---

Football Supporters' Trusts

11. Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab): What progress he has made on developing fiscal incentives to aid the growth of football supporters' trusts. [172721]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): As announced in the 2004 Budget, under the review into the Inland Revenue treatment of football supporters' trusts announced in the 2003 pre-Budget report, the Government are currently examining how best to assist trusts in their valuable work in the local community, by maximising the benefits they receive from the
 
13 May 2004 : Column 469
 
contributions of their members. I know that my hon. Friend is very involved in the work of the trusts, and I thank him for his substantial contribution to the review.

Andy Burnham : I declare an interest as unpaid chair of Supporters Direct.

I thank the Paymaster General for her reply and for the commitment that she and the Chancellor have shown to helping supporters' trusts. Does she agree that in troubled times for football, one thing that has given cause for hope in recent years is the emergence of 112 supporters' trusts in England and Wales, which are not-for-profit and democratic? They have shown that there is a better way to run football clubs than the failed public limited companies and private models. In advance of the new season, will she give supporters renewed hope by creating the real incentive of an even playing field in football that is in favour of mutual ownership?

Dawn Primarolo: Football supporters' trusts play a very valuable role in giving football fans a voice in the running of their clubs within the community, especially when clubs find themselves in financial difficulties. My hon. Friend will know that the matter is complex; the issues need to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue review and all the possibilities considered. I understand that the all-party football group has also submitted evidence. Once we have considered all those issues, we need to take them forward. I certainly concur with my hon. Friend's view that it is important to ensure that football supporters' trusts are supported and enabled to
 
13 May 2004 : Column 470
 
contribute to their local communities, and that the Government address how we can assist them in that task.

Petrol Prices

12. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): What assessment he has made of the impact of increasing petrol fuel prices on the economies of rural areas. [172722]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): When making Budget decisions, all relevant economic, social and environmental factors are of course taken into account.

Mr. Carmichael: In my constituency, we are paying at least 10p per litre, and sometimes 15p per litre, more for our petrol than people in mainland communities and that is a major barrier to the competitiveness of local businesses. Does the Minister think that is fair and, if not, what does he propose to do about it?

John Healey: We take very seriously concerns about duty levels and we are also seriously concerned about world oil prices at present. We are working through the European Union—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor raised the matter this week—and through the G7 with the OPEC nations, as they seek to lower world oil prices in a controlled and stable way. The issue is much wider than simply UK duties, but we keep those closely under review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the normal, annual revalorisation of fuel duty announced in the Budget has been approved by the House, and I remind him that since 2000 the main duty rate for motorists and hauliers has in fact fallen by 6½p per litre.

 
13 May 2004 : Column 469
 

 
13 May 2004 : Column 471
 

Business of the House

12.31 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 17 May—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the security situation in Iraq, followed by a debate on local government finance. Both debates are on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

Tuesday 18 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Pensions Bill (Day One).

Wednesday 19 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Pensions Bill (Day Two).

Thursday 20 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Pensions Bill (Day Three).

Friday 21 May—Private Members Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 24 May—Remaining stages of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

Tuesday 25 May—Remaining stages of the Gender Recognition Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 26 May—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 27 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.

Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business and I should like to raise two issues.

Next week, the main business is the Pensions Bill. The all-party new clause 3 would compensate the 60,000 workers who lost their pensions after their companies went bust, and the Leader of the House knows the distress that those people have suffered. He will also know that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and Members on both sides of the House have campaigned on the issue. In fact, I led a debate on it in January 2003. According to The Times today, the Prime Minister intends to offer compensation. Can we expect a full oral statement? Will the Leader of the House comment on the very careful words that the Prime Minister used yesterday about people who had no choice about joining occupational schemes? It would be disappointing if that compensation applied only to those who had joined schemes before 1988.

I have some further questions on the Pensions Bill. We have three days next week to consider more than 100 Government amendments to the Bill and many new clauses. Why have they not yet been tabled? How are Members to consider them properly with so little time to prepare? When will they be tabled? Tomorrow? What about all the organisations outside this place which take a particular interest in pensions issues?

On Iraq, although it is welcome that the Liberal Democrats have half a day on the security situation, surely we need a full-day debate urgently in Government
 
13 May 2004 : Column 472
 
time. There are many questions unanswered. Did the Government make representations to the Americans about the rules of detention and interrogation, and if not, why not? Why was the Red Cross report with the Government for two months, but no Minister admits to being shown it? Surely, systems should be in place to ensure that an important document reaches the top, and if not, why not? Why was there no full communication between the Prime Minister, his envoy's office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence?

There are now only 48 days left before the handover of power. We want to know whether there will be further British troop deployments. To whom will the handover be made? What powers will the Iraqis have over coalition forces? Does the Leader of the House accept that there is a lack of confidence in the Government's approach, partly because of a seeming lack of planning for the peace, partly because of the appalling revelations about the mistreatment of detainees, and also because people question the basic competence of the Government? It is important that the Government explain their position. In fact, the Foreign Secretary said as much on Tuesday:

"I am happy . . . for there to be a debate on Iraq . . . it is important that I should come to the House and that the Government's position should be properly explained."—[Official Report, 11 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 150.]

When can we have a full-day debate, in Government time, on Iraq?

Mr. Hain: First, on pensions, the hon. Gentleman knows that three days have been allocated to the Pensions Bill, which is a lot of time. I agree with him in respect of the ASW workers and many others like them—they have been robbed of their pensions. That is absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable. Indeed, when I was talking to many of them on Monday in Cardiff, on a visit as Secretary of State for Wales, I made it clear that I thought it was a scandal and that it ought to be dealt with.

The Government are well aware that there is all-party concern. The relevant Cardiff MPs in respect of ASW have been campaigning consistently, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) deserves a great deal of credit for that. The Government are determined to resolve the issue in a way that does not provide a read-across to possibly billions of pounds falling on the taxpayer from other claims that do not fall into that category, where workers have been robbed of their pensions, to which they had contributed over many years—perhaps 28 years, as one worker told me on Monday. That is just unacceptable—after all, pensions are deferred wages—so we are determined to resolve the issue, and when we are ready to do so an announcement will be made. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a full oral statement, there will be three days of debate on the Pensions Bill. There will be plenty of time in which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Ministers can explain how the Government are proceeding on this matter.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about 100 Government amendments. The Government are always anxious to provide proper time for Government amendments to be considered. This is a hugely complex issue and I am sure that he will agree that the priority is
 
13 May 2004 : Column 473
 
to get it absolutely right. We are responding to a number of issues that were quite properly raised in Committee, to ensure that the Bill is sound and improved.

On Iraq, the hon. Gentleman asks for a full-day debate in Government time. There will be a half-day debate, provided by the Liberal Democrats, as I have announced, on Monday. I should have thought that that would take us further. The Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on Monday, the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces is appearing immediately after these business questions. There has also been plenty of opportunity to question Ministers on Iraq for many months.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the handover. I am sure that he will want to support the Government and the coalition in ensuring that the handover goes as smoothly as possible, because it is absolutely critical that the Iraqi governing council is able to take whatever steps it can to establish Iraqi control and Iraqi rule over the whole of Iraq, which will lead to elections and a proper Government being established. It would be far more important and far more legitimate if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, instead of trying to score all sorts of points, backed British forces in Iraq and backed the very difficult job that the Government are doing with our coalition partners to establish stability and security in Iraq, and to enable the Iraqis, for the very first time for a generation at least, to govern themselves free from fear and insecurity, with their democratic rights underpinned.

---