not have the right to reply before the Minister speaks again?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I apologise to the House. I took the Chair during the debate and had not been able to appreciate the batting order that had been followed. I called the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) without being aware that the Minister had spoken earlier or that, although there had been Front-Bench contributions, she had asked to make further comments. I hope that within the three minutes that are left the Minister will, with the leave of the House, make a brief comment so that the hon. Member for Christchurch can conclude. I am sorry about that, but if the Minister will co-operate, I would appreciate it.

Barbara Follett (Labour, Stevenage)

I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

With the leave of the House, I would like to reiterate the flexibility that the Bill gives us to carry out this important work, and the fact that the amendments would reduce that flexibility and make that work more difficult.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

May I thank everyone who has participated in this debate? I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for their generous comments. I am not sure that they are well deserved, but there is something to be said for looking at these Bills in some detail, which is what we have been trying to do today.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for what he said about amendment 5. Whether we trust the Government is a topical question at the moment. Yesterday we debated why we are not going to have the Back-Bench business committee. We trusted the Government and were let down. I propose to divide the House on amendment 5 because it will put pressure on the Government to come forward within six months with answers to the bids made, often with tremendous effort and time, by members of local communities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 — New procedure for proposals under Sustainable Communities Act 2007

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

We come to Lords amendments to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which have been received and printed. A grouping is also available. Under the order of the House of yesterday they may be considered forthwith without any Question put. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privileges are involved in Lords amendments 37, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48 and 67 to 69. If the House agrees to any of the amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the J ournal.

The Secretary of State has tabled a manuscript amendment that is consequential to Lords amendment 20, which leaves out clause 57. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The amendment has been selected and placed in the group led by Lords amendment 16.

Clause 3

Management of the Civil Service

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 5, 34 to 38, 58, 67 to 70, 73 and 80.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

It might be helpful if I begin by explaining to the House the conclusion that was reached in the other place last night. As colleagues of some antiquity will appreciate, the wash-up, by definition, inevitably involves a compression of the legislative process, and business can get through only by agreement. In their lordships' House, that agreement requires not only a majority vote but widespread consent across the Chamber. We were faced with a situation where a number of Back-Bench Members had tabled amendments to delete every single clause. As a consequence, we were faced with difficult but inevitable choices that involved discussions with those Members, party leaders and the leader of the Cross-Bench group to arrive at an accommodation.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

It would have been better if the Secretary of State had initiated discussions with all those parties, rather than launching into an agreement with one party alone, which then came unstuck yesterday in the Lords.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The right hon. Gentleman is of even greater antiquity than me and he will know that there is a great deal of inter-party discussion all the time. For as long as he and I have been in the House, formal negotiations during the wash-up have taken place between the official Opposition and the Government of the day, but there was no suggestion whatsoever that the Liberal Democrats should be excluded from that process, and I do not believe that the conclusion would have been any different. We will come in due course to the removal of clauses in part 3 relating to a referendum on the voting system, and of clause 53 relating to the ending of by-elections for hereditary peers. We were in exactly the same place as the Liberal Democrats, but the official Opposition were not. The simple truth, which would have been the case had all three parties been formally in the room, is that during the wash-up, the Opposition have a veto. That is always the case-I was party to wash-ups when in opposition. It is straightforward. That is the reality and there is nothing one can do about it.

The choice we faced, which would have been the same for the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had he been in my seat, was that we should not make the best the enemy of the good. We would not have got any part of the Bill through had we not been able to reach an accommodation, and, because of external realities, I do not believe that the result would have been any different had there been earlier discussions. As hon. Members will know, we offered the Conservatives what I thought was a good way of squaring the circle in their opposition to the alternative vote and to Liberal Democrat and Government support for it. We said that we would introduce measures and were ready to table amendments that would subject that part of the Bill to an automatic sunset clause. The clause would have stayed on the statute book and, if within six months the Government of the day had taken no action, it would have fallen. If the Government had introduced affirmative resolutions in each House, the legislation would have come into force. We offered that to the Conservative party, but it decided for its own reasons that that was unacceptable.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

rose-

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I will give way in a moment. We therefore had no alternative but to withdraw the provision, and I am not giving anything away if I say that we will undertake to reintroduce it as soon as we are re-elected, as I hope we shall be.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

On referendums on reform, does the Minister for Justice accept that, historically, the Liberal Democrats-Lloyd George, for example-or indeed any other party were in favour of proportional representation when it suited them and went into reverse when it did not? At its heart, that has little to do with the sense of fairness that they try to generate and much more to do with whether they can secure political advantage at any given time.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

May I bring to the House's attention an almost historic first for the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great affection? This is the only occasion I can recall when he has not brought the European Union into an observation on any issue whatsoever.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

But Europe has PR.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Indeed, Europe has PR too.

It is a matter of historical record that until late 1923 the Labour party was the third party, and was in favour of proportional representation. The Liberal party-as it then was-which was the first or second party, was in favour of first past the post. In 1924, Pauline conversions both ways took place. The Labour party suddenly decided that it saw every merit in first past the post, and the Liberals, who slipped into third position, where they have remained ever since, were suddenly in favour of proportional representation-interesting conversions! However, although the alternative vote is an improvement to the system we have, it is not proportional representation.

I greatly regret the fact that we have had to remove certain aspects of the Bill, particularly on the alternative vote and the removal of hereditary peers. To accommodate the Conservative party, we offered an arrangement by which all existing hereditaries would in addition be deemed life peers, and a provision whereby, on the death of a hereditary-cum-life peer, the leader of a party or group-this mainly applies to the Conservative party-would have a right to nominate a replacement. There was, therefore, no question of any gratuitous reduction in their numbers. That, however, was not considered acceptable.

Given the constraints on each party, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his colleagues for the constructive discussions that were held, and place on record my appreciation of the co-operation of the leaders of the three parties, the Cross-Bench groups and a number of individuals-Members and peers-with whom I met and talked all through last night.

The first group of Lords amendments is on the public service. We got the civil service changes through, which was very important. Lord Norton of Louth tabled a series of amendments. I accepted amendment 1, and did my best to accept the others where possible. The amendment sets out that in managing the civil service,

"the Minister for the Civil Service shall have regard to the need to ensure that civil servants who advise Ministers are aware of the constitutional significance of Parliament and of the conventions governing the relationship between Parliament and Her Majesty's Government."

I told Lord Norton that I strongly support the amendment. He has found a wording that meets the need. A striking feature of my 35 years of contact with officials and of working in government in the '70s is that the number of officials who understand and appreciate what happens here has gone down. We have to reverse that, and the amendment is an important way of doing so.

Other changes remove chapter 3, on Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland, and chapter 4 on Crown employment and nationality. I appreciate that there is some concern about that, but we could not achieve it.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Will the Minister explain whether "could not achieve it" means just that the Conservatives did not want it? As I understand it, the Minister said that a deal has to be done and they have a veto. Will he explain that in each case, because the public probably would want to know what the issue was?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield can speak for himself, but I have no information whatsoever that the official Opposition opposed the clauses.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Con: Indicated assent.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

And he confirms that.

The other place is very different. It might be attached to this building, but in other respects it is a different planet, as I have discovered, and I was further educated all of yesterday and in the small hours of this morning. The parties can do whatever they want, and we agreed, but as there are no rules of order in the other place, which is absolutely remarkable, a number of people on both sides who were described to me as "mavericks"-I would not use such a pejorative word-could not be prevented from saying that they would dig in and would talk on the matter, and a whole series of other things, until 4 or 5 am. Unless we had a broad consensus on every single item by external negotiation, including with the outriders, we were not going to get anything through. That is the difficulty.

Lords amendments 67 to 70 are consequential on removing part 10. Amendment 73 is also consequential, and a further amendment removes the clauses relating to the national audit. I am very sorry, as I know everybody is, about having to remove the national audit provisions. I deeply regret that, but otherwise we would not have had any Bill at all. I pledge that we will bring the provisions back if we are re-elected.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I think that the Minister glossed over a bit because he went straight from Crown employment to later provisions. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am particularly interested in what happened to part 7. We thought we had a deal on demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament, because it was not acceptable to leave in that provision. Again, I am interested to know whether it was the Conservatives-or a maverick who may or may not have been a Conservative-who required that to come out.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

No, it was not the Conservatives. If the hon. Gentleman reads the debates, he will see that Lord Trefgarne in an opening speech said that he was willing only for certain provisions of the Bill to go through, and that otherwise he would filibuster it. He is a Conservative, but I do not suggest for one second that he is under the control of the Conservative Whips. Lord Stoddart was once a member of the Labour party, but has not been for many years, and he is certainly not under the control of the Labour Whips. They said that the only provisions that they were willing to accept were those relating to the civil service-chapter 1 of part 1-part 4, part 6, and the Baroness Gardner clause, clause 87. In the event, we were able to persuade those lordships and some others that other aspects of the Bill should also be included. The negotiation was, therefore, a relative success, and we shall come on to those aspects in a moment.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I thank the Secretary of State for his approach to the issue in the wash-up.

I start by providing some reassurance for the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The position is very clear. When the process started, the Secretary of State approached me and asked for my views and those of the official Opposition on what might remain in the Bill. We worked together very amicably to narrow the areas of difference. As I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be willing to confirm, I pointed out to him at the outset that my own information coming down from the other place was that whatever we agreed would almost certainly not be sufficient to meet the objections of some of their lordships. I am, I hope, a parliamentarian as well as a politician and, as far as I am concerned, a perfectly valid case had been made. This is a constitutional Bill of sufficient importance that it had to be taken on the Floor of this House. In those circumstances, any hon. Member who criticises a Member of the House of Lords for obstructing a constitutional measure that their lordships were being asked to pass within a very small number of hours, without proper consideration, is on shaky ground. The fact is that their lordships were entitled to say that they did not want the Bill at all. I think that if a sufficient number of them had felt that that was the position, the Bill would have fallen in its entirety.

The Secretary of State and I-and, I suspect, everyone in this House-agree that some clauses are of such importance and so desirable that they should be put on the statute book before the election and that everything possible should be done to try to facilitate that. In fairness to Members of the other place, I should point out that it was clear that most of them accepted that some of the proposed reforms needed to be enacted. I am thinking particularly of those that deal with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, with the treatment of non-domiciled peers and Members of the House of Commons and with the civil service-the latter largely non-contentious reform was hugely desired. We have all done our best to put this measure in reasonable order.

I am sorry if the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is disappointed. I am disappointed about one or two things that have come out of the Bill, but I will certainly not say a word of criticism about the way in which it was handled at the other end of this building, because their lordships were fully entitled to take the view that they did.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

May I say how glad I and, I am sure, many of my hon. Friends are to note that the provisions relating to the referendum on voting systems and electoral law have been disposed of? I regard that as a triumph and I am extremely glad to be able to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. On that provision, I can probably take either the blame or the credit, but at any rate I think that I did have some part to play in ensuring its disappearance. If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is disappointed, that is just tough.

I do not want to take up too much of the House's time. These amendments are acceptable. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that the Secretary of State made. There is in effect only one new amendment, proposed by Lord Norton of Louth, which seems to us a substantial improvement and will helpfully clarify the role of the civil service and the need to respect Parliament in its work. We are happy to welcome that amendment. We obviously accept the amendments that delete certain aspects of the Bill, because we recognise that in view of the way in which the Bill has been handled and the fact that it has come to a premature end without full consideration, Members of the other place are fully entitled to adopt the view that they do not want the provisions to go on the statute book.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

The way in which the Bill has been handled throughout has been catastrophic. The Government delayed the Committee stage in this House, randomly extended it and failed to secure the Bill in the House of Lords, for which they are entirely to blame. Especially on items such as the referendum clauses, the question that occurs to Opposition Members is: did the Government ever intend this to be anything but a political manoeuvre that would inevitably end in an announcement by the Prime Minister of one of his famous dividing lines, rather than a serious attempt to change the electoral system through a referendum? I very much doubt whether the Government were ever serious about that. That throws into grave doubt their seriousness about this issue. They made the promise in 1997 and they are making it again this year, and it has the same validity this year as it did then.

There is also a serious point about the relationship between this House and the other place. As Lord Campbell-Savours pointed out, the House of Lords was quite content to leave in the IPSA aspects of the Bill, because they concerned this House. Surely the same applies to the referendum clauses, which relate to the voting system for this House. I do not think that the way in which Members of the House of Commons are elected has anything to do with the House of Lords.

The other things that have gone from the Bill are equally catastrophic. The House of Lords reform aspects of the Bill throw into doubt the commitment of the whole of Parliament to the reform of Parliament and the return to high standards in public life. That is surely the most serious part, for the reputation of politics, of the wash-up process.

From the point of view of my party especially, the failure to reform the law on protests surrounding this place is catastrophic. The Prime Minister promised, virtually on his first day in office, to change the law, but he has failed to deliver.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because other legislative vehicles that have received Royal Assent could have been used. The Government said, "Oh no. Don't worry. We have this Bill. That will do it. We have time." Then, because of the delay that my hon. Friend identified, they wilfully reneged on the promise to repeal the provision, which they could have introduced in another way, as we and the Joint Committee have argued.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

That is a very good point. I noticed that yesterday the Crime and Security Bill went through the other place without having to be sent back to this place. That Bill could have been used for the same purpose, but was not. That is a catastrophe as well.

It seems to me that the process of wash-up is washed up. Front Benchers of the larger parties should reflect on the way in which they colluded, got it wrong and ended up with this disaster.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I resent the hon. Gentleman's implication. There was no collusion. I was asked for my opinion on what we might reasonably accept and I expressed a view, which I was entitled to do. Some of the things that have come out had nothing to do with me. The hon. Gentleman is a good parliamentarian as well. He will have to recognise what happens when the Bill process runs into the sand; that is, I suppose, the fault of the Government. I can assure him that it is not my fault. I do not know about blaming the Government. Far from our being taken by surprise by what happened in the other place, it was, as I said, entirely predictable. Indeed, I told the Secretary of State that I believed that it was exactly what would happen.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

rose-

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) that we do not want to enlarge the debate any further by going into such matters as he has just alluded to, because there are six groups of amendments yet to be reached and 37 minutes left?

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was tempted along that route by the Secretary of State's opening remarks, which were more general. I shall end this part of my remarks by saying that we were excluded from the process and therefore have no loyalty to it.

I regret that the amendments include the removal of the Crown employment nationality provisions. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has worked for years to get those provisions this close to the statute book. He cannot be here today, but I am sure that he would express that regret himself were he present. He has support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I am sure that if Lords Trefgarne and Stoddart had understood anything about that aspect of the Bill, which they appear not to have done, they would have recognised its merit as well.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Again, the Government could have programmed the private Member's Bill concerned as a stand-alone Bill. The Government made a conscious decision not to provide time despite the fact that business has collapsed early day after day in the last few weeks-indeed, the last few months. Therefore, every one of these failures-the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is being too generous-can be laid at the door of a Government who do not care enough about some of the measures that they claim to want, because they could have dealt with them in another way.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Do we have just another political manoeuvre, whereby the Government appear to be in favour of something without actually doing it? I regret wasting the time of a large number of hon. Members, which need not have happened.

I approve of other amendments in the group that bring in new material. The amendment moved by Lord Norton of Louth seems to be sensible-the loyalty of the civil service to the House as well as to the Government is important constitutionally. I am sure that the measure will have important long-term consequences; as a constitutional change, it strikes me as just as important as all the things that have been excluded from the Bill. Interestingly, their lordships thought that that change should be allowed .

Tony Wright (Labour, Cannock Chase)

The wash-up process in general leaves much about which to be dissatisfied and, one day, no doubt we shall turn our minds to that. Insufficient scrutiny even of the parts of the Bill that remain leaves much about which to be dissatisfied-major amendments to the civil service provisions were tabled but were never reached here or in the other place, yet one stray amendment has now found its way in. The amendment is sensible, but we never had a chance to look at all the other ones, which we could have discussed and might also have been sensible.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the wash-up process being unsatisfactory. I am happy to talk to him informally at some point about how the process could be improved, but the stark reality is that we could argue for no wash-up at all: if legislation hits the buffers at the end of a Parliament, it should fall because it cannot be properly scrutinised. However, we would then lose the benefit of some important parts of the Bill that have been preserved.

Tony Wright (Labour, Cannock Chase)

The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates my later remarks-the case for fresh thinking about what happens at the end of a Parliament. Should things endure at all, or should they simply fall and have to start again? The case for that is strong, and we have an obligation to review this period, because none of us feels happy about the outcome. I regret the loss of parts of the Bill that would have been valuable but, having said that, my main remarks are directed at the pleasure of having rescued the civil service provisions, for which some of us have been arguing for an awfully long time.

The Committee that I chair has reported endlessly on the civil service issue. In frustration, at one point we even drafted our own Bill-the first time that a Select Committee had done that, certainly in the modern period-but I had almost given up hope. The proposition was first advanced by Northcote and Trevelyan in the middle of the 19th century, so to be enacting it at the end of the first decade of the 21st century suggests that we have not been too premature in advancing the cause. However, we have got there, and we got there because we had what we did not have before. The change was previously held up by, first, the lack of political will and, secondly, a fear that it could not be done without provoking political disagreements. I speak with sincerity not only to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but to the Opposition that agreement was required for the change to happen. It has happened unsatisfactorily in many respects, but it has happened.

When the current electoral excitements abate, putting the civil service on the statutory footing that it ought to have been on for a long time and enshrining its values in legislation will be seen as a not-insignificant constitutional moment, widely welcomed by the civil service. I congratulate those who have enabled it to happen.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I understand Liberal Democrat concerns about reform of the voting and electoral systems. I have already made my position clear, and I am sure that many other people throughout the country, as well as on our Benches, would concur with dispensing with those provisions-I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on his efforts.

A number of other matters occur to me as we look at the final stages of the Bill. I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), because he and I and a number of others have worked extremely diligently on reform of the House. I agree that the wash-up process needs to be looked at properly for the future. Some of what was done-for example, with the Finance Bill-struck me as not a good way to legislate: not one Member of the governing party attended debate on the Finance Bill, except perhaps one who came in for only a few minutes. As I said, the birds have flown but people who are about to vote in the general election are saddled with the consequences of the taxation and public expenditure implications of the Finance Bill. Therefore, the wash-up raises many issues.

The Wright Committee proposals-other than those on the chairmanship and membership of Select Committees-have effectively been ditched and betrayed. They could have been included in the Bill.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Does the hon. Gentleman foresee that when a distinguished Committee-chaired by someone perhaps not as talented as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)-comes to a set of conclusions at an equivalent time in the next Parliament, we shall discover that the necessary motions to implement those conclusions were lost in the wash-up?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

rose-

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I do not want to be seen as picking on the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) unduly, because the debate has been very wide ranging-it started with an expansive speech by the Secretary of State, so I understand the temptation to comment. However, I have a duty to the House to keep within the rules of order. Specific groups are down for debate, so it would be helpful in making some progress if hon. Members respected that fact.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I shall gladly follow that suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer in particular, therefore, to the civil service reforms. One or two things were not included-for example, it is a great pity that the rules relating to evidence before Select Committees have not been tackled. They might be more a matter of convention and of Standing Orders, but when we require civil servants to carry out their duties with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality, the fact that special advisers are not required to carry out their duties with objectivity or impartiality is relevant. That might be a statement of the obvious, but sometimes special advisers and their political functions create difficulties. Similarly, in the House, although we engage in political activities, as part of our duties we must deal with some matters with a degree of objectivity and impartiality; that is no less the case for special advisers, because questions of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality all rather tend to merge into one another. It is a pity that some matters have been differentiated in that way.

No one in the debate has dwelt on the question of the House of Lords. I simply say, "Here we go again." I commented on the questions of proportional representation, the alternative vote and electoral reform. I accept what the Secretary of State said about alternative votes not being the same as proportional representation in a precise sense, but all such questions are to do with fiddling with the mechanism and the feeling of the choice of the person who goes into a polling booth-or does not do so-to exercise his freedom of choice. Playing around with that is very dangerous and the reason for retaining the existing system is inviolate; it should be kept. It is about the essence of an individual's choice and that should not be reallocated according to a system of shuffling.

My party has been committed to the idea of an elected House of Lords, although I notice that those issues have now been put on the back burner. We have been talking about the matter since the mid-19th century; a certain relation of mine by the name of John Bright was calling for the abolition of the House of Lords even in those days. I am not sure that I would call for its abolition, because it does a fantastically good job, but I have serious doubts about whether it can continue without being elected. I am sorry that the relevant provisions have gone. I have no doubt that the mavericks who were referred to earlier were among those who were determined to maintain the House of Lords in its present state-much as I want to pay tribute to the incredibly hard work that it did. When I was in the shadow Cabinet I found that those people did amazing amounts of hard work. However, the question is about more than that: it is a matter of principle.

On the subject of treaties, I do not think that clause 24 should be exclusively devoted to the question of ratification. Consent is the issue and therefore the clause should be about treaties being laid before Parliament before consent. It is consent that really matters, and ratification is a much more complex question, which I do not intend to go into now, although I took up the issue when I took the Foreign Secretary to judicial review over ratification of the Lisbon treaty, so I feel strongly about it.

The general point on which I want to conclude is that there is far too much government, and the Bill retains far too much of the presidential nature of the direction in which our governmental system is going. The Bill deals with important matters, but there is a need for much deeper radical reform of the connection between the Government, Parliament and the voter than it contains. I would not want to dismiss it, but it does not grapple with the real question at the heart of what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, and the significant number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are here first as parliamentarians, know is going wrong: the disconnection between Parliament and the people on the question not just of allowances, but of the manner in which the Government impose their will. I spoke about that in the debate on the effectiveness of Parliament in Westminster Hall yesterday. The Bill does not deal properly with those questions and we must amend the Standing Orders to restrain the extent to which the Government have control over what happens. The Back-Bench and House Committees, and the reassertion of the rights of Back Benchers-

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am reluctant at heart to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he is allowing himself to get away from my strictures.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am glad to take note of that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not transgress again, but I wanted to get that on the record.

I feel strongly that we are moving into a new phase of politics, with all the Facebooks, Twitters and the rest. The question of disconnection remains important, but I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield on the extent to which we have made progress in removing some of the more objectionable things from the Bill. I just do not think that that has gone far enough.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their observations and to speak briefly in tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). This will be his last day in this House. He has been a paradigm of the best of the Members of this House who have shown that it is possible, by assiduity and imagination, to be profoundly influential from the Back Benches, on either side. Much of his work, particularly in chairing the Public Administration Committee, is reflected in the Bill and in other legislation. He will recall, as I do, an extraordinary evening more than 10 years ago at the Report stage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, when he and I and many others had an open discussion that resulted in a much improved Act.

My hon. Friend made an important observation, which I accept, about the unsatisfactory nature of the wash-up process. There is not much that he can do about the fact that the process will be compressed, but yesterday in the other place my noble Friend Lord Rooker said that

"there would be a case for institutionalising that this House-jointly preferably...-should systematically say that an ad hoc committee of the House should look and monitor the wash-up package after six months and 18 months." -[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2010; Vol. 718, c. 1483.]

He made other, further suggestions about that. My noble Friend Lord Bach endorsed that from the Front Bench, and I endorse it too. I hope that that has the approbation of the other parties and that we shall look carefully at how the wash-up has happened, and the improvements we can make.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.

After Clause 27

Explanatory Memoranda

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 6.

The amendment relates to the treaty provisions of the Bill. I am glad that we managed to persuade some of the outliers that they should be included. The amendment was moved in the other place by Lord Norton of Louth. It puts a commitment on the face of the Bill that where a treaty is laid before the House there is to be an explanatory memorandum. That would have happened anyway, but I am very happy to accept the amendment so that now it must happen.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, or have any sympathy with, my general proposition that in fact the question of consent is more important than ratification?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

There are two stages to the coming into force of a treaty. One is the signature and the second is ratification. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by consent. The signing of the treaty must be undertaken by the state party at the time when the treaty is agreed. I have been the signatory to a number of treaties and I cannot think of any process by which it would be possible to consult the hon. Gentleman and others before making the Executive decision to sign it.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

rose-

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

If I may just complete this point; that is always subject to ratification. I felt, as Foreign Secretary, that it was wrong that the Executive alone should ultimately decide on ratification; it should be a matter for this place. That is why I pursued the matter as Foreign Secretary and when I had an opportunity I wanted to get it on the statute book, in this place. The hon. Gentleman's consent to ratification on all treaties-not just EU ones-will now be required.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am grateful for that suggestion. I am quite sure that it will not happen, particularly in relation to European treaties. However, the key point is that in relation to consent the question of signature, rather than just ratification, should come before Parliament.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

That is for a longer and separate debate.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I welcome amendment 6. I suppose that it shows what can be achieved when minds are concentrated wonderfully. Certainly, Lord Norton of Louth was able to secure some significant and interesting changes to the Bill in the course of an evening.

It is plainly desirable that there should be an explanatory memorandum. I take the Secretary of State's point that it might have been provided anyway. However, I recall that this issue has arisen on a number of occasions and that it has often been pointed out how desirable it would be, if the Government are laying legislation before the House, which can sometimes be quite technical in nature, that there should be an opportunity before the debate starts for a full explanation to be provided about how the legislation or treaty will impact.

For those reasons, I am very happy to support the amendment.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are content with the amendment.

Lords amendment 6 agreed to.

Clause 29 — Referendum on voting systems

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 8 to 15, 50 to 52, 55, 57, 74 and 75.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

These amendments relate to the removal from the Bill of the provisions in part 3 for a referendum on voting systems and to some consequential removals in clauses 88, 89 and so on.

As we have discussed at some length the reasons why the Government very reluctantly but inevitably had to agree to the removal of these provisions, I will not detain the House.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

There is a feeling of déjà vu. Labour's earlier commitment to electoral reform-in the 1997 manifesto-has been mentioned. The Secretary of State will know that Lord Jenkins did a huge amount of work on that issue. I do not think that Lord Jenkins would have been happy with the way that the Government refused to live up to their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on a choice between the status quo and what he had come up with. Has the Secretary of State had a chance in the intervening years to reflect on whether the Government can defend what they did in respect of that manifesto commitment, given that this amendment will probably be in another manifesto?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

My reflection is as follows, since I was the Minister responsible for sponsoring the Jenkins review and for bringing it back to the House. The problem that we faced was that there was no consensus whatsoever-no consensus in my party and opposition from the Conservatives-for the proposals from Lord Jenkins and his colleagues. The judgment that we therefore made was that a referendum would be lost. I am not in any doubt that it would have been lost, because the whole of the Conservative party and most of the Labour party would have opposed those proposals.

Do I have a regret about that? Frankly, I am slightly fed up with being told that we broke a referendum commitment-we did not, if the terms of the manifesto are read properly. In some respects I do have a regret, because if we had had a referendum it would have been lost overwhelmingly-that was absolutely clear-and we could have moved on and that would have stopped those on the Liberal Democrat Benches from whingeing. But it would probably have been quite an expensive way of doing that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

As I indicated earlier, I must claim some responsibility for the fact that the clause has been removed. I will briefly set out the reasons for that.

The clause was introduced at the very last minute in the passage of the Bill through this House and-picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)-it was my view and that of my hon. Friends that the proposal for a referendum was in the nature of an electoral stunt by the Government. The hon. Gentleman said that this matter goes back to 1997; for all I know, it goes back even earlier. I fear that his party has been the victim on numerous occasions of electoral stunts on the alternative vote by the Government and that it has been given tantalising promises which I hazard to suggest will never materialise.

My party did not think very much of these proposals for a referendum, all the more so-I make this point strongly-because it was proposed that we enact a provision that would come into effect in a completely new Parliament without any opportunity for that new Parliament to consider whether it agreed. Even if the complexion of the Parliament changed completely but the Government remained in office, it would have been possible to hold the referendum, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of this House might well consider it unnecessary and undesirable. For those reasons, we think that it was an ill-judged proposal.

We have indicated, and will no doubt debate during the election campaign, ways of improving the electoral system in this country. My party has some very clear ideas about reducing the size of this House and evening out the size of constituencies so as to make the first-past-the-post system work more fairly and more effectively. We intend to proceed with that and we will have an opportunity to debate it with the electorate and, indeed, the other parties during the campaign. We objected to the proposals, and in the circumstances nobody should be surprised by the fact that, when we were asked during the wash-up negotiations whether we considered them acceptable, we said, as we had done throughout the passage of the Bill, that we considered them to be an electoral stunt and did not wish them to be in a constitutional Bill of this nature.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

The timing of this discussion is quite extraordinary. The day after the Prime Minister announced a programme that appears to include a referendum on electoral reform, the Government will have to troop through the Lobby to oppose that very policy. It seems to be a pattern that the Labour party proposes something to get a few votes, and when it has those votes it suddenly forgets about its commitments. Now the Lord Chancellor says that we have to read the Labour manifesto very carefully. As I am going back to the university of Cambridge to teach private law, which involves the close reading of documents, I suppose that my skills will come in handy in the next few weeks.

The timing of this discussion is extraordinary for another reason. I think that out in the country people are slowly starting to realise how extraordinary our voting system is, given that there is a prospect of a party gaining more votes than other parties but losing the election in terms of seats. I think that the public mood about the electoral system is just starting to change, but at precisely that point this House is to remove provision for a commitment to a referendum on changing that electoral system.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Was my hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the assertion by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the current first-past-the-post electoral system can be made fairer by changing constituency sizes and making them more equal? To cite the words of David Mitchell in a recent column in The Observer, is not the process of trying to make this electoral system fairer like throwing a slice of ham into the Grand Canyon to make it more of a sandwich?

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

That is a very good metaphor. In fact, that proposal combined with the other Conservative proposal to reduce the number of Members of Parliament would make the existing system even less proportionate.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that a system in which every vote is of equal value, because there is the same number of potential voters in each constituency, would be much fairer than the present system.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I am all in favour of making the electoral system fairer. That is why I oppose the amendment, because the only way to make the first-past-the-post system fairer is by abolishing it and replacing it with a better system.

I concede that, as the Secretary of State said, the AV system is not necessarily proportionate. I prefer the single transferable vote system, which is proportionate, and we have debated that in this House. Nevertheless, the system proposed by the Secretary of State is preferential and therefore marginally better than first past the post and a step in the right direction.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am grateful for that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that when we talk about fairness it is essential to remember that there are 3.5 million people who cannot vote, even though they are eligible, because they are not registered? Whenever the Conservatives talk about redrawing boundaries, they always ignore the point that it is simply not possible to do that fairly until everyone who is eligible to vote is registered to vote. Without that, it is just gerrymandering.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I agree with the Minister. The idea that fiddling with boundaries based on out-of-date information can make the first-past-the-post system fairer is absurd. The only way to get a fair electoral system is to have a more proportionate system. The first virtue of a representative body, such as the House of Commons, is that it represents the political views of the people of the country. This body does not do that; in that respect, it is as bad as the pre-1832 Parliament.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but from talking to some of his colleagues I had understood that they do not want the alternative vote and saw it merely as a device for breaking down the current first-past-the-post system so that we can move on to something else. Is that the case? One thing is certain: the alternative vote system is not a proportional representation system.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right; it is a jemmy in the door, which we intend at some stage to use. I give way for the final time.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Did the hon. Gentleman hear the interesting piece on the "Today" programme during which John Curtice and a number of others were quoted on the fact that the Conservative party is at a grave disadvantage in the current system? It is loaded against us, and yet we are concerned to maintain first past the post precisely because it is about an individual in the polling booth exercising their freedom of choice, which will not be reshuffled by a lot of artificial mechanisms.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

The Conservatives support the system for the obvious reason that occasionally, and in some decades for very long periods, it gives them absolute power. They prefer a system that gives them absolute power, which they exchange with the Labour party now and then, to a system that is fair to all electors.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that it is simply untrue that there is as large a bias in the current system as has been claimed? I refer him to an important article in the Royal Statistical Society magazine, Significance, by Mr. Nick Moon, a leading psephologist. He pointed out that at times the system has been "biased" in favour of the Conservative party, "biased" in favour of nobody or "biased" in favour of the Labour party. The size of constituencies always starts equal; under-registration in urban areas, differential turnout and changes in population, such as depopulation, lie behind the apparent arithmetic from the Conservative party.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I accept that there is all sorts of interesting research on first past the post, but all this seems to be entirely missing the point that first past the post can never be fair or proportionate, is always biased in one direction or another and is capable of producing illegitimate results.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

rose-

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

This really is the last intervention.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

This intervention allows me to pass on my best wishes to the hon. Gentleman and to congratulate him on his strong contributions in this field over many years. We will miss him.

If the House were composed differently, could we have had a debate in the Chamber about the war-making powers of the House versus those of the Executive? That matter was covered in the Bill, but has been dropped from it. I would like him to comment on that and on the balance in the House. Perhaps the Secretary of State will pick up the same issue in his remarks.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

The answer is yes, and that would also apply to the reforms of this place itself. Changing the electoral system is important for democracy throughout our system-

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Order, 7 April).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After the Iraq war, many Members became very interested in the balance between the Executive and the legislature and in whether Parliament had a role to play, at least through being consulted or retrospectively endorsing a decision to go to war. In the pre-legislative stage of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, there were draft provisions for how that might happen. Is it in order to ask you what happened to those provisions and why they were not debated when we considered the Bill or in the wash-up?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

It is just about in order to ask me, but I haven't a clue. Nor would the Chair be expected to have a clue on such a matter. In ordinary circumstances, the Chair's advice would probably be that the hon. Gentleman would find other ways of pursuing the matter, but the Chair knows on this occasion that the chances of that are dwindling rapidly. I have no doubt that he will bear it in mind for a future occasion.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Thank you.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I really am sorry not to be able to be more helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Children, Schools and Families Bill

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Lords amendments to the Children, Schools and Families Bill have been received and printed. Under the order of the House of yesterday, they may be considered forthwith, without Question put.

Clause 1 — Pupil and parent guarantees

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 24.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

With a heavy heart, in order to secure provisions on special educational needs and alternative provision, we had to drop some clauses, which I think had broad support out there, particularly the guarantee that children falling behind in English and maths would get one-to-one tuition. Frankly, I think that parents and teachers will be astonished at the insistence of the Conservative party and others that the provision be dropped.

We have also had to postpone plans for changes to the primary curriculum, which had huge support among heads and teachers-moves to a curriculum based on the Rose review, with areas of learning that the vast majority of schools and teachers warmly welcomed.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The Minister will recall that I asked the Secretary of State about a question that I put to him, and which the Minister answered, on education results in Staffordshire compared with those in the rest of England. I was told at the time in a written answer that finding out could be done only at disproportionate cost. When I raised that with the Secretary of State, he said I would get an answer before Dissolution. The clock has ticked almost to the point at which it is clear I will not get the answer. Does the Minister accept that I was asking a legitimate question, to which I should have an answer, as the Secretary of State said?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The hon. Gentleman always asks legitimate questions. As Parliament has not yet dissolved, even at this late stage it would be courteous to look into that, and I shall do so after the debate and write to him. He may not get the answer he wants, but I will write with an explanation in any case, as it would be discourteous not to do so.

We have also had to withdraw provisions on personal, social and health education because Opposition Members insisted on retaining a parental right of withdrawal up to the age of 16 in respect of sex and relationships education.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend does not believe that we live in a broken society, but does he agree that without education on alcohol, tobacco, drugs, finance and individual safety, as well as on sex and relationships, we will again be heading for the kind of broken society we experienced back in the 1980s?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this matter, both politically in the work she does in Sheffield and beyond, and from her previous professional role in which she saw the importance of the type of education we were seeking to introduce through the Bill. Much of the education to which my hon. Friend refers does take place in primary and secondary schools, but we were trying to ensure that there was statutory provision for it. That would go some way towards tackling the variability in the quality of provision between different schools and different areas. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that a lot of things need to be done to tackle some of the challenges our society faces. Although neither of us would accept the term "broken society", there are challenges in some areas, and a whole raft of different policies is needed in order to deal with them, one of which is the provision of proper education of this kind from an early age in our schools, working alongside parents, not instead of them. That would help to address some of these particularly difficult problems.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Will my hon. Friend put it on record that it was in fact the Conservative party that refused to allow the provisions on PSHE-or life skills, as I prefer to call it-to be included in the Bill? Further, does he agree that the people who will suffer from basic emotional and social skills not being in the curriculum will not be those who go to expensive private schools, or even high attaining schools, but pupils in constituencies such as mine-poorer places where generally there is not high educational achievement? They are the people who most need this to be in the national curriculum, rather than merely being something that it is nice to have. Will my hon. Friend put on record who is responsible for this not being in the Bill?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

My hon. Friend, who represents Nottingham, North, is right: we were unable to come to an agreement through the usual channels about the age at which parents had a right to withdraw their children from sex and relationships education, and as a result the Conservative Front-Bench team felt unable to agree with us on these provisions. As I will make clear in a moment, we were therefore unable to proceed with them in the Bill.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is it not the case that clause 14 deals with the withdrawal of children from lessons, whereas the Minister's two party colleagues are talking about clause 11? Why did the Minister withdraw clause 11 when we were, in fact, disputing clause 14?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

As the hon. Gentleman will know because he reads very carefully on these matters, the issues are intertwined. It is not possible to separate them, as he seeks to do in order to try to defend his party's policy-about which it is receiving significant criticism-of blocking what most people think is a very important and significant reform.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I am sorry to persevere on this question, but this is a classic case of the baby being thrown out with the bath water-of the life skills baby being thrown out with the sex education bath water. If we could separate these issues, even at this very late stage, would it not lead to our ensuring that every child in this country who needs proper life skilling will be able to get it when they require it in the national curriculum? Even at this late stage, will my hon. Friend discuss the matter with the Opposition and seek a sensible way forward, instead of our having this criminal waste of parliamentary time, and the consequent damage that will be done to thousands upon thousands of children, such as those in my constituency?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

My hon. Friend has been a great campaigner for this type of early intervention and work in schools, whether we call it PSHE or, as he prefers, life skills. The legal advice I have received is that it is not possible to do what he wants, however. We have spent a long time talking to others to see whether we can find a way forward, but it was not possible to do so. Therefore, with much regret, we find ourselves in the current situation. I hope that after the next election we will be in a position to return to this issue and ensure that we secure the statutory provision that both my hon. Friend and I want.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the 12th report of 2009-10 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was written after the Government tabled an amendment on the measure in question, which the Committee viewed as follows:

"a provision which expressly subjects principles of accuracy, balance, pluralism, equality and diversity to the right of faith schools to teach sex and relationships education in a way that reflects the school's religious character, in the context of a Bill which makes the teaching of sex and relationships education in schools mandatory, is incompatible on its face with the ECHR. It expressly denies children at faith schools their right to an accurate, balanced, pluralistic education under the first sentence of Article 2 Protocol 1."

In fact, therefore, it seems that what has been lost was incompatible with the human rights of children not to be harassed and discriminated against, if, for instance, they come from same sex-parent households.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

It is not often that I say this, but I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point; indeed, his own Front-Bench team will not, I think, support him. The relevant clause talks about the principles that have to be pursued in respect of PSHE, including providing accurate and balanced information, endeavouring to promote equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at present faith schools are under no obligation to ensure that PSHE is taught in that way. To support his own argument, he says we will have faith schools all over the country promoting all sorts of values and ideas that many would regard as inappropriate. Of course they will be able to teach in a way that is consistent with the values of their school, but for the first time they will also be required, by legislation, to ensure that alternative points of view are put as well. The balance and accuracy the hon. Gentleman seeks are therefore included in the legislation, and the Bill will ensure that that happens.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

My Liberal Democrat colleagues strongly opposed clause 11's proposed new section 85B(8) to the Education Act 2002, which says of all the stuff about equality and diversity:

"Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9) from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects the school's religious character."

The JCHR looked into, corresponded on and got legal advice about that, and it came to the unanimous view that it will mean that the assurances the Minister just read out are meaningless in the context of the schools in question, and that it will create the potential for homophobic teaching to be mandatory.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Even at this late stage, it is quite strong to say that the legislation will make the teaching of homophobia mandatory. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on that statement, he may think that it is not the most appropriate thing to say about what will happen in faith schools, many of which teach PSHE.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

rose-

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

We have an hour for this debate, and many other hon. Members want to contribute. I will take another intervention and that is it, because the issue has been debated long and hard in Committee. I do not agree with the statement that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The opposite is true: the principles in the Bill will mean-this is quite proper-that a faith school can teach PSHE in a way that is appropriate to its values and principles, but for the first time it must also teach that there are alternatives and to put that fact before a class. Quite frankly, that is what all good schools and all good teachers have always done, and I am sure that is what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will have done when he was a head teacher and taught in a school.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. I am putting the view of the JCHR, which was established by Parliament to give such advice. The Minister can say that he is not interested in it or that he disagrees with it. That is his right, but he must know that some, not all, faith schools wish to teach that homosexuality is sinful. I believe that the place for such teaching is in religious education classes, not in sex education classes. The Bill will allow some faith schools to teach that in sex education classes. That is where I and the Joint Committee disagree with him-indeed, the Liberal Democrats made it clear that we disagree. Such things should be put in religious education lessons.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

As I say, for the first time there will be a requirement to teach that there are alternative views.

The Conservatives have blocked the proposal and stopped it proceeding. English and European case law do not support a continuing opt-out to the age of 16. In introducing the Bill, Ministers must sign an undertaking that it is ECHR compliant. If the right of withdrawal had been set at 16, no such undertaking could have been signed. We were therefore advised that, legally, all clauses relating to PSHE had to be withdrawn.

We hope that we can bring these matters back before Parliament in the near future, along with other measures that we have had to remove from the Bill, such as toughening home-school agreements, home education and the ability to collect data for the new school report card. However, as I said at the beginning, it is important to retain certain elements of the Bill, such as those on special needs and alternative provision. To that end, the Government support the Lords amendments.

There are now clear dividing lines between us on education. In the weeks to come, we will seek a fresh mandate to continue our work of investing in schools and providing opportunity for all pupils everywhere, irrespective of their ability, and we will expose the threat posed by the Conservative party, with its free schools, free market policy and immediate cuts to school funding. We will oppose that and ensure that the British public are aware of it as well.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I thank the Minister for the concessions that he has made, which will remove clauses that posed a direct threat to the professional autonomy of teachers and that would have heaped mounds of bureaucracy on to teachers and head teachers and threatened the rights of parents to withdraw their children from sex education and to educate their children at home.

The first element of this bureaucratic Bill, which we are happy to oppose, is a series of excessively prescriptive pupil and parent guarantees. Scores of guarantees were set out in the appendix to the White Paper and in a consultation document, with 38 tick boxes for teachers and more time taken away from the classroom. For example, guarantee 2.2 states that:

"the curriculum is tailored to every child's needs so that every pupil receives the support they need to secure good literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, learn another language and about the humanities, science, technology and the arts."

But given that 16 per cent. of 11-year-olds do not reach level 4 in English and 9 per cent. of boys leave primary school without even reaching any grade in the English key stage 2 standard assessment tests, that leaves scope for huge amounts of litigation.

The key to raising standards is not to pass a law guaranteeing things, but to understand the reasons for underperformance and to address them. If passing a law guaranteeing outcomes was the answer, we could cure world hunger and all known diseases this afternoon in the House. The key to raising standards in our schools is not through bureaucracy, but through greater freedom for professionals and by expanding the academy programme, with academy providers such as Absolute Return for Kids and the Harris Federation encouraged to establish more schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country.

These clauses would have piled additional bureaucracy on to teachers and head teachers and exposed them to the threat of expensive and time-consuming legal action. John Dunford from the Association of School and College Leaders said that those guarantees

"will take statute into realms it has never previously covered. Instead of the increasingly diverse system that the Government has often said that it wants to encourage, England will have one of the most centrally prescriptive systems in the world...School leaders are extremely concerned that these 'guarantees' will turn into a whingers' charter".

We wholeheartedly agree with ASCL's concerns and are therefore pleased that the Government have abandoned those clauses.

On one-to-one tuition, which the Minister touched on, we also strongly believe that it is needed for children who are falling behind, and we support that approach-that is what good schools do-but best practice is not spread by passing a law prescribing a whole raft of centrally crafted guarantees that people would then seek to enforce. We need to get away from such micro-prescription and give professionals and schools the autonomy that they need to flourish as professionals. That is how to raise standards. The Secretary of State is keen on his dividing lines in politics-I do not blame the Minister-but we believe that education policy should not be designed to be used as a tool in party politics. Education policy is about ensuring that we have the right landscape to enable schools to provide the highest quality of education for our children.

On home-school agreements, it is right to abandon clauses 4 and 5, which would have created bespoke, individualised home-school agreements, negotiated for each child and each parent in a school and rewritten annually. We believe in strengthening home-school agreements, but not in turning them into a bureaucratic nightmare for head teachers. The Government's proposals faced widespread opposition. For example, ASCL called the idea "unrealistic" and pointed out that

"such a proposal will be wholly impractical in secondary schools, which may have over 1,000 pupils, and will consume a great deal of school resource."

Again, that is our view exactly, and we are pleased to see those clauses go.

On areas of learning, the proposed changes to the primary curriculum-with the introduction of six highly prescriptive areas of learning, each with voluminous programmes of study, each of which has a multitude of objectives-is anything but flexible. The English programme of study alone has 84 objectives. Maths has 76. Clause 10 would have been a major misstep, and we are happy to see it fall as well.

The proposed introduction of personal, social, health and economic education was one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill. We have always strongly supported parents' rights to withdraw their children from sex and relationships lessons, and we have refused to compromise in upholding those rights. No one should ride roughshod over the rights of parents to bring up their children in the way they see fit. Ultimately, however small a minority wish to withdraw their children from such lessons, it should be up to the parent, rather than the Secretary of State and the Minister, to decide whether they want their children under 16 to attend lessons on sex and relationships.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The opt-out already exists in religious education and collective worship, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, but case law now shows that when children become competent to make up their own minds, it is an infringement of their rights for parents to withdraw them, or not to withdraw them, from collective worship-for example, compulsory prayer. Under his logic, should parents who feel passionately about the origins of the universe and believe in young-earth creationism have the right to withdraw their children from biology lessons, for example, for the reasons that he gives?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Parents have a right to withdraw their children from schools and to home-educate their children, which is another right that the Bill would infringe. I do not believe that creationism should be in the school science curriculum-the hon. Gentleman is right about that-but parents ultimately have the right to educate their children at home if they wish.

As a result of our continued opposition to clause 14, the Government have chosen to withdraw all four clauses that relate to PSHE. We would have been happy to discuss PSHE being part of the curriculum, and we are therefore extremely surprised that the Government have chosen to withdraw entirely all four clauses. If we are elected to form the next Government, the role of PSHE in the curriculum is an issue that we would address and consult on. As my noble Friend Baroness Perry said in another place last night:

"It would be almost impossible to find a secondary school, and very rare to find a primary school, that does not teach personal, social and health education."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2010; Vol. 718, c. 1587.]

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that if the Conservatives were to form the next Government, the consultation on PSHE to which he referred would include the extension of the mandatory aspects of PSHE to academies?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

No, it would not apply to academies because the essence of an academy is that it would have the same rights as an independent school but would not be able to charge fees. Given that even the Government have not proposed extending the duties to independent schools, we consider our policy entirely consistent with that. I know the Government have extended the duties to academies. They have infringed the freedom of academies in many respects since the Secretary of State took his position, but we believe that academies should have the same status as independent schools.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from PSHE, or life skills, does he accept that the absence of a mandatory aspect, which will be lost in this ludicrous wash-up process, will above all damage a particular group of children-not those who come from well-educated middle class homes, like those of many hon. Members present, but those who may come from a one-parent family or a deprived area and lack the social and emotional ability to make the best of themselves and the best, therefore, of their education at primary and secondary school? Does he accept that whoever is responsible and however it happened, that failure of all of us here to make life skills a mandatory part of the national curriculum will impact badly on constituencies such as the one that I represent, and no doubt on areas in his constituency too?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

As my noble Friend said in another place last night, every secondary school has such lessons in the curriculum. We must be careful about how prescriptive we are about aspects of the curriculum. We were happy to allow clause 11 to go through. It is only advice that the Minister is receiving that is forcing him and the Government to withdraw, in a slightly petulant manner, all four of the PSHE clauses simply because we are so opposed to just one of them, clause 14.

The proposed licence to practise for teachers would have done nothing to raise standards and would have been an expensive and bureaucratic burden for hundreds of thousands of teachers. The Secretary of State's view, as set out in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) yesterday, is that

"the proposed licence to practise would have firmly established the professional standing of the workforce and provided teachers with the status they deserve".

That, though, is not the view of teachers. It is not the view of ASCL, it is not the view of the NASUWT. It is not the view of the NUT, which said that it

"can see no argument advanced by the Government which justifies the introduction of the licence to practise for teachers."

The NUT pointed out that

"in little over a month 17,500 teachers have completed a postcard or signed a petition to the Secretary of State to express their concern about the proposed licence to practise."

I suspect that that figure is significantly higher by now.

Christine Blower is quoted today as saying:

"We are delighted that the licence to practise has gone. It added nothing positive to teaching."

The General Teaching Council, which the Government wanted to administer the licence to practise, stated that

"it will be a challenge to develop a system which has sufficient rigour to make a positive impact on standards of practice, whilst remaining proportionate and not unduly burdensome for teachers, school leaders and schools".

Even the body charged with running the scheme is against it. If all the teacher unions are against it and as the Opposition are against it, we are pleased that the Government have backed down and are withdrawing the associated clauses, too.

Finally, I am delighted that our sustained opposition to the Bill's draconian and excessive proposals to regulate home education has resulted in the Government's decision to abandon those clauses as well. We have always stressed that the choice to educate a child at home should belong solely and entirely to parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said on Second Reading:

"It is a basic right of parents to be able to educate their children in accordance with their own wishes, and to educate them at home if they so wish."-[ Official Report, 11 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 456.]

Home educators across the country will be extremely relieved to be spared compulsory registration and monitoring. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) correctly pointed out, there is a need for support for home-educating families, but only if the Government can

"work co-operatively and voluntarily with parents"-[ Official Report, 23 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 262.]

For now, it is enough that home-educating parents will not be subjected to the dictatorial provisions of the Bill. We can only hope that the hostility between local authorities and home educators, which the Government created with the publication of the Badman report and exacerbated during the passage of the Bill, does not rule out the possibility of creating a practicable and mutually acceptable working arrangement between home educators and local authorities in the future.

However, the 50,000 home educators in this country need to take heed of the final paragraph of the Secretary of State's letter to my hon. Friend, in which he states:

"I will be campaigning to ensure that this Government is returned and that these measures do make it on to the statute book in the first session of the new Parliament."

Labour is clearly committed to reintroducing the clauses on home education if it is re-elected.

The Bill would have entangled teachers, head teachers, pupils, parents, local authorities and school governors in unnecessary red tape, while doing nothing tangible to raise standards. We are glad that the Government have dropped so many of the Bill's clauses, and we look forward to a new Conservative education Bill in a new Parliament which would make the reforms so urgently needed to improve our education system for teachers, pupils and parents alike.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is rather fitting that the Minister, who is the hon. Member for Gedling, should be speaking across the Chamber for my last appearance in the House, and perhaps-who knows-it might even be his. I say that in a spirit of comradeship, because the hon. Gentleman has done his party and the education lobby a great deal of service over his time in the House and as a Minister. We have had many disagreements over that time, but the passion for education that we have both felt is important.

It saddened me that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that if the Conservative party wins the next general election it will introduce an education Bill. My heart sank, because I dread to think what would be in such a Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman was probably still at school when the Education Reform Act 1988 was brought in by his great forefathers. I remember the level of bureaucracy that surrounded the national curriculum. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that, because he is a colleague who devotes a great deal of time and thought to education- as well as having relatives who live in my constituency, so I have to say these things.

Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1988 Act was a seminal moment in the bureaucracy of education, and that in many ways things have gone downhill since, in terms of what teachers, head teachers and local authorities have had to do in producing league tables, SATs results and a raft of unnecessary changes to the working day in schools?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have shared many such comments over the past 13 years. However, two wrongs do not make a right. From 1997 to 2005 I served on every education Bill, and there were at least two a year during that time. I have to be honest to the House and say that they made precious little difference to the life chances of our children. That is what saddens me.

This Bill was supposed to be a flagship Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has now left his place, has been a passionate defender of the poorest children living in his constituency-some of the poorest children in our society. The fact that, in the death throes of this Government, he has to say that these matters have not been dealt with, and that to lose the Bill would be a tragedy is-if I may say so to the Minister-a condemnation of the fact that some of the essential elements of our dealing with some of our poorest communities and how we bring them up and give them the sorts of life chances that they deserve have been a failure, perhaps by all of us, but certainly a failure to live up to that pledge by Tony Blair to put "education, education, education" at the heart of the Government's programme.

That is enough of me remembering the past; we have a Bill in front of us. I am pleased that large sections of the Bill have been dropped-but not because I believe that some of the matters that it deals with do not need attention, particularly the sections dealing with the curriculum. The Rose committee made some quite remarkable suggestions on invigorating the primary curriculum, and I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and his party that we do not need to look rigorously at that. There is no doubt that unless we have a far greater sense of purpose and attainment in the primary years, we will not do the job that we need to do for the children mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and others like them throughout the country, including children like those I taught in east Leeds, some of whom were among the poorest in the nation.

That applies particularly to the work that Rose did in trying to ensure that mathematics was at the heart of the primary curriculum. Without good mathematics, many of those youngsters will have, frankly, no chance of accessing the modern post-recession economy, which will be vital in bringing them out of poverty and educational poverty. The link between education and the economy develops and drives everything-it is not magic-so I am sad that we have been unable to make progress.

Frankly, we did not need clauses 1 to 6 in the first place. They would have heaped yet more bureaucracy on to bureaucracy. We must liberate those brilliant head teachers, such as Phil Willis at John Smeaton community high school, who was a maverick-I have admitted that. As my last Ofsted report remarked, charging the inspectors for car parking was innovative on the part of our youngsters. They had an idea and a drive to investigate how the economy works.

As my noble Friend Baroness Walmsley remarked yesterday in the House of Lords, clauses 11 to 14 have rightly caused an awful lot of concern. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the importance of PSHE and that introduction to economics. If I may say so, I find rather sad the excuse that the Minister has used-that the Bill draftsmen say that we cannot disentangle those measures-because there is clearly a problem with sex education. If we debated that for the next 100 years, there would still be a problem, because there are entrenched positions. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has been absolutely courageous in defending sex education and the right of children to get a balanced view.

I strongly support the right of faiths to run schools in our society and to share with children in those schools the beliefs of those faiths-I cannot see anything wrong with that-but my hon. Friend is right to say that that should take place within a structure. Whether someone is running a Muslim, Roman Catholic or other faith school, they should be able to reflect their teaching according to those belief systems. However, it would be wrong to give those people the legalised opportunity to tell the children in their schools that the lifestyle of the person living next door is somehow immoral. That is what we are talking about. I hope that whoever comes in after the next general election will revisit the matter, because it is too important to leave hanging in the air. In that way, there was a cop-out last night.

My last comment is on home education. There is a fundamental flaw in our thinking in this country-this was brought home in the debate with the home educators-that it is the state's job to educate our children. It is not; it is the parents' job. The Education Act 1944, and indeed Forster's great Act of 1870-an Act brought about by that great Bradford Member of Parliament-both state that it is the parents' duty to educate their children, and that the state acts as a convenient default mechanism when necessary, which most of us, myself included, have used.

We have heard examples of home-educated children being abused, but they are in a tiny minority. In such cases the idea of home education is often used as a cover for abuse-but in reality, the vast majority of people who educate their children at home do so because they believe that that is in the best interests of their children. The state should work with them, not create more barriers for them. I would never home-educate my children because I believe that home-educated children miss out on so much, but I will defend to the death the right of parents to work with their children in a home setting to deliver an education. I am therefore pleased that clauses 26 and 27 have been dropped.

All in all, as other hon. Members have said, this wash-up process is a rather sad and tawdry affair, and at the end of the day what is left of the Bill is probably not worth saving. However, if the Minister, being the man he is, assures me that it is, my party will not-

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I know it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault, but we amended one of the measures on alternative provision that has been retained in the Bill in the way that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) wanted. She would want that to be retained, irrespective of anything else.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I was in fact about to conclude by saying that those parts of the Bill that do remain that have the support of my excellent colleagues, and the guidance of the Minister, make the Bill worth putting on the statute book at the last moment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on securing some really good changes to the Bill. It is rather late in the day, but he and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), the shadow Secretary of State, have spoken for so many people in this country who have written to Members of this House to express their concern about various aspects of the Bill, and most of those measures have been filleted out.

The way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton set out succinctly and clearly the dividing lines on education policy between the Government and the Conservative party will be really useful in the forthcoming weeks of the campaign. He says that we stand for less prescription and interference, and for giving more responsibility and freedom to parents and professionals. The decision to remove the ludicrous home education proposals exemplifies the difference between the Government's approach and our approach.

Fortunately, the Government dreamt up most of these ridiculous proposals in their 12th year in office. Had they introduced them earlier, they could have got them on to the statute book, but they are not going to do so now. People will know that there is a big issue before them in the general election: if they vote for the Labour party, there is a risk that the proposals will be introduced again in future.

All hon. Members have received much correspondence on the PSHE elements of the Bill, and I am very pleased that clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 are now out of it. Voluntarism is working very well, and when things work well, why should the state interfere? My only quibble with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton concerns his implication that an incoming Conservative Government would reintroduce PSHE in a centralised curriculum. I believe that there is enough centralisation in the curriculum already. Given that schools are able to deliver PSHE perfectly well on the basis of acceptance of their own responsibility through governing bodies and parents, I hope that on reflection, an incoming Conservative Government will not meddle with PSHE, and will instead concentrate on our core requirements for better educated pupils who understand the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.

I am delighted that the Bill has been filleted so expertly, but I regret the amount of parliamentary time that has been taken up by the Government's proposals when it was obvious that they would never get them through. Many of them were amendments to the Education Act 2002. If the Government had really wanted them, they could have been tabled at that stage. This has been simply a lot of gesture politics for the benefit of those who are not satisfied with the extent of the bureaucracy and regulation that already exist in education, and want more bureaucracy and more regulation. The Government were pandering to those interests. Today, however, we have a Bill that constitutes a snub to those who have campaigned for all that extra regulation, and I am delighted with the progress that my hon. Friend has secured.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a couple of comments.

It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Both of us have worked long and hard on a number of different issues. I pay tribute to the work that he has done, not only in respect of education but in respect of science and the importance of evidence-based policy making. I appeared before his Select Committee when I had ministerial responsibility for drugs education policy, and we had a fairly frank exchange of views, but I hope that that led to better policy.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is present. He served on the Committee, and observed that it was the first time he had served on a Bill Committee for a number of years. Although those who served on the Committee did not always agree with me, I think that that was an important finish to this part of my hon. Friend's career. He has always worked tirelessly in supporting state education and emphasising the importance of giving opportunities to all young people.

Let me deal with a couple of points that have been raised in the debate. We did not intend to oppose home education. We strongly support it and the right of people to educate their children at home. The clauses that have now been withdrawn drew attention to the need to know more precisely where children were. That was the point of the compulsory registration scheme. If people were to ask whether the state or local authorities knew where all young people were, the answer would sometimes be no, and I think that that raises important questions. We did not wish to end people's right to educate their children at home; we were merely suggesting that there should be a better understanding of what was going on.

Clause 11 specifies the content of PSHE, which includes sex and relationships education. Clause 13 amends SRE provisions. Clause 11 also makes PSHE part of the national curriculum. Clause 14 currently allows withdrawal from a subject that is not part of the national curriculum. We must therefore change the right of withdrawal in the clause as part of the package. I do not want to withdraw the PSHE clauses, but I have been told that it is simply impossible to separate the provisions. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) were in my place, he would have to take the legal advice that he was given. I can only hope that whoever is responsible for these matters in the next Parliament will return to the issue. The hon. Gentleman indicated that if he were to be the next Minister and were in my position, he would bring the clauses back. I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) does not agree, but I think this is an important provision that we should not lose.

Our short debate has made clear the choices that will be before the country, and our different views on education. It is clear from what has been said by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the Conservatives believe in a free market education philosophy. We believe in state education and a comprehensive education system, and the election will no doubt be fought on that along with a number of other important public policy issues.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 34 agreed to.

Energy Bill

Clause 10 — Schemes for reducing fuel poverty: supplementary

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 9.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

In its eighth report of the current Session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended several changes to the Bill in connection with the procedures whereby secondary legislation is made in part 2, which deals with social price support, and part 4, which sets out the general provisions of the Bill.

In respect of part 2, the Committee expressed concern about the breadth of the powers in clause 10(6), which enabled the regulations establishing a social price support scheme to include provision allowing the Secretary of State to disapply or modify the requirements of the scheme. It also recommended that the level of parliamentary scrutiny be increased in relation to changes in the definition of fuel poverty. In respect of part 4, the Committee recommended the removal of the discretion in clause 31(4) that the Secretary of State has, in certain cases, to choose the parliamentary procedure to which a statutory instrument is subject. We tabled amendments in the other place to address all the Committee's concerns.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 will constrain the circumstances in which the power in clause 10(6) may be used to disapply or modify any requirement of a social price support scheme. That will be done by requiring the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can use the power to be detailed in the scheme regulations made under clause 9. Regulations made under the clause are subject to the affirmative procedure. Lords amendment 3 requires the Secretary of State to inform Parliament of any changes made under clause 10(6) by laying a memorandum before Parliament detailing any such modifications.

We have also addressed the Committee's recommendation that any regulations seeking to change the definition of fuel poverty, or its extent, for the purposes of the Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Lords amendments 5 and 6 replicate the definition in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000.

Lords amendments 7 and 8 make any regulations that seek to change the definition of fuel poverty or its extent in the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the Committee. Lords amendment 4 ensures that any such regulations are subject to consultation in the same way as the schemes for reducing fuel poverty.

Lords amendment 9 removes the discretion in clause 31(4) for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to choose the parliamentary procedure to which a statutory instrument is subject. We now consider that we no longer require that discretion, and are therefore content to accept the Committee's recommendation.

I hope that the House will feel able to agree to the Lords amendments.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

Let me begin by paying tribute to the Minister. There are many aspects of the Bill that we have not managed to get quite into the shape that we would have wished. However, she has constantly been courteous, thoughtful and constructive in all the exchanges and dealings that we have had with her, and she has genuinely tried to find common ground on some of the issues. That has not been possible in all areas, but I thank her for the approach that she has taken. With the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) here too, I would like to pay tribute to the way in which he discussed the issues in Committee and to the thoughtful approach that he took to all our dealings.

The Lords amendments that we are discussing are relatively minor, although we must of course be cautious about any change in the definition of fuel poverty. There is an anxiety out there that what is being done might be an attempt to change the definition by stealth and to wriggle out of some of the commitments that have been made, with a recognition that the Government are way off track in trying to meet their legally binding commitments on tackling fuel poverty. There is an obligation on the Government to end fuel poverty for all vulnerable households by 2010 and to take all households out of fuel poverty by November 2016. We are clearly well off track for the 2010 target, which is a very challenging target indeed. I hope that the Government do not intend, through the measures that we are discussing, to try to find a way of changing the definition of fuel poverty so that they can meet those targets by stealth. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort on those concerns when she responds to this short debate.

I hope that the Minister can also clarify a little more what the techniques that we are debating can be used for, and therefore explain how broad their application might be. We want to understand the full implications of the changes that are being suggested. The first measure relates to fuel poverty, as we have said, but would other measures relating to fuel poverty similarly be covered? For example, we would like to see measures to require energy companies to say exactly how much a consumer would save if they were on a cheaper tariff. We would also like measures to say how we would make consumers aware of those cheaper tariffs and how they could switch. Could that be done through the orders that the Minister is putting forward today? We would also be keen to see measures to speed up the roll-out of smart meters and to say that this should be done not by 2020, which we think is a profoundly unambitious approach, but instead 2016. Could the measures that the Minister has outlined be used as a way to drive that work forward with greater speed and determination?

It is important that we should see the measures that we are discussing against the background of the Bill and the context in which they were discussed in the Lords. That relates in particular to what the Minister sees as the Government's strategic role under the Bill and, therefore, the amendments that we are discussing. On carbon capture and storage, there is a strategic case for the Government requiring oversize pipelines to be put in place, so that we can develop clusters of CCS development around the country. We would be grateful if she could clarify what the Government's views are on such a strategic overview.

It would also be interesting to hear the Minister's views on the Government's strategic approach to the development of an offshore grid and what they should be doing to secure it. We are well aware that there is a disagreement between the Government and ourselves about whether that should be mandated, with a requirement to put in place high-voltage DC cabling down the coast, in respect of which we see the Government as having a strategic role, and we are keen to ensure that they similarly have a strategic vision for what they would like to see done in this area.

The proposals that we are discussing are modest changes that are being made for clear legal reasons. It is a shame, as we on the Conservative Benches would all recognise, that the changes made in the Lords have gone nothing like as far as we would have wished. We are very disappointed indeed that the Government did not use the opportunity in the Lords to go further and make this a more fundamentally ambitious and important Bill. It should have included measures on energy efficiency and rolling out a green deal, so that people could have energy efficiency devices installed in their homes in a way that enabled them to enjoy the benefits of that work before they started paying for the costs. The Bill should also have included measures on an emissions performance standard that would require all newly built electricity generation to cut emissions. It should have included measures to reform the climate change levy, so that it became a genuine charge on carbon, rather than another tax on business-an issue that has been so relevant in the discussions more generally this week. The Bill should also have looked at ways of introducing real incentives, so that communities that host wind farms can benefit financially from those schemes.

The Bill does important things, but it could have been improved and it could have done a great deal more. We welcome some of the concessions that the Minister has made, most importantly in being prepared to extend the roll-out of the carbon capture and storage schemes that can benefit from the new levy to include those developed using gas and biomass, which is an important achievement. However, as with so many other aspects of legislation, the Bill represents unfinished business. It is one of a number of Energy Bills that we have seen in the past 13 years, but it still does not measure up to the scale of the challenge that lies before us or the enormous energy security issues that we face. That means, I am afraid, that there will have to be another Energy Bill soon after the election, when we will have a Conservative Government with the drive, the resolve and the commitment to address those issues and take them forward.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

May I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) about the Minister and her colleagues? It is a while since I sat on a Standing Committee, but they were incredibly generous in their approach throughout, as was the Minister herself. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was also incredibly courteous and well informed in presenting his points on behalf of the Conservative Opposition.

The sadness for me is that the Bill was introduced probably three or four years too late. What it needed was the new Department-I have to compliment the Prime Minister on one thing: setting the Department up-which has been effective in looking at some of the core issues facing our society. I compliment both the Secretary of State and the Minister on bringing those issues forward. Our party has had a number of major concerns during the passage of the Bill, some of which were, to be fair, addressed in part in the House of Lords-I am thinking particularly of the determination of what fuel poverty is. Let us remember that we had a discussion in Committee about that definition. The Minister was quite adamant that we could go no further, but since then there has been some movement on the issue in the House of Lords, for which we thank the Minister.

However, the difficultly is that an incoming Government, of whatever persuasion, will immediately have to return to the issue, because if they do not, we will not be able to move forward in what I see as three phases. The first issue is carbon capture and storage. Quite frankly, a huge amount of Government effort will be required to make it come to pass. We have had some movement on piping and some thought has gone into the issue of clusters, but that will need to be put into legislation, otherwise, frankly, it will not work.

One area that is missing-we genuinely hoped that the Minister would bring it back in the House of Lords-is this. When will the relationship appear between the installation of the carbon capture demonstrators and what will happen to the disposal of carbon dioxide in the North sea? That relationship-a relationship with those who currently have licences to operate in the North sea and who have an obligation to preserve the aquifers in a state in which they can be used-needs to be created, because once that goes and the whole thing collapses, then we will be in a totally different ballgame. We ought to be able to use this moment as a huge business opportunity and fill the aquifers in the North sea with carbon dioxide from a whole range of countries-particularly those in Europe, but also those further afield-using compression techniques.

The only other point that I wish to make is about this whole business of feed-in tariffs. What concerns me is this. Just this weekend I came back from my small farm on the west coast of Ireland. I was contemplating the discussions that we had with the Minister about those sources of energy other than gas that people use for their main heating. As I filled up my tank in Ireland, just as I fill it up in north Yorkshire, it struck me that the cost of delivering liquid gas at the moment is astronomical. When it comes to fuel poverty, the need to get people to think of ways in which they can generate their own heat and electricity and feed it back into the grid is crucial, but we also need to consider how to broaden the use of fuel poverty to include those areas that do not have access to natural gas.

The Bill is certainly worth putting on the statute book before this Parliament is dissolved, and I hope that when an incoming Government return to this matter, they will treat it with the same compassion and sense of importance that the Minister has shown, and that we can move on to the next stage as quickly as possible.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I thank the hon. Members for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for their very kind remarks. I appreciate very much what they have said and may I return the compliment? All of us who have worked on the Bill and in our wider debates in this place have done so with a very proper concern for the environment, for the security of our energy supplies, and for the people who have to pay for the fuel that they use and the fuel poverty that some of them experience. I am pleased to have been the Minister in charge of this important Bill. It has been debated seriously by Members on both sides of the House, for which I am grateful.

The hon. Member for Wealden took his opportunity, as he was entitled to do, to indicate many other things that he wished could have been included in the Bill. However, except for the matters of which he spoke where the Government conceded and made some improvements, the Government resisted those. The Bill was focused on achieving two things: first, carbon capture and storage and how it might be financially supported and organised in this country, and, secondly, the introduction of social price support mechanisms.

These small amendments are procedural and relate to the social price support mechanisms, so they do not allow us to widen the Bill's scope and bring in any of the new kinds of provisions that the hon. Gentleman would like. He spoke about the green deal that the Conservative party has put forward, but he knows well that the Government have proposed something that is bigger, wider and more costly than that, and which is embodied in our home energy management policy under the warm homes, greener homes strategy.

With regard to the strategy for carbon capture and storage and clusters, we very much agree with all parts of the House that clusters are to be considered and possibly encouraged. We want the best strategic position to be adopted for carbon capture and storage, and we agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on the potential for CCS. We believe that the discussions between those in control of North sea aquifers, the Government and the private companies that are developing CCS with Government support, are vital. As we have said, and as the Bill provides, we need to demonstrate that we can not only capture the gas, but transport it safely and store it safely for as long as is necessary.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the cost of fuel such as liquid gas for home heating. We are sensitive to this point and we are looking for ways to enable people to reduce their bills and have more secure supplies at lower cost through such means as air source heat pumps, which would enable people to obtain heat through a completely new technology. That is now well tested and we think that it can be a really good substitute for those who are off the gas grid. There are also ground source heat pumps. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have incentivised through the feed-in tariffs the provision of systems such as solar photovoltnic, where substantial payments can be made to those who generate their own electricity. Next year, we will introduce the heat incentive scheme, which should be of particular benefit to the kind of homes that he describes off the gas grid, where the incentives would particularly benefit those who move from sources such as LPG. I hope that we can promise the hon. Gentleman that much good will come forward when we are returned to government.

I can tell the hon. Member for Wealden that we have no plans for amending the definition of fuel poverty in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Indeed, the Act allows for such an amendment to be made by negative resolution. This Bill does not cut across that. What we do in this Bill and the amendments that I have described is simply a matter for this Bill and the definition there. When providing for a social price support mechanism, we do not want it to be available only to those who by definition would come out of fuel poverty. Of course, some will, but some will be helped to do a little better and some may be prevented from going into fuel poverty. That is the intention of the price support mechanism and these small amendments make all of that possible.

It has been an immense pleasure to be a Minister in the new Department of Energy and Climate Change. I believe that the whole House feels that setting up that Department was a correct decision, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reiterated today. For those of us who have worked in the Department, I can say that it has been a whirlwind of a Department, which has enabled the country to begin that absolute change in the way in which we generate and use our energy, and at the same time tackle the threat of dangerous climate change.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 9 agreed to.

Financial Services Bill

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill have been received and printed. A grouping is also available. Under the order of the House of yesterday, they may be considered forthwith without any question put.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 45 to 48. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1 — Council for Financial Stability

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

I beg to move, that the House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 36.

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

The amendments remove from the Bill the clauses relating to the council for financial stability-that is, clauses 1 to 4-and the reference to those clauses in clause 38. As my noble Friend Lord Myners set out in another place yesterday and again this morning, given the limited amount of time remaining in this Parliament, the Government have agreed with the official Opposition through the usual channels and in the usual way which parts of the Bill should be enacted.

The council for financial stability was a casualty of that process, as were clauses 8 and 18 to 25, which respectively deal with the Financial Service Authority's international remit and with collective proceedings. The second group of amendments deal with those changes. We continue to believe that the council for financial stability provisions are necessary, sensible and desirable; however, in the interest of securing other important elements of the Bill on which there is greater consensus, the Government have agreed to withdraw them. I hope that the House will support the amendments.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Of course, the Opposition agree with the amendments. We argued from the start of proceedings on the Bill that the council for financial stability was a cosmetic reform, not the fundamental structural reforms that we felt were needed to reflect the lessons of the financial crisis. The fiction the Government sought to create was that we would know who was in charge and who took responsibility in crises; in the evidence sessions, however, that fiction was slowly unpicked. The banks said that responsibility rested with the Treasury, and the FSA suggested that it had only a secondary role to play in financial stability-rather than clarity, there was confusion among the tripartite authorities. We therefore welcome the amendments that remove those clauses, which creates the opportunity for a fresh start in the next Parliament.

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

I welcome the Opposition's support for the amendments. I am not surprised by it, given that the deal has been agreed. We still believe strongly that the council for financial stability is an important and necessary addition to financial regulation in this country, but given where we stand today, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the other clauses in the Bill, which I hope will become law very shortly.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 6 — Disclosure of financial assistance to the Bank of England

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

I beg to move, that this House agrees with Lords amendment 5.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 6 to 35 and 37 to 49.

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

As I mentioned a minute ago, as a result of discussions with the official Opposition via the usual channels, the second group of amendments will remove clause 8, which would provide for a new statutory duty imposed on the FSA to promote international regulation and supervision, and clauses 18 to 25, which would allow for group representative action in the courts for people with similar claims. We believe that, like the council for financial stability, those are important and necessary measures but, again, we have agreed to withdraw them to safeguard the passage of the Bill's remaining provisions.

Alongside the amendments removing those clauses, the Government tabled in another place a large number of concessionary amendments, many in response to the scrutiny by this House and the points made by hon. Members who participated in debates on the Bill. I recognise that the length of the parliamentary Session has curtailed debate on the Bill in another place-indeed, my experience of watching some of that debate tells me that it could have continued for many more months-but I hope that Conservative Members welcome the Government's efforts to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Does the Minister accept that, in the financial risk outlook recently published by the Financial Services Authority, the FSA made it clear that, for the taxpayer, many tens of billions of pounds-a substantial proportion of what was provided-would be at risk, notwithstanding any proposed repayment of the loans by the banks? Does he agree that that is a serious hole in the public finances, which, according to the FSA, will be carried by the taxpayer?

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

I heard the hon. Gentleman mention that yesterday, but I have not had time to check it out, so I must pass on answering that question. On the general point, however, I do not believe that the Government's financial interventions to recapitalise the banks and the Bank of England's action to provide liquidity to the banking system have been anything other than absolutely necessary to ensure the continued stability of the financial system in this country. I will check the detail of what he says about the FSA's financial risk outlook and, if it not too late in this Parliament, I will get my officials to write to him.

Let me describe briefly some of the concessionary amendments made in the Lords to which I hope this House will agree today. Amendments 9 and 10 ensure that the regulations provided for under clause 9 are subjected to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 12 ensures that the FSA, when making short-selling rules, has regard to international agreements in that area.

Amendments 16 to 23 further strengthen safeguards for individuals who performed a controlled function without the necessary FSA approval and reduce the proposed increase in the limitation period from four to three years. I well remember the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) expressing concern about those two points during Committee scrutiny of the FSA's enforcement clauses. The extra safeguards reflect the importance of casting the FSA's enforcement net widely enough to reach those who knew or could reasonably be expected to have known that they needed FSA approval and to deter individuals and firms from breaking the rules, but without catching those who reasonably should not be penalised. I believe that the amendment to the limitation period also strikes the right balance between allowing the FSA the time it needs to conduct proper investigations and answering the concerns expressed by Opposition Front Benchers, both in this House and in another place.

Amendment 24 will ensure greater transparency in disclosure of the FSA's enforcement actions. That, too, is a point raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). In Committee, I promised to look into the matter; I did so, and amendment 24 is the product of that thinking. It improves the position by widening the circumstances in which the FSA must disclose details of its enforcement actions against authorised firms and individuals. It requires the FSA to disclose such information relating to decision notices as it considers appropriate. At present, the FSA can disclose only information relating to a final notice, which follows any appeal to the tribunal, rather than information relating to a decision notice, which is issued after a firm has had the opportunity to make representations to the FSA but before the firm has had the opportunity to appeal.

The new clause provides earlier transparency before any appeal has been heard but, importantly, after the FSA has heard the firm's views and concluded that there is a clear case to answer. It will empower consumers with additional information about which firms may have breached rules, and I think it strikes the right balance.

The Government have carefully considered points made in another place and by the industry on the ability to review rules made by the FSA establishing a consumer redress scheme. Although we feel that the approval of the court before a scheme can be established is not appropriate-indeed, we believe that that is a regulatory decision, which should be a matter for the FSA-the Government have accepted that the Bill should expressly set out a means of challenging such a decision, rather than requiring parties to rely solely on the judicial review process. Amendment 33 provides that any person may apply to the upper tribunal for a review of rules made by the FSA under new section 404 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We consider, again, that this strikes a reasonable balance between the ability of the FSA to implement a consumer redress scheme, where appropriate, and the rights of others to require a review of those rules. Furthermore, in the light of industry concerns about the use of the power, we have also agreed to change the commencement of the clause so that it must be commenced by an order rather than automatically on Royal Assent. I hope that that explains the amendments and I hope that the House will support them.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I welcome the amendments and the way in which the Minister has responded to the concerns that have been expressed during the scrutiny in this place and the other place. He highlighted amendment 24, for which I am grateful. One of the concerns that we had was that consumers did not know about enforcement action being taken against a firm regulated by the FSA and that that might put them at a disadvantage in dealing with those firms. Indeed, there was an incident that we cited in Committee relating to a mortgage company that was being investigated by the FSA on some of its repossession proceedings. If that information had been in the public domain sooner, that might have helped some people who had mortgages with that company. We welcome the constructive approach that the Minister has taken.

Let me focus very briefly on three areas. We want to see consumers given adequate protection when the product that they have brought or the advice that they have received is defective. That is a concern that we have expressed in a number of different ways over the course of this Bill but also in other wider reforms that we have set out. It is important that when new safeguards are introduced there should be proper scrutiny and consultation, so that we know that the safeguards will work effectively and proportionately.

We welcome the decision to drop clauses 18 to 25 on collective action. This gives the next Government the chance to consult properly on these changes and on the generic court rules that need to be introduced on collective actions and again on the detailed regulations that would then be used to apply those generic court rules to individual claims under financial services legislation. It also gives the next Government an opportunity to see how these rules dovetail with the existing protection for consumers and the consumer redress schemes. It also gives a Government the opportunity to think how collective proceedings should be applied to the whole area of consumer protection and not just to the narrow subject of financial services. The Government's decision to drop these clauses creates the opportunity for further debate, which will benefit both consumers and industry.

On clause 26, we welcome some of the changes that the Government have made, particularly the change to the commencement date. Rather like collective proceedings, this is an area where there was insufficient consultation with the industry or consumer groups. There is an underlying concern about how the FSA would use these powers in practice. It might be the case that with a longer period of thought and deliberation the industry and consumer groups could become more comfortable with the way in which the FSA would seek to use these powers in practice. The amendment creates a breathing space to enable that to happen.

Let me make one thing very clear. It is apparent that the powers that this provision replaces-existing section 404 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000-are unsatisfactory, because those powers had never been used. It is also clear that defaulting back to the Financial Ombudsman Service to resolve large-scale mis-selling claims is also unsatisfactory. A solution needs to be found to resolve these issues and I think we are confident that we can and should make progress on this. Fundamentally, the best way to resolve these issues is through having the right mechanisms in place to deal with the cure while having the right regulatory approach and structure in place to deal with prevention, too.

I am pleased to see that amendment 43 has been introduced. The Minister did not choose to mention it, but it reflects amendment 48, which I tabled in Committee. The Minister was rather sceptical at that stage about the amendment and he said that as an expert in evaluation and someone who has studied this topic over 20 years, it was not really necessary because organisations would do that automatically. As someone who has not studied evaluation for 20 years, I am pleased to see that I can have an impact as a layman-perhaps through the machinations at the other end of the Palace, but the effect is none the less welcome for that. Clearly, there is good evidence for the impact that I have made in the outcome of this Bill.

Let me end by wishing the Minister well, as he is leaving the House at the election. He and I have sparred on a number of Bills over the course of the last couple of years. I have always found him straightforward to deal with-that might not be what the deputy Chief Whip would like to hear-and prepared to engage in the debate in Committee in a serious and thoughtful way. I am sure that whatever he chooses to do after he leaves this place, he will be as successful there as he has been in this House.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I listened carefully to the shadow Minister's speech and, although I am open to correction, I do not think that he made much reference to clause 8, which is struck out by the Lords amendments. I am extremely surprised, bearing in mind the traumatic experience that the UK has suffered during the financial crisis over the past year or more, and bearing in mind the utterances that one gets from the Conservative party-not just in the hustings, but in recent times. I find it amazing that, at the Conservatives' initiative, clause 8 has been struck out.

Clause 8 would have amended the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and would have allowed the Financial Services Authority-indeed, it would have empowered it-to take such steps to promote international financial regulation and supervision calculated to meet the financial stability objectives. It would also have charged the FSA with representing the interests of the UK when participating in discussions on international financial regulation and supervision. The agreed consensus was that some of the contributory factors to the global crisis and the background to the storm-which under the stewardship of this Government, we have largely weathered and got through-were the absence of adequate international financial regulation. I find it quite amazing that this House, at this stage in this Parliament, should strike out what must be a demonstrably approved measure at the whim or insistence of Conservative Lords and those on the Conservative Front Bench. I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), because I think that we should be told how that abdication of responsibility has happened.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to probably the final intervention that he will take in this House. In the absence of this power, the FSA is still engaged in debate in the European Union and with the European Commission on technical issues to do with implementation of, say, Solvency 2. Lord Turner sits on committees of the Financial Stability Board. This makes no difference to the FSA's ability to take part in international discussions. It has done so without this power being in the FSMA. It is an entirely cosmetic and pointless change.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I am pleased that I gave way, because that demonstrates the laid-back attitude of the Conservatives to this issue. Of course, the FSA has been acting in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, but clause 8 places a duty on it. It reinforces its power. It sends messages abroad. It means that the FSA can go thumping the table internationally with full confidence and mandate of a statute. That is the difference. Statutory regulation stiffens the sinews, either of the FSA or the people who serve it, and underlines the importance and gravity of what they are doing. To say that the provision is not necessary is irresponsible and wrong.

I do not want to labour the point, other than to put on the record that removing clause 8 was a mistake. The Minister should be blushing, because the Government would have retained the provision, but the Conservatives insisted that it came out before the legislation could receive Royal Assent. The Conservatives are to blame for taking out a prudent and sensible clause.

The Minister may be able to help us on my second point. In proceedings in this House on 25 January and in another place on 23 February there was discussion of the credit unions of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), supported by the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), Lord Bew and most sensible people, were led to believe that the measure would be a vehicle to empower the credit unions of Northern Ireland and give them parity with those in Great Britain. We thought they would be put under the FSA and allowed to provide financial products comparable to those in London, including child trust funds, ATMs and so forth.

Lord Myners was certainly sympathetic and, judging from the Official Report, the Minister indicated some support. Given his background as a Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend will be aware that although only 1 per cent. of people in England use credit unions, they are used by 26 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland, yet they are denied parity of treatment with Great Britain. Furthermore, they do not have the assurances and guarantees arising from the oversight of the FSA.

I am bewildered and dismayed. All the political parties in Northern Ireland are in agreement on the issue, as are political parties in this House, including the Labour party in Northern Ireland and the Democratic Unionist party, except for the Conservative and Unionist party. By instructing the Minister that there should be no progress on the provision, the Conservative and Unionist party, which is standing in the election, is denying the people of Northern Ireland facilities for their credit unions. The Conservative party is doing a grave disservice to the 26 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland, across the political spectrum, who want their credit unions enhanced. The hon. Member for Fareham is looking anxious. Does he want to respond?

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Only to say that I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman has reached that conclusion. I am not aware that we have sought in any way to block that amendment.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

My accusation stands, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in reply.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I rise to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). At one stage, many of us thought that the Bill might never come back here at all. Considerable work has been done on it by a lot of people and it includes some important aspects for consumers, so it would have been a great shame if it had not proceeded.

The provisions are reasonable given that there has been relatively little consultation as a result of the speed that was being required to push the Bill through. In many respects, the Bill is part 1 of something that will continue to be looked at as we impose regulation and supervision of financial services. I am happy to support the amendments and to allow the Bill to go through.

I do not have the same concerns about clause 8 as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). It had some belt-and-braces aspects and would not have had quite the impact he expected. Co-operation will clearly have to take place in that area. We shall not be able to introduce things off our own bat; we shall have to seek international support and co-operation and, as the hon. Member for Fareham said, there are already provisions in current legislation. However, certain aspects will have to be tightened up by the next Administration as they begin to push the measure through.

When the Treasury Committee visited Ireland a little while ago, we were amazed at the amount of credit union activity, but the mechanisms by which credit unions were administered or supervised were not raised with us. I am somewhat puzzled about the matter, so if the Minister has any helpful suggestions that would be good. It was certainly not something that the Committee considered was part of this legislation.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Fareham about the Minister. We have had a good working relationship on various Committees, not least because of the way the Minister presented information and was always prepared to get us the additional information we required. I, too, wish him well in the future.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I want to speak briefly on clause 6. Nothing is more important than that people understand exactly, as it says in the amendment,

"the desirability of enhancing the understanding and knowledge of members of the public of financial matters (including the UK financial system),"

and for a very good reason. People have just been through the most cathartic experience; they have seen their savings and their jobs disintegrate as a result of mistakes, and sometimes of thoroughly misleading behaviour, by many people who ought to have known better. That goes for the Government as well as for the supervisory authorities and the companies and banks concerned.

People should have proper information and understand it and, if necessary, be given in school some overall idea of the extent to which they are dependent on the financial system. Something in the order of 20 per cent. of our entire economy turns on financial services, so it would not be amiss for people to have proper financial education and understanding. That provision is extremely important and useful.

Unlike the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am delighted that clause 8 has been left out. I have taken a close interest in the Bill. I have written quite a lot about it in the Financial Times and other publications. From the beginning, I have made a constant assault on the idea that the City of London should be put under threat by European institutions-from the de Larosière report to the latest regulations, which I followed as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee from the beginning to the end. The Minister knows of my interest and of my condemnation of the extent to which the City of London has been put under threat as a result of European and/or global international regulation.

Even this morning, on the "Today" programme, the Prime Minister was still going on about the virtues of his great contribution to undermining-he would not put it like that, but it is a fact-our ability to run our own affairs. Given the number of jobs and the amount of gross domestic product dependent on the City, I am completely against the requirements under clause 8, and that is a very good reason why it should be left out. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to its power, but he did not quite emphasise enough the fact that it would have provided for a legal duty, enforceable by judicial review. The hon. Gentleman is a good friend of mine, so I can tell from his expression how and to what extent he approves of clause 8.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) knows perfectly well, irrespective of whether the clause is in or out, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 will require us to comply with the financial services regulations imposed by directives and decisions taken by the European jurisdiction. That is one reason why my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill remains important. We have to have a proper adjustment, so that we co-operate with other countries. I have never been against that. As I have said many times before: European trade, yes; European Government, no. It is for this House to decide the extent to which we have proper regulation, and, whether we engage in agreements with other European countries or not, we in this House must have the last say.

Clause 8, as far as our courts are concerned, would have made an imposition upon the Financial Services Authority over and above the requirements of European regulations and directives. The clause would have gone to the Supreme Court at some point or other, when somebody challenged it, and it would have been an imposition-imposed by this Parliament as a mandatory requirement.

Therefore, I am glad that the clause has gone, but I remain concerned about our underlying requirement under the European Communities Act 1972 to comply with the financial regulations that are streaming out of the European Union like a tsunami. Through majority voting, they will effectively hand over control of the City of London to the axis of France and Germany-Frankfurt and Paris. Nikolas Sarkozy has been quite clear from the beginning about their overriding objection to the Anglo-Saxon methods of dealing with financial services, and about their objective of taking over the City of London. That is one of their objectives, and the same goes for the Germans in Frankfurt. [ Interruption. ] I love to watch the deputy Chief Whip of the Government-for-the-time-being laughing about that.

Thomas McAvoy (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West)

I'm laughing at you.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. I am delighted, because all it does is demonstrate the absurdity of his position. He cannot tell that the people of this country are seriously affected. It may be very late in the day, and we may be right at the end of our parliamentary proceedings, but I say, and I shall say again, that nothing will stop me from defending in this Parliament the rights and interests of the people in this country. This legislation, whether or not it goes through in a wash-up and is fast-tracked, involves a disgraceful procedure, but at least it gives people like myself the opportunity to stand up for the United Kingdom, which I will do irrespective of deputy Chief Whips-for-the-time-being.

In line with the many times that I have raised this point with our shadow Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, I trust that when we win the next election we will resist any attempt whatever to allow our City of London to be regulated by European regulations. We must insist that our City of London, our financial services, are dealt with under our laws, not under European or international legal jurisdictions.

Ian Pearson (Labour, Dudley South)

I shall briefly respond to the points that have been made during this debate.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about clause 8 and disagree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and his comments on it. I agree that dropping the clause will not prevent the Financial Services Authority from engaging in international forums, but the fact that it has not had its role formalised is disappointing. It is very strange that such an important activity has not been formally reflected on a statutory basis in the FSA's objectives.

I heard what my hon. Friend said about Northern Ireland credit unions, and I share his strong desire to see them come under the auspices of the FSA. That is why, during Commons stages of the Bill, I said to Members that, if it were possible for the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree on an approach, we would see what could be done in the Bill. Lord Myners tabled a new clause in the other place, but there was no opportunity to debate it. Primary legislation is not actually needed to bring about those changes, but it is important to send the right signal, and I hope that the next Government will continue to look at the regulatory reform of credit unions.

The House will be aware that there is a joint Treasury-Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment consultation on proposals for the regulatory reform of credit unions in Northern Ireland, and that was launched on 30 March. As responses are received, I am sure that it will be possible-early in the next Parliament, I hope-to bring in any necessary changes at an early opportunity.

The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made three main points. On collective proceedings, the House is now aware that the amendments will drop clauses 18 to 25 from the Bill. However, I stress that, in terms of collective proceedings and providing for the rights of individuals collectively to take action, there is an important principle that needs to be pursued. We explored the issue in some detail in Committee, but it is clear from some reactions outside the House, which were reflected in the other place, that more work is needed in that area. That is why I am happy not to pursue those clauses at the moment, and to see more work done. However, the House will need to return to the matter, because it involves some important points of principle about how we ensure that such collective rights can be exercised.

The hon. Gentleman also raised a highly relevant point about clause 26. He will be aware of the actions that we have taken through amendment 33, and the agreement that it would be enacted separately. We just gave up on his amendment 43. I still do not think that it is a necessary part of the Bill, but in the other place I think they just decided, "Oh, all right then. Let's go on, let's do it. It won't do any harm." It certainly will not do any harm. The other concessions that we made in the other place have helped to improve the Bill; his amendment does not do so substantially, but there we go.

I should like to say two final things. First, I thank the hon. Members for Fareham and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), with whom I have debated on many occasions over the past couple of years. If I may return their compliments, I must say that they have been unfailingly courteous and well reasoned in their arguments. Although I have not been able to agree with them on every occasion, I have always carefully considered what they have said; and, where I have thought it appropriate, I have asked officials to draft and bring forward amendments, as we have done during the passage of this Bill.

Secondly, and lastly, I should like to thank my Bill team. Bills such as this require an awful lot of work on the part of many civil servants. My committed, dedicated and able team have provided me with terrific advice. I hope that I have not mangled their sentences too much in what I have said during the debates on the Bill. It is to their immense credit that so much of the Bill will be enacted very shortly, and that will be of benefit to people in Britain. So I say thank you very much to my team, and thanks also to hon. Members.

Lords amendment 5 agreed to.

Lords amendments 6 to 49 agreed to , with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 45 to 48 .

Flood and Water Management Bill

Clause 4 — "Flood risk management function"

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 25.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It is a great privilege to bring forward what I hope will be, both figuratively and literally, the final Act of this Parliament. Bringing the Bill forward was a good choice; the business managers know my reputation for brevity.

The Bill benefited from further changes in the other place, and we are considering those this afternoon. In all, a further 25 amendments have been made in the other place, three of which are purely technical. Of the remaining 22, 18 resulted directly from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We believe that all those changes are unobjectionable, and improve both this Bill and the Reservoirs Act 1975. We were more than happy to make the changes in the other place and we hope and expect that they will find favour in this House this evening.

I should mention briefly the issues outside the Bill on which I undertook to take further action. I undertook to address funding concerns for local authorities with the Local Government Association, and terms of reference for that work have been agreed. I also said that I would bring together the relevant interests to address concerns that had been expressed about the impact of flood risk on household insurance. I have had initial discussions with Members, including Opposition Front-Bench Members-I thank them for their courtesy in taking part-and with the Association of British Insurers with a view to having a wide-ranging discussion of this issue at a floods summit later in the year. That is indicative of the co-operative and open approach that we have taken to developing this legislation and I thank Members of this House and the other place and the bodies outside Parliament that also operated in that way. The result has been a Bill that was in very good order before it went to the other place; the scrutiny that it has received there, and the further amendments that have been made have, however, made it still stronger.

We should not lose sight of why the Bill is important. Floods can be massively disruptive to people's lives and to businesses, sometimes for a prolonged period. The events in Cumbria in the autumn were a vivid reminder of that, and climate change is likely to make both floods and droughts more frequent. The measures in this Bill will make a real and tangible difference; that is why the Government made the Bill a priority. I commend the Bill, and the amendments made to it in the other place, to the House.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome this opportunity to make my last contribution of this Parliament. I thank my small but perfectly formed Bill Committee team of two at my office-they know who they are. I also convey my thanks to the Minister for his team, the Department's team and that of the Environment Agency in preparing the Bill and these most recent amendments.

On a note of sadness, I should say that this is my last contribution of this Parliament as the MP for Vale of York. The recommissioning and redistribution of the boundaries mean that I shall, I hope, be moving to higher ground after the election.

The Minister, gracious and charming as ever, has asked the House to support the amendments, which he calls "technical amendments"-as he knows, that gets our hearts beating a little faster. I take this opportunity to ask him whether the words "under an enactment", inserted by amendments 1 and 2, have any special meaning, in this Bill and more generally. As for amendment 3, what procedure will be followed in this regard?

I understand that amendment 4 to clause 8 will be consequential to the amendments that we discussed and supported in Committee and in the remaining stages in this place. Obviously we would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the points about the Lands Tribunal and the upper tribunal.

Like the Minister, I would like to pause for a moment to talk about some of the issues to which we did not do complete justice in considering the remaining stages of the Bill in this place. He will be aware of our concerns and those of interested parties about the provisions relating to reservoirs. We remain unconvinced and would have liked the time to look at the reservoir provisions more carefully. I am sure that the Minister and the House will recognise that the provisions have serious cost implications, especially for those who have small reservoirs on farms and golf courses, and other third-party users. The increased cost of the obligations imposed is causing serious concern and alarm.

The Minister referred to adapting to climate change-or as some call it, adverse weather conditions. Across the country we have all at various times faced such weather conditions. There is a dilemma between wanting to store water to enable us to adapt to these conditions and the cost of creating more reservoirs.

I hope that, whoever forms the next Government, the House will have an opportunity to discuss a White Paper on these issues. We as a party are committed to publishing such a White Paper. The omission of food policy and food security as a material consideration in the flood risk management decision-making process is one that the Government will have cause to regret. The national and local flood risk management strategy is flawed, with too much emphasis on the Environment Agency and too many powers being given to it. We have argued that there should be much more co-operation with local communities through their elected representatives on the local authorities.

I referred earlier to the possible impact of the reservoir safety clauses on small farm reservoirs and those belonging to third parties. The Minister is aware of our ongoing concerns. I have referred to the fact that the Bill gives too much power to the Environment Agency, and to the implications of clause 38.

I should like to place on record our disappointment that the natural hazards team has not reported as widely and done as full an audit of critical infrastructure as we would have wished. We had a good debate on SUDS- either the sustainable urban drainage or the sustainable drainage systems. We still need to identify who owns them and who will be responsible for maintaining them.

We are still waiting for the publication date for the transfer of private drains-the lateral drains and sewers. This would be a good moment for the Minister to announce when the regulations and guidance will be issued. That is something on which we can perhaps campaign and have a proper debate, especially for those small privately owned drainage companies, which are largely family firms, who feel that they will lose out and that they have not been properly consulted. I hope that the Bill will put down a marker that we need regular maintenance work not just by the internal drainage boards but by the Environment Agency.

We wish the Bill well. We know that we will return to the content in some measure with a White Paper. I am delighted that the Minister has taken on board our concerns and is calling the forthcoming discussions not a floods insurance summit but a floods summit. I hope that we will have a dry period in which to campaign in the forthcoming general election. We thank all who have been involved in the Bill on both sides of the House. I know that the Minister is not planning to retire from the House so we wish him well in the campaign. I am sure that that will be reciprocated. I thank him for the gracious manner in which he has skilfully steered the Bill through.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

May I too congratulate the Minister on the successful passage of the Bill? He has done exceedingly well in steering this important Bill through the House. The other place has demonstrated its ability correctly to witness, scrutinise and improve what was already an important Bill. In my constituency-both in the city of Hereford and in Ross-on-Wye-we have seen tremendous floods that have affected people's day-to-day lives. I am grateful for the investment made in flood defence schemes in the city and in Ross-on-Wye. They are important. The Minister is right to say that these events will occur more frequently in the future as a result of climate change and global warming. The Act that we hope will be in place this evening will be a great asset and of great assistance to our nation for the future. I congratulate the Minister on his role in this.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I reciprocate the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and thank her for engagement with the issue. My officials will read the Hansard report of the debate and will read her thanks to them. They have been open and engaged and I thank them for that. I also ask the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) to take my thanks back to his colleagues for their engagement in terms of finding the best way through.

We had a great deal of debate about reservoirs. The issue has been aired in the other place, the Chamber and in Committee, but we have settled on this position as a result of consistent engineering advice based on a risk assessment approach. Partly because of our engagement with the hon. Lady and others, we have some flexibility to revisit the issue of over-capacity to take on some of her concerns.

On future legislation, we are in agreement. We see the need for additional engagement. Beyond Pitt's recommendations, we have the Cave report and Anna Walker's report and so much besides. We will have to have some consolidating legislation and I am pleased to say that we are already working up some proposals internally to try to bring forward something at the earliest opportunity. As always, this will be subject to parliamentary time but we would share the hon. Lady's aspiration to have another water Bill before the House as soon as possible.

I can confirm what I have said previously about drains: the transfer will go ahead next year. As for the regulations, I heard a whispered aside from behind me that they are in the pipeline. I can confirm that they will be available by the end of May. They are being drafted and are in a good state.

We say "enactment" in the amendments because we do not want the power to create an entirely new function. The functions should be defined in statute before the order is used to define them as risk management functions. On the Lands Tribunal and the change to the upper tribunal, other legislation has made the change, and the amendments merely reflect that.

I thank the hon. Member for Hereford for reminding us why this Bill is so important to his constituents and to others throughout the country. At the risk of making this sound like an Oscar speech, it would be remiss of me not to thank those external organisations that have engaged with us in this process, those in the other place who have added so much to the Bill, Front and Back-Bench Members, Committee members and members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who have carefully constructed the Bill. It is all a tribute to them, and to my Bill team who have unstintingly given their time and efforts to turn this into a good Bill. It will make a difference, and it will deliver Sir Michael's Pitts recommendations. There is more work to do of course, as there always is, but this is a singular step forward, and we should all be proud of the work that has gone into the Bill.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 25 agreed to.

Sitting suspended (Order, 7 April).