Commons Sitting of 30 April 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 7 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Livestock Movements
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What recent discussions she has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the effects of the six-day rule on agriculture, with particular reference to effects upon agricultural shows and festivals; and if she will make a statement. [109785]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular bilateral meetings with ministerial colleagues and, of course, with the First Minister. They cover a number of issues, including agriculture. The six-day rule has freed up the movement of livestock while ensuring that risks to animal health are kept to an absolute minimum.
    Mr. Llwyd: I see from today's Order Paper that the Secretary of State is referred to as female. Perhaps I can understand the Table Office misunderstanding which party he stands for. He is new Labour here and very old Labour in Neath. However, to question his gender is another thing.
    The people of Wales have been waiting for months and months for the six-day rule to be adapted. Agricultural fairs will be ruined in the coming months, and many will be cancelled. That is ruinous for agriculture, bad for the rural economy and terrible for morale. Is it no wonder that the people of rural Wales will reject Labour tomorrow?
    Mr. Touhig: Saying that Labour will be rejected in Wales tomorrow is about as convincing as recruiting Attila the Hun to the peace corps. However, I have
    280
    sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says about the six-day rule. The veterinary advice that we have is strongly against providing additional exemptions to the rule. It is felt that adding further options would make it more complex. The six-day standstill strikes a balance between allowing industry to operate efficiently and preventing further outbreaks of the disease, and that is what we all want. However, I recognise the impact that the rule is having on small agricultural shows.
    Paul Flynn: Should not the Minister disregard the manic hyperbole from Plaid Cymru and consider the reasons why foot and mouth spread in this country in a way that it did not spread in Holland, France, Ireland or Scotland? It spread because of excessive and unnecessary movements in which more than 1 million animals were in contact with foot and mouth before the disease was detected. Is it not right that non-essential movements of animals should be restricted not only to ensure that any future outbreak of foot and mouth is confined to a small area, but to guard against other animal diseases such as blue tongue virus and swine vesicular disease?
    Mr. Touhig: I take note of my hon. Friend's point, but I reiterate the advice that we have been given by veterinary officials. The six-day rule is appropriate and strikes a proper balance between the risks. We certainly do not want to return to the problems that we had a few months ago.
    Lembit Öpik: Answers to my parliamentary questions show that the ban on on-farm burial of fallen stock, which is to come in tonight, is not based on solid evidence. Given that the Government have not researched the risk assessment regarding that method, are they and the Minister willing to respond to representations from representatives of Welsh farming about the fallen stock regime that it would like to see? Can he assure us that the Government will show flexibility in the months ahead in their proposed new scheme, given the uncertainties that we all know exist?
    Mr. Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman says, the European Union legislation comes into force tonight and tomorrow. It will ban routine on-farm burial and the burning of animal carcases. My colleagues in the Assembly continue to work on a national fallen stock scheme, but I will certainly accept the representations to which he refers and make sure that they are passed on to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the National Assembly.

    Excluded Pupils
    Mr. Wayne David: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the numbers of permanently excluded pupils from secondary schools in Wales. [109786]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Minister and I regularly meet the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to discuss a range of educational issues.
    Mr. David: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that the largest percentage of excluded pupils in any area in Wales is in the Caerphilly county borough where the local authority is nationalist controlled? Does he also share my concern that many of those excluded pupils are on the streets of the borough engaging in antisocial behaviour because the local authority does not provide adequate alternative educational provision?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point, and I deeply regret the fact that the borough that he and I share, which is run by the Welsh nationalist party, has one of the highest figures for exclusion in Wales. The average figure for Wales is 1.7 per cent.
    However, I want to make it clear that my colleagues in the Assembly are putting together a package of £500,000 for the next three years in which they are looking to pilot projects to establish the causes of pupil disengagement. My hon. Friend is right to say that youngsters who are excluded from school cause antisocial nuisance problems right throughout our borough. I made that point when I spoke at the NUT Cymru dinner at Harrogate recently. I believe that we have to work hard, as the Government are doing, in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly in Cardiff to ensure that we put in the resources to tackle the problem. I also believe that it starts in the home. Parents have a responsibility to see that their children go to school.

    Youth Offending
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent representations he has received on measures to address youth offending in Wales. [109787]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I have received representations from a number of sources.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for his usual enlightening reply. Will he comment on the statement made by Edwina Hart that has come to light during the recent campaign in Wales? She said:
    "The public sector in Wales does not provide any drug and alcohol rehabilitation places".

    In light of the fact that drug-related crime has increased by 13 per cent. in Wales during the past year and given that youth offending is unfortunately part of that culture, what will he do to ensure that drug rehabilitation places that are funded by the public sector will be available in every part of Wales?
    Peter Hain: I was with the Home Secretary in Cynon Valley a few months ago to take forward an extra investment of several hundreds of thousands of pounds precisely to deal with the drug programme: not only clamping down on drug traffickers but dealing with
    282
    rehabilitation. There is record investment throughout Wales as a result of the extra investment and spending that the Labour Government are putting into Wales.
    Alan Howarth: While I strongly endorse what the Government are doing to prioritise the tackling of antisocial behaviour, may I ask them through my right hon. Friend to ensure that resources are available to enable the police to provide more uniformed foot patrols in areas that are especially afflicted by antisocial behaviour and that antisocial behaviour orders may be speedily made and, once made, upheld?
    Peter Hain: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Wales has one of the first pilots on antisocial behaviour, which is taking the agenda forward. The Government are determined to clamp down on antisocial behaviour. It is a real plague in many of our communities in Wales: on estates and elsewhere in many of our valley communities and throughout the nation. That is why our anti-crime and antisocial behaviour strategies are being implemented, and we should receive more support from Opposition parties for our work to clamp down on the problem.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State for Wales knows that persistent youth offending has shot up by 58 per cent. and that more young people are the victims of crime themselves. Only proper funding will sort out the problem. The chief of Dyfed-Powys police force has complained about the switching of funds from rural parts of Wales to large urban areas in England. Was he not right to say that the inane, reassuring Home Office press releases stating that funding is sufficient should be entered for the Booker prize for fiction? If the Government ever capture the Iraqi information Minister, perhaps they can employ him to read out some of those press releases. When will they ensure that proper funding for our rural areas of Wales is achieved?
    Peter Hain: That was very well rehearsed, was it not? The charge comes from a Conservative party that would cut spending by 20 per cent. right across the board.
    Mr. Evans: Rubbish.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman says rubbish, but let me quote the Leader of the Opposition from 30 December 2002:
    "20 per cent. savings across the board in Government spending …That's what we're looking at".
    What would that mean for crime in Wales? Nearly 1,400 police officers would be sacked. There would be 20 per cent. cuts to the police force at a time when our Labour Government have been responsible for the recruitment of 600 extra police officers. The Leader of the Opposition visited Cardiff and south Wales last week to campaign for the Conservative party. A passer-by—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will leave it at that.
    Albert Owen: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that one of the most effective

    283
    ways in which to deal with youth offending is to empower young people in their communities? Will he join me in congratulating the community first programme in my constituency which has several young people-led projects that are reaping dividends and giving ownership to young people in their communities? Does he agree that only the return of a Labour Government in Wales on Thursday will ensure that we have the sustainable financing for such programmes?
    Peter Hain: Yes. I was in Holyhead in my hon. Friend's constituency on Monday morning, and there are many excellent projects to tackle antisocial behaviour. I was also in the constituency of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), yesterday where an important project involving community safety wardens is taking place as a result of record investment from the Labour Government in partnership with the Labour-led Welsh Assembly. After 1 May, majority Labour control of the Assembly will allow us to take that programme forward.

    Financial Support (Business)
    Richard Younger-Ross: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on financial assistance for Welsh companies. [109789]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Regular ones.
    Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Secretary of State for such an insightful and helpful response.
    Although I wish the First Secretary of the National Assembly every success in creating jobs for workers in Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman raise the concerns of my constituents who work for Aircraft Materials Ltd. who face redundancy because the company is relocating to Wales with the help of regional selective assistance from the Welsh Assembly? When he meets the First Secretary will he tell him that it is a waste of taxpayers' money to move jobs from one part of the UK to another—and to stop poaching English jobs?
    Peter Hain: The answer to that is an emphatic no. The alternative plan for Aircraft Materials Ltd., which is a US-owned company, was to locate the jobs in the United States. Under the rules applied rigorously and scrupulously for regional selective assistance, we were able to safeguard those jobs and increase them in the rest of the UK instead of allowing them to be exported to the US. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, although I understand his concern as a constituency Member of Parliament.
    Denzil Davies: Although Corus is not a Welsh company, it has a substantial presence in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend assure not only the First Secretary but all of us that should Corus ask the
    284
    Government for financial assistance, it will not be ruled out, given that it would be unthinkable for Britain, and Wales in particular, to be without a steel industry?
    Peter Hain: I agree with my right hon. Friend and we will consider what we can do, both through the National Assembly and elsewhere, to ensure that we have the most competitive and excellent steel-making company in Britain, including, of course, Wales.
    The Corus announcement yesterday was excellent news for Port Talbot. There are to be an extra 35-plus jobs and a huge investment to increase production from 3.7 million to 4.7 million extra tonnage. At least the reduction in jobs at Llanwern was relatively small. Obviously it was unwelcome given that the Llanwern workers have been battered and bruised over so many years by Corus. It was good at least to see a secure and sustainable future for both Llanwern and Port Talbot. That will have the full support of the Labour Assembly and a Labour Government.
    Adam Price: On a number of occasions over the past nine months, I have written to Assembly Government officials drawing attention to the alleged financial irregularities at Elev8, a call centre based in my constituency that the Secretary of State recently visited. The company went into receivership yesterday, with a loss of more than 60 jobs. Is not that yet more evidence of the failure of the Labour-Liberal Administration to bring jobs to all parts of Wales? What does the future hold for the Amman valley, which he and I represent?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman really should stick to the facts and stop relying on smears. The truth is that unemployment in his constituency has been cut significantly. Employment across Wales increased by nearly 60,000 last year. He should be attacking the unemployment in the Tory years rather than Labour's efforts to increase jobs because we have cut unemployment substantially.
    I did visit the call centre and what has happened is regrettable, but the fact is that new jobs are being created all the time in our valley constituencies and right across Wales. The hon. Gentleman should stop talking down Wales and support the investment and efforts that are being made to start-up businesses all over the country.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If financial assistance is given by the Welsh Assembly to companies such as Corus, what assurances can the Secretary of State give us that that money will be used to secure Welsh jobs, and that it will not go into the pockets of fat cat directors to further enrich themselves and sacrifice workers throughout Britain?
    Peter Hain: As far as I am aware, Corus has not asked for any support in terms of extra grant aid or any other facility that could be approved by the Welsh Assembly or by the Department of Trade and Industry, but no doubt we would consider such a request if it came. My hon. Friend is right. There is a revolt by shareholders and pension fund representatives at the way that representatives and directors who have failed in their jobs often walk away with huge bonanzas. That is not

    285
    acceptable, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is examining the matter. With reference to the workers who are to lose their jobs at Corus, that is a particular attack on their rights, and it must not be allowed to continue.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: With regard to Welsh business's lack of growth, is it not the case that the Government are the problem, not the solution? We have had the national insurance tax increases that have just clobbered Welsh businesses, the climate change levy, the landfill tax, fuel tax increases, business tax increases and red tape that means, on average, 15 new regulations on business every working day. It is no wonder that we have seen some huge job losses in Wales since the Government came to power. When will the Government get off the back of business and give it a chance?
    Peter Hain: When will the hon. Gentleman rely on facts instead of rhetoric? That is the question. Let us look at the facts. Three thousand more businesses were created in Wales last year. There has been a higher startup rate of businesses than in any other region of the United Kingdom, owing to Labour's support policies for Welsh businesses. There is a lower failure rate of businesses than in any other region of the United Kingdom, owing to the support that the Labour Government are putting into the Welsh economy. That is a record to be proud of, compared with the Tory record of record bankruptcies, record high unemployment and record collapse in manufacturing across Wales.
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State says, "Let us look at the facts", so let us do so. We have had Welsh agriculture on its knees under the present Government, and Welsh manufacturing has been decimated. It is incredibly difficult to get objective 1 money because it is so difficult for small businesses to work through all the red tape. The Federation of Small Businesses chairman, Gwyn Evans, has stated that public liability insurance premiums are crippling small businesses because they have shot up in price. One beneficiary of the insurance increases that are crippling business is the Government, who take a percentage of the premiums in tax. While the Chancellor is laughing all the way to the bank, do the Government feel no embarrassment about their windfall tax gain, or do they just consider it a nice little earner, like all their other stealth taxes?
    Peter Hain: What would happen to Welsh businesses that are in receipt of a great deal of grant aid and support from the National Assembly and the Government when the Tories cut spending on Welsh businesses by 20 per cent.? There would be massive, savage cuts in support for businesses right across Wales. What have we done for small businesses? We have abolished stamp duty to cut the cost of property purchases in areas of Wales, we have enhanced appreciation allowances to cut the cost of land clearance and tackling dereliction, and there is the prospect of enhanced capital allowances to cut the cost of initial investment, and community investment tax relief to cut the cost of risk capital. The Government are friends of business, creating more businesses and more jobs in
    286
    Wales than ever before. A record level of employment was created last year, with a 60,000 rise in employment in Wales as a result of the Government's excellent policies.

    Tourism
    Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the tourism policy for Wales. [109790]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Tourism is a major contributor to the Welsh economy. It contributes some £2 billion per annum and provides employment for around 100,000 people in Wales.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that the Welsh tourist industry is protected from the SARS virus, which is spreading across the world? That needs to be taken into consideration, especially after the Government's handling of the foot and mouth crisis.
    Peter Hain: Advice has been issued to schools and colleges in Wales on pupils returning from infected areas, and we are following the policy recommended by the World Health Organisation to the letter, making sure that the issue is treated responsibly, but without raising unnecessary alarm, and that has resulted in a situation where just six cases have been reported—none in Wales—and all of those are on the road to recovery.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend recall the hugely successful eurozone experiment at Llangollen's musical eisteddfod last year, and does he agree that early entry into the European monetary system would help and enhance tourism throughout Wales?
    Peter Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his experiment at the international musical eisteddfod in Llangollen last year. I shall be visiting the festival this July and I look forward to a similar experience. Obviously, the United Kingdom will benefit from joining the euro when the economic circumstances are right, and that is why we shall not rush into this recklessly, but will do so carefully, after the Chancellor has made his economic assessment, and only if that economic assessment is positive.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with colleagues in the National Assembly Government on the impact of the winter fuel payments on pensioners in Wales. [109791]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): At a meeting before the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that 117,600 households in Wales with someone aged over 80 would benefit from an additional £100 winter fuel allowance on top of the existing £200.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional £100 for the over-80s on top of the

    287
    £200 original winter fuel payment, the pension credit and free local transport in Wales for pensioners will ensure that every pensioner in Wales will turn out and re-elect a Labour-led Administration in tomorrow's ballot?
    Peter Hain: I am sure that that will be the case. We know that the Tories would scrap the winter fuel allowance and cut all the extra support that we have provided for pensioners, including free television licences for the over-75s. In respect of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chapman.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the Dee estuary. [109792]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Chapman: The Dee estuary is a place where significant industrial activity sits alongside extremely important environmental sites, and the cockle fishing industry is a significant commercial activity, with equally significant ecological implications. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging that for the next cockle fishing season we have a more strictly controlled issue of licences, and that in the longer term we have a regulatory order that balances the interests of all sides of the argument?
    Mr. Touhig: I support my hon. Friend in encouraging sustainable development of this activity, but control and management of the Dee cockle fishery is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, which has proposed putting in place a regulatory order to manage the cockle beds, including licensing a much smaller number of gatherers. That is now being considered by Ministers at DEFRA and at the Assembly, and at the appropriate time they will submit a formal application.

    Agriculture
    Angela Watkinson: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales regarding agriculture in Wales. [109793]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Minister and I meet the Assembly Agriculture Minister and DEFRA Ministers to discuss a variety of issues, including the future of agriculture in Wales.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister will appreciate the importance of agricultural shows in helping to restore the fortunes of livestock farming in Wales, many of which take place within a few days of one another, and the six-day rule for the movement of animals will cause a serious problem with a reduction in the number of
    288
    exhibits, rendering some of them unviable. Will the Minister consider making an exception to the movement of animals to agricultural shows in Wales this year?
    Mr. Touhig: I understand the hon. Lady's point, which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made earlier, but the veterinary advice that I have is strongly against providing any exemptions to the six-day rule. The view is that the rule provides the best balance between ensuring a limited amount of animal movement and protecting the industry from future problems of the sort that have beset it in the past year or so, so I cannot really offer any hope that that can change.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the Prime Minister read this week's report, "Sustainable Communities in the South East" from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, and note this remark in the summary:
    "The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, has not been fully assessed"?
    Why are these houses being imposed on the south-east by central Government and why are the councillors who are being elected tomorrow so unfit to make those decisions for themselves?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall study the report, but the hon. Gentleman will know that it is important that we increase the number of houses to supply houses for people to live in. He will also know that we have tried to ensure that those developments happen in particular areas. I do not think that it is either right or responsible to suggest that, whatever Government were in power, we would not still want to proceed with a housebuilding programme. What we are doing, however, is proceeding in a much more controlled way with a much higher percentage of development on brownfield sites than on greenfield sites. We have increased the amount of area in the green belt.
    Mr. John McFall: The Prime Minister will be aware of the report of the Select Committee on Treasury on Europe and the UK, which was published this week and provides for the first time a comprehensive and balanced study of the issue. It says that, whatever decision is taken, there will be risks, opportunities, costs and benefits, but inaction in itself will be a powerful

    289
    decision. Given that the UK is at the bottom of the league in terms of public knowledge and understanding, can he assist by indicating where the euro features in his political agenda?
    The Prime Minister: First, I welcome the report of my hon. Friend's Committee, which I think was an excellent contribution to the debate. He will have to wait for the outcome of the tests, which will be published by the Government in due course, within the time limit that we have set. I have no doubt at all that that will then stimulate a very lively debate in the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the primary school governor who said:
    "our most needy children … stand to lose most"
    from the way in which the Government have fixed school funding?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree that there are obviously schools in London and elsewhere that are facing particular problems at the moment. We are looking urgently into whether the money that has been allocated to local education authorities has been passed on properly to schools, but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, in cash terms, there is an almost 12 per cent. increase for our education system in this country. Of course, it is better that we increase the investment going to our schools rather than have a 20 per cent. cut in schools investment across the board.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Those are the words of Fiona Millar, one of the Prime Minister's closest Downing street advisers. She did not do what he has just done and blame councils; she blamed the Government. Just like thousands of teachers, parents and governors, they know that he has been in power for six years and that he is to blame. But if he does not agree with her, does he agree with the deputy head who said:
    "There are major budget problems right here in schools in Mr. Miliband's constituency. He should come to schools here if he doesn't believe it"?
    Well, does the Prime Minister believe her?
    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that there are problems for particular schools and in particular local education authority areas. On Friday, we will publish an analysis of exactly what money has gone to local education authorities and how it has been used. The one thing that is undeniable, since he raised the issue of the six years of this Government, is that we have put more money and investment into our schools than ever before. Indeed, since we are quoting individual constituencies, let me quote his for a moment. In the past few years, it has received an extra £770 per pupil in Waltham Forest. It now has a £200 million project to deliver improvements to all 92 schools in Waltham Forest. The number of infants in class sizes of more than 30 has fallen from 1,000 to nothing in Waltham Forest, and it has the best primary school results and GCSE results that it has ever
    290
    had. That is all as a result of six years of Labour Government, with every penny piece of that investment opposed by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: May I just say to the Prime Minister that in my area, the authorities are proposing to cut three special needs schools that have run out of money because of the Government? Before he starts making claims, he should find out the facts. He should listen to somebody else—Dame Jean Else, who is not just any head teacher, but the head of one of his flagship schools, whom he personally honoured. She says that she would rather resign than sack any teachers and see her school suffer. As heads like her up and down the country have to make decisions about sacking teachers, will the Prime Minister tell the House how many extra bureaucrats he has employed at the Department for Education and Skills since he became Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman the number of bureaucrats. I can tell him, however, the number of extra full-time equivalent teachers that we have had since this Government came to power—it is 25,000. If it is correct, as he says, that schools have problems—I have accepted that there are obviously schools with certain problems—the answer to those problems is not to cut back on the investment that they have received. The fact of the matter is that none of the investment that is now going into schools up and down the country would be happening if we adopted the policy that he advocates and made a 20 per cent. cut in services across the board. That is the Conservative policy, which would be a disaster for our schools. It may well be that some schools want more money, but his policies would mean less money.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer to the question is that the number of bureaucrats in the Department for Education and Skills has grown by 25 per cent. since 1997. It is the usual story: under this Government—under Labour Governments—bureaucrats do well. The extra money that the Government have given to schools, as he says, is money that he has taken away through extra taxation and changes to pension requirements—money that is taken away with the other hand. With council taxes up 60 per cent. and school services being cut across the country, is it not the real case that Labour tax more, waste more and deliver less?
    The Prime Minister: Just take our school system—it is indisputable that over the past few years we have had the best primary school results that the country has ever seen; we have had the best GCSE results that the country has ever seen; we have had extra investment going into school buildings and schools in every constituency; and we have had 25,000 extra teachers. So the real distinction is this: yes, of course, people will always want even more money, but we are putting record investment into our schools, and if people vote for the Conservatives they are voting for a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut in services. That is the simple truth that he cannot deny.
    Vera Baird: Yesterday, Corus announced that Redcar steelworks is to be disaggregated from the rest of the firm and will have to sell its raw steel in a

    291
    steeply competitive world market. I can tell the House that that will be very hard indeed. We reacted positively by setting up a group of stakeholders—the regional development agency, the local council and other local enterprises—to work with Corus to look for a solution. The Prime Minister needs no reminder that if we fail and the plant closes, the number of jobs lost will probably be 12,000 or more. Teesside workers are very staunch in adversity. May I ask the Prime Minister, firstly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Lady is not in the law courts. She should ask just one question.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for the advice, Mr. Speaker, but this is obviously a big issue. I must ask the Prime Minister first, secondly, and altogether: can we have all the help that the Government can give in our fight for survival, and will he take a personal interest in these excellent workers who are threatened on the doorstep of his constituency?
    The Prime Minister: I would like to express my sympathy to any of my hon. and learned Friend's constituents and those of other hon. Members who may lose their jobs as a result of the closure that has been announced. The Department of Trade and Industry is in touch with the company, the work force and Dutch counterparts. We will do everything to minimise the impact. I know from my constituency experience that when jobs are lost, the Government have the ability through Jobcentre Plus and the Department for Work and Pensions to put in place a programme of rapid response to try to ensure that people are helped into other jobs. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that that full service will be available in her constituency.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that the hundreds of thousands of families who have not received the benefits to which they are entitled because of the Government's bungled reform of the child tax credit system will all be compensated by the end of next week?
    The Prime Minister: Those applications are being processed as quickly as possible. Millions of people have already received the benefits to which they are entitled and we will make sure that those who are eligible for the entitlement receive it as quickly as possible. I point out that hundreds of thousands of families will gain enormously as a result of the changes.
    Mr. Kennedy: That is less categorical than the assurances that the Paymaster General gave in the House only on Monday. Thousands of families with children are suffering now because the money is not coming through. When people are late paying their tax, the Revenue is quick to impose penalties. Is the Prime Minister considering recompensing people in the same way?
    The Prime Minister: I stand entirely by what the Paymaster General said on Monday. Some 2 million claims have been processed this week and we are making every effort to deal with the new system as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman should understand
    292
    that, in the end, it will enormously benefit millions of families throughout the country. There have been difficulties with processing some of the claims and we shall resolve them as quickly as possible.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I remind the Prime Minister of his written parliamentary reply on 19 December 2001 to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), in which he reaffirmed the doctrine of his predecessor, Lord Wilson, that no Members of Parliament would have their telephones tapped? Will he comment on the fact that the telephone conversations of Jonathan Powell with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and the then right hon. Member for Redcar were tapped? The Prime Minister said that he would make an exceptional statement to the House if and when any Member of Parliament's telephone was tapped. It is not a question of personality but of principle: Members of Parliament's telephones should not be tapped. The Prime Minister is in charge of the security and intelligence services; they have been insubordinate and are not subject to proper control and scrutiny by this place.
    The Prime Minister: I understand why my hon. Friend raises the issue. I simply say that I reconfirm the Wilson doctrine but I do not and will not comment on security matters.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. John Burnett: I have given notice of my question to the Prime Minister's office. More than 1,000 jobs in my constituency depend on Appledore Shipbuilders. It is the last commercial shipyard in the country. Worldwide commercial shipbuilding is in deep recession and Appledore is fast running out of work. The shipyard has nearly secured a contract to build a large offshore construction vessel. There is considerable equity in the project, but the banks have demanded a Government loan guarantee. Such guarantees are available to our European Union and other competitors. The company has been in negotiations for a guarantee with the Department of Trade and Industry for a long time. Will the Prime Minister give us his support so that we get the loan guarantee and the contract as soon as possible? We shall use plenty of British steel in the process.
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his question. The Government are well aware of the long-standing importance of Appledore Shipbuilders to the local economy and recognise the difficulties that the company experiences. I know that the hon. Gentleman has made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions. The hon. Gentleman knows that discussions about the orders that are being sought are commercially sensitive. They are currently taking place and it would not be right for me to disclose the details of the outcome of the deliberations. However, I assure him that those making the decisions will listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and that the company will be

    293
    weighed in the balance with others that are bidding for the work. We understand the importance of the home credit scheme; approximately £120 million has been made available to the sector as a result of it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are doing everything possible to help his company.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I would like to place on record an appreciation of the Herculean efforts that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach are making to establish peace in all Ireland and to re-establish the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister give the House a brief assessment of the current situation, and a confirmation that the elections will take place on 29 May? Further, in his assessment of the assurances of non-violence, will he take it on board that violence is occurring on a day-to-day basis? In my small home town last week, two people were shot, and three families were evicted by republican paramilitaries. The same is being done by loyalist paramilitaries. Words will not be adequate in these circumstances; action, and proof of action, is what is required to underpin our democracy.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks for an assessment of the situation: it is fraught and difficult for the very reason that he has just given. There can be no question of reconstituting the Government in Northern Ireland, as everyone wants to see, unless not only are the undertakings clearly given but the actions follow those undertakings. That is why we have proposed a system in which we ensure that people cannot engage in paramilitary violence or activity if they wish to be associated with any party that is in government in Northern Ireland, and in which we have a proper system of verification and sanctions in respect of people who breach that undertaking. I very much hope that we can still make progress, but time is obviously running out for this. The whole basic principle of the Good Friday agreement is that we implement what is in it on the basis that everyone is committed to exclusively peaceful means. Until we can be clear on that, there is not a basis for reconstituting the Government in Northern Ireland.
    Simon Hughes: Does the Prime Minister really believe that the council tax system that he inherited from the Conservatives is the fairest way of raising money for local government services, and that the bills that people have just received are fair costs for the services delivered at local level?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that there is an extensive debate about the best way to conduct local authority taxation. Whatever system we have has its flaws, and this is obviously a system that we inherited. I have to say, however, that even if we look at the alternative systems, those who advocate them are not always willing to be very open about their implications. Indeed, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me this opportunity; I was hoping that I might get it from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). It has to be said that the briefing note from the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the council elections raises the issue—in addition to the
    294
    fact that the average council tax is lower in Labour areas, let me say—of the local income tax, which is part of the Liberal programme. It states that
    "we are happy to say we would expect an average of around 3 per cent.",
    in terms of the increase in income tax as a result of that policy. The briefing then goes on to say:
    "however, we don't want to be drawn extensively into this".
    [Laughter.] So, I think that it is now time for the Liberal Democrats, having started the debate, to lead it on this issue.
    Helen Jones: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when crime is falling but the fear of crime is rising, it is important that policing should provide reassurance to the public? Will he therefore congratulate the police community action team based at Risley in my constituency, whose commitment to community policing has brought about a significant reduction in nuisance and antisocial behaviour in that area? Will he also assure the rest of my constituents, who do not yet have the benefit of such teams, that his Government will encourage the spread of this form of community policing and will ensure that it is properly funded?
    The Prime Minister: We will encourage the spread of that community policing. It is extremely important and I congratulate those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have made such a difference on antisocial behaviour. Of course, the new legislation that is coming up, both on the criminal justice system and in the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, will give us an opportunity across the House to take action on an issue that is of enormous importance to our constituents. That is why I hope that the Bill, when it is introduced, will receive support from every quarter of the House. It will allow the police to impose the penalties that they want, and allow us to bring people who transgress and commit antisocial behaviour to court quickly and to have the right range of penalties so that those people are dealt with properly.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On the issue of European defence, the Prime Minister said to the House that
    "it would be a tragic mistake … if Britain opted out of the debate on European defence and left the field to others."—[Official Report, 13 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 22]
    Yesterday, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg met to discuss European defence. Why was not Britain involved?
    The Prime Minister: For a very simple reason: four countries were involved yesterday and 11 were not. We are part of the 11.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The reality of not being involved with the others, as the Prime Minister rightly says, is the fact that he started this whole process at St. Malo years ago. He now has seen and will witness the fact that he has become a spectator while others shape the Euro

    295
    army to break NATO, so he has no one to blame but himself. It is clear from yesterday that the Germans want a separate budget, that the Belgians want a separate headquarters—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The French want nothing to do with the Americans at all, so if that is the case, does the Prime Minister not agree that he started this and that it was his big idea? He kick-started it and now they are driving off without him.
    The Prime Minister: No. The very reason why the meeting was held yesterday is that those countries were not satisfied with our initiative, which tied European defence to NATO. That is precisely why they felt the need to do what they did yesterday. That is why it was not a good idea for us to be there. [Interruption.] Actually, the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that we should not have been there. [Interruption.] Yes. So we are in agreement, and that is a very good thing. [Laughter.] I have been a bit short of that recently.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The Prime Minister will no doubt have read the early-day motion standing in my name, which has been signed by a couple of Liberal Democrat colleagues, supporting the excellent work by the Electoral Commission in the "Who Cares?" campaign, which is trying to encourage turnout in the Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections. Does he share my disappointment that no nationalist or Conservative Member has seen fit to support it? One might suspect that they have an interest in keeping the turnout down.
    The Prime Minister: I simply say that, obviously, in the Welsh Assembly elections there is, as my hon. Friend indicates, a fundamental choice between either continuing with the Welsh Executive as constituted at present—they are looking after the interests of people in Wales—or waking up on Friday to the potential of a nationalist Executive who would do enormous damage and wreck Wales. They would end up with people being on a path towards separation of Wales from the United Kingdom. That is the one policy that the nationalists stand for, and therefore the one policy that they do not want to talk about.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: In my constituency, our schools are short of money, the tax credits are a shambles and remain unpaid, we have a failing hospital and we are short of 200 police officers. What my constituents want to know, Prime Minister, is this: given that we are paying more taxes, why, under your Government, does nothing work?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that there have been no results from the extra investment, but I have to say to him that, according to the figures that I have, in Hertfordshire local education authority,
    296
    which is his education authority, there are 500 more teachers. The number of infants in classes of over 30 is down from 11,500 in 1997 to under 400 today. The best results that his LEA has ever achieved in primary schools and in GCSEs were achieved under this Government.
    Mr. Prisk: You are starving them of money.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that we are starving them of money. I totally understand why people will always want more money going into health and education, but we have put a substantial amount in, and might I remind him that that investment—every penny of it—has been opposed by him? So when he is talking to his constituents, he may well make his criticisms of the Government, but perhaps he will then go on to explain why a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut would help.
    Tony Cunningham: I welcome the Government's commitment to improving access to higher education, but the problem for many of my constituents is that the nearest university is nearly a hundred miles away. A report that is due to be published soon deals with the provision of degree-level university courses in Cumbria. May I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in the report, which is vital to the people of west Cumbria?
    The Prime Minister: I will take an interest. I believe that Sir Brian Fender's report will be published shortly. Obviously decisions on funding must be made by the Higher Education Funding Council, but I know that my hon. Friend has made a very powerful case.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: If it eventually transpires that at the time of our invasion Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening this country, and that the Prime Minister led this country into war on the basis of a false assumption, will he resign?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, having refused to engage in all sorts of speculations, I refuse to engage in them now. Let me tell him, however, that I am absolutely convinced and confident about the case on weapons of mass destruction. I simply suggest this to him, and to others who believe that somehow this was all a myth invented by us: I refer them first of all to the 12 years of United Nations reports detailing exactly what weapons of mass destruction were held by the then Iraqi regime. We are now, in a deliberative and considered way, investigating the various sites, and we will produce the analysis and the results of that investigation in due course. I think that when we do so, the hon. Gentleman and others will be eating some of their words.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will he resign?
    Phil Sawford: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the four Labour-controlled councils in Northamptonshire have set the lowest tax increases this year, and that the three Conservative councils have set the highest? With local elections taking place tomorrow, has he any advice for voters in Northamptonshire?
    Hon. Members: Vote Labour!
    The Prime Minister: Vote Labour: that is the advice.
    It is true that the average council tax is higher in Conservative than in Labour areas. That is one very important part of this. But it is also important, obviously, that we continue the additional investment in our local communities. That investment is supported by the Government—the extra help given to pensioners and other people in our local communities who need it. We can either keep that investment and that help for people, or we can take it out with the Conservatives' 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts.
    David Burnside: If and when the Northern Ireland Assembly election takes place on 29 May, and if the Provisional IRA has not totally stood down its full terrorist and criminal organisation and all its activities that make it impossible for my party, the Ulster Unionist party, to join a power-sharing Executive with it, will the Prime Minister encourage and support
    298
    the formation of a cross-community Executive so that we in Northern Ireland can benefit from the advantages of devolution?
    The Prime Minister: At the moment we are trying to ensure that everyone moves forward, and I hope that everyone does. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not think it very helpful or sensible to speculate on the circumstances in which people refuse to move forward with others.
    I made the speech that I made last October to indicate that people understood that there might be a period of transition: that political parties associated with paramilitary groups might make the transition from being parties prepared to have violence in one hand and political activity in the other to being parties committed to exclusively peaceful means. That period of transition is over. What must happen now, if the Government are to be reconstituted and to have any of the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, is a complete cessation of all paramilitary activity of whatever nature, followed by a process enabling us to put all the arms in Northern Ireland beyond use. Every single party must be committed to that. If the parties are not committed to that, it will be very difficult to reconstitute the Northern Ireland Government in the way that we want.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will accept—they have been very brave in the decisions that they have taken—that the Northern Ireland peace process has delivered an immense amount to the people of Northern Ireland. But we have reached the point of decision, where we need, as I have said before, acts of completion, and those acts have to be absolutely definitive for us to make progress now.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's the Chancellor off to?"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer may want to listen to this point of order, of which I have notified him. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting a point of order.
Mr. Howard: In your careful perusal, Mr. Speaker, of the 447 pages of the Finance Bill and the 659 unnumbered pages of the first volume of explanatory notes, you will, I am sure, have been absolutely astonished to come across a reference, in the note to clause 130, to the basic rate of income tax being 20 per cent. Is it not absolutely astonishing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know the basic rate of income tax?
We already know that the Chancellor got all his forecasts wrong; that Customs and Excise is in chaos; that the implementation of the right hon. Gentleman's tax credit policy has resulted in a shambles; and that up to 1.7 million family firms are uncertain of their tax liability. Does not this latest example add further to the Chancellor's growing reputation for incompetence?
Now that this vital document has been shown to be completely lacking in credibility, will you, Sir, undertake to instruct the Chancellor to review all its other figures and to report the findings of that review to this House before Second Reading of the Finance Bill next Tuesday?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The explanatory notes on the Finance Bill are entirely the responsibility of the Treasury. It is for the Government to determine how this matter can be corrected, which I am sure they will wish to do. Ministers will have heard what has been said and will no doubt take steps to ensure that the information provided to this House is accurate.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not see how there can be anything further to that point of order—I have been so clear in my answer.
Mr. Bercow: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you, and I seek your guidance. In
300
view of the importance of establishing the facts and correcting the record as quickly as possible, would it not be very useful if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were to step up to the Dispatch Box to explain the position, correct the error and wholeheartedly apologise to this House?
Mr. Speaker: That would be no more useful than the hon. Gentleman giving me a point of order.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the continuing use of the ministerial correspondence unit to draft Ministers' replies to letters from Members of Parliament. Is it in order for a Minister to whom I wrote—about a very serious policy matter, backed by more than 20,000 signatures on a petition—not to sign the reply to me? Is it not a gross insult to me, and to those who asked me to raise the matter, for the Minister to leave it to his civil servant to "pp" the letter on his behalf?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that this particular practice is acceptable; it is not a matter that I am responsible for.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    EUROPEAN UNION (ACCESSIONS) BILL
    Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Hoon and Ms Secretary Hewitt, presented a Bill to make provision consequential on the treaty concerning the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, signed at Athens on 16th April 2003; and to make provision in relation to the entitlement of nationals of certain acceding States to enter or reside in the United Kingdom as workers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 98].

Park Home Reform
12.34 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Park Homes in order to introduce transparency and consistency into their acquisition and disposal; to amend the model standards relating to Park Homes residents to bring them into line with the standards practised in local authority and housing association property; to give statutory recognition to Park Homes Residents Associations; and to make provision in respect of the accounts of the parks and the homes sited thereon.
Nearly 200,000 people live in park homes in England and Wales. In my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton, I have had regular discussions with residents, particularly with those living in the Cat and Fiddle park at Clyst St. Mary and the Underhill park in Tiverton.
In 2000 a report of the park homes working party was welcomed by all who take an interest in park homes, particularly by the all-party park homes group. In November 2001 the Government responded to the recommendations of the park homes working party and the Bill is designed to implement some of those recommendations. Indeed, last year, the Minister, Lord Rooker of Perry Barr, told the all-party group that the Government might support a private Member's Bill.
It is disappointing that no mention is made of park homes reform in the housing section of the Local Government Bill that was published last month and is intended to come before the House in the next Session. The Minister informed us in correspondence that, although the draft Bill is out to consultation, park homes will not be included. I would like to use today's ten-minute Bill debate to identify the key areas of reform in the hope that the Government will think again.
Most parks have residents who own their homes, but pay a rent for the pitch on which they are sited to the park owner, who has responsibility for the shared site amenities. All too often there is unnecessary tension between residents and park owners, and in some cases the resolution of site problems can be described only as anachronistic. I believe that, under properly constituted agreements, owners should recognise residents associations in the same way that councils and housing associations are required to work with their tenants. For example, it is not unreasonable for an unambiguous complaints procedure and a consultation framework to be established and for the owner to be represented at the residents' annual general meeting. It is also important that the local authority responsible for the authorisation of the site licence should recognise a properly constituted residents association.
The acquisition and disposal of homes is another area where change is needed. In October last year, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a document that it had commissioned on the economics of the park homes industry. However, in a written answer, the Minister stated that the Government do not intend to respond to the report's recommendations.
I should like to outline some of the specific issues identified by the working party that continue to be of concern to residents, in relation to which reform is now urgent. The park owner has to give the home owner,
302
within three months of coming on to the park, a written statement setting out the owner's rights and the express terms that are not covered by legislation. Three months is far too long. There is no requirement for the statement to be signed or witnessed, which is another omission. The Government agreed in their response to the conclusions in the consultation document that best practice is required in that area.
The current legislation does not allow statements to include a right of first refusal for the park owner to purchase the home, but all too often that is written into the statement and many residents have gained the impression that they are obliged to offer back their home, if they wish to dispose of it, to the owner of the site. The rules relating to those statements need to be tidied up and put on a statutory basis and should include provision for the home to be assigned.
The standard agreement states that annual increases in pitch fees should be mindful of inflation. That requires greater transparency, because last year's report showed an upward drift in pitch rents in real terms. It has been an ongoing problem for residents and the lack of information on fees leads to resentment. Moreover, people in other areas of housing—for example, those who pay a service charge—would at least expect to have a breakdown of the figures. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
There is also the current unsatisfactory arrangement by which the site owner acts as an agent between the resident and the manufacturer when the resident purchases a new home. That prevents the resident from purchasing directly from the manufacturer. That, I believe, is an inequity, and needs revision to ensure fairness to the tenant who wishes to purchase a new home, and to provide a safeguard to the park owner who wishes to maintain the integrity of the park.
It is also unsatisfactory that park owners can terminate an agreement on the grounds that a home's age and condition have a detrimental effect on the site. Home owners can also argue that it could have such an effect within a five-year period. Although it is of course acknowledged that the park benefits from properties being well maintained, the current rule is arbitrary, not least because of the incentive for the park owner to replace old for new. The weakness in the current legislation is that it does not define age and condition, and neither does the law identify the statutory procedure for operation of the five-year rule. The current rules allow for unscrupulous park owners to bring agreements to an end in order to drive down selling prices. In my own experience it is often the very elderly or, in some cases, the beneficiaries of an estate, who feel this pressure most.
When responding to the proposal that the age criterion should be replaced by a criterion based on the condition of the exterior of the home, the Government responded that they agreed, not least because of the recommendations that they received from the consultees. The Government have also acknowledged in principle that amending the five-year rule or its replacement with a warnings procedure would ensure fair treatment for home owners. If this ten-minute Bill is about anything, it is about fair treatment for home owners.

303
At a time when affordable housing is so much on people's minds, park homes offer an alternative, but there is an underlying sense of frustration at the fact that people living in park homes have somehow been left behind when it comes to enjoying the practices in other areas of housing that others take for granted. There is a lack of transparency in transactions and of choice on acquisition; out-of-date rules apply that hinder communications between residents and park owners; and of course park home residents need to be brought within the scope of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977—something that I believe is long overdue. There is also a need for parks owned by local authorities to be licensed in the same way as privately owned parks. That is something that I believe the Bill should encompass.
I hope that the Government will heed this short Bill, and the recent reports of the park homes committee. I also hope that they will take the opportunity provided by the next Local Government Bill to rectify the problems that I have set out. In the Government's responses to the working party paper, they appear to concur with many of the recommendations, some of which I have outlined today.
The working party first sat in 2000. The Government responded in 2001 and commissioned an independent report on the economics of park homes. I welcome all that, but it is a matter of concern that the Government will for some reason not go that final step and embrace the opportunity to ensure that the legislation is put on the statute book. Indeed, in a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said:
"We anticipate that mobile homes reform will be wide ranging and fundamental and in order to ensure that the resulting legislation is fully sound, workable and will stand the test of time it will be necessary to prepare it sufficiently."
I do not disagree with that, as the same applies to any legislation brought before this House. I hope that the Government will pay heed to a matter that affects many thousands of constituents, and that they will include the provisions that I propose in their own Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Christopher Chope, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Philip Hammond, Mr. Michael Jack, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Martin Salter and Mrs. Angela Watkinson.

Park Home Reform
  PARK HOME REFORM
  Mrs. Angela Browning accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to Park Homes in order to introduce transparency and consistency into their acquisition and disposal; to amend the model standards relating to Park Homes residents to bring them into line with the standards practised in local authority and housing association property; to give statutory recognition to Park Homes Residents Associations; and to make provision in respect of the accounts of the parks and the homes sited thereon: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS) BILL [MONEY (NO. 2)]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with a referendum held about proposals for the reorganisation of local government.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26th November 2002:
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.
  Subsequent stages
  2. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
  3. The proceedings on any Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments No. 3, 17, 18 and 34, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to the Lords amendments, I will ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUMS
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      12.47 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 10.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have before us 35 amendments arising from consideration of the Bill in the other place. On the surface, that number may seem large, but in fact it mainly reflects just one extension of our policy: to give people a choice about their regional governance arrangements. That emerged from discussions that initially began in Committee in this House, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) raised the issue. Subsequent discussions between us and the Liberal Democrats led to the Liberal Democrat amendment that was moved in the other place.
      We agreed that those living in two-tier areas should have a say in the form of unitary local government introduced in their area if an elected assembly is established, but our fundamental principle of unitary local government where there is an elected regional tier remains unchanged. I shall explain that further when we come to the next grouping, when we can debate the matter fully if hon. Members wish to do so. The other 18 amendments in that group and the 10 amendments in the final group simply give effect to the main amendment.
      We have listened carefully to the debate on the ouster clause, both in this House and in the other place.
      Joyce Quin: Although my right hon. Friend has pointed out that later we shall be able to consider in detail the amendment to which he referred, I warmly welcome the fact that the Government listened to representations on the issue and that they have acted in a way that gives people in the two-tier areas a real choice over their future.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years to promote the cause of regional government, especially in the interests of her own
      306
      region, the north-east, where I know that she has been extremely active. We have sought to listen carefully on that point and, indeed, other points. We believe that the Lords amendments will improve the Bill, and we approach them in an entirely non-partisan spirit.
      The ouster clause was a difficult issue, and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will give further consideration to it when we deal with it later. Once again, we have tried to find a practical way to meet the policy commitment to ensure that the results of a referendum could not be challenged purely as a result of a frivolous or unserious criticism, while retaining the opportunity for legal consideration if serious malpractice occurred. That has been our objective from the outset, and our new amendment is designed to achieve that.
      I turn to the first group of Lords amendments, which reflects amendments originally proposed by Conservatives in the other place. The Bill has faced vigorous debate and careful scrutiny in the other place, as it did in the House, and the amendments agreed to there improve and enhance the Bill, while remaining true to the principles that we have always advocated. So the Government will support all 35 Lords amendments, irrespective of whether they were originally proposed by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or the Government. I hope that that demonstrates both our willingness to listen to constructive criticism and to respond positively in a non-partisan spirit to proposals that will improve the Bill.
      Lords amendment No. 1 reflects an amendment moved in the other place by Baroness Blatch, who sought to simplify clause 1(6), to make it clearer how the level of interest test works. The Government are happy to accept Lords amendment No. 1. Lords amendment No. 2 is necessary to tidy up subsection (8) in the light of the changes to subsection (6). The current wording at the start of subsection (8) would no longer work, because subsection (6) no longer sets out the conditions or criteria that can apply or not apply.
      Lords amendment No. 2 is the neatest formulation that we can find to clarify clause 1, in addition to what it says in subsection (6), to allow an order to be made without active consideration of the level of interest. The Secretary of State can also order a regional referendum once he has considered views, information and evidence, as set out in subsection (8).
      Clause 5 sets out the minimum period, following a no vote in a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly, before a further referendum can be held. Lords amendment No. 10 was tabled by the Conservatives and accepted by the Government on Third Reading in the other place on Monday. It changes the minimum period from five to seven years. The Government listened carefully to the arguments adduced in support of that amendment, particularly by Lord Hanningfield, and were persuaded by them.
      Lengthening the minimum period by two years will ease the possible distraction to local authorities of a local government reorganisation without imposing an unduly long period before the population of a region can be given an opportunity to change its mind about

      307
      establishing an assembly. In effect, there will be at least five years between a referendum and the point at which the Government might initiate the process for a further referendum. That five-year period has always been our policy objective.
      We were conscious of the fact that the preliminary soundings would shorten that five-year period in practice, so the extension to seven years is designed to achieve the policy effect, while recognising the practicalities. That is an entirely sensible way forward. [Interruption.] The Opposition try to make fun of that, but they originally proposed 10-year or even 20-year minimum periods, which were clearly designed to obstruct the possibility for regions to have the opportunity to reconsider the issue in the light of experience.
      Those proposals were not acceptable to us because they did not allow for the fact that views might be reasonably expected to change over time, particularly in the light of experience where elected regional assemblies are set up. We were not happy with those amendments when they were moved in Committee, and Lords amendment No. 10, with the seven-year period, keeps to our original policy objective, while allowing for the practicalities that I have already outlined.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am sure that, just for the record, the Minister would like to remind the House that the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment that would have extended the length of time to six years. In Committee, the Minister ridiculed that amendment, but it seems as though it is close to the final outcome. I do not want to make too much of that, but, for the record, we should remind the House that that happened.
      Mr. Raynsford: As I said at the outset, we have tried to approach the issue in a wholly non-partisan spirit. We could not see the logic of the six-year period, and I pointed out in Committee that five years is the normal period for the duration of a Parliament, so there is good precedent for such a period. We could not understand the basis for having a six-year period.
      As a result of further consideration—we listened to a point that was made in another place—there will be a period during which soundings have to be taken before a referendum can be initiated. That period could be up to two years, which is why we have agreed to the seven-year period, so there is good logic behind the proposal. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will know from other instances in the Bill, we are always happy to engage in constructive debate and to make practical improvements to the Bill, and in no way do I wish to sound churlish about his contribution to improving the Bill. I urge the House to agree to these Lords amendments.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister very nearly got through the first group of Lords amendments with a straight face. As he said, Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were, in one case, introduced by my noble Friends in the other place and, in the other case, by the Government, as a tidying up exercise. They are good amendments, which represent
      308
      an attempt to make marginally more intelligible the very complex language of clause 1, and they are certainly an improvement.
      Sadly, all this is still slightly academic because clause 1(9) will still allow the Secretary of State to cancel a referendum at any time if he considers that it is not appropriate, having ordered it to take place. In other words, if the Secretary of State determines that the process is not going the way that he had hoped and it does not look as though he will win his referendum, he can pull stumps and cancel the whole show. That would be regarded, in everyday language, as somewhat loading the dice in the Deputy Prime Minister's favour. Up to the last minute, he can cancel the referendum if he feels that he is losing the argument.
      I am waiting for the Government to introduce a Bill that would provide a similar facility for general elections. It would be very convenient for the Prime Minister if he were able to call a general election and, two and a half weeks later, decide to cancel it by order because it did not look as though things were going quite the right way.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 improve the language of the Bill because they slightly clarify the intention without fundamentally changing the meaning of clause 1. Lords amendment No. 10 is different. As the Minister has acknowledged, my hon. Friends and I argued for a 10-year gap between referendums. We deployed precisely the same logic as Lord Hanningfield deployed in arguing in the other place that the sword of Damocles hanging over the structure of local government is bound to be debilitating to local government and to impact negatively on its principal business, which is to get on with delivering good quality services to the people whom its tiers serve.
      It is simply not desirable to have local government areas where a referendum has been held, perhaps the argument for an elected regional assembly has been lost by a modest margin, and it is clear to everyone that the Secretary of State will seek to go around the loop again at the earliest opportunity and put the question to a referendum again as soon as he is able to do so. In those circumstances, a short period will create a very high degree of uncertainly, possibly making it difficult for local authorities to recruit and retain good staff, when everyone can see on the horizon at least the possibility of reorganisation or abolition of those bodies, so we argued for a 10-year period.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I wish to try to reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Northumberland county council and the local district councils already have a problem with recruitment and retention, and people are looking over their shoulders and wondering whether they will have a future in a few years' time. That is causing considerable problems to local authorities today.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have heard some of the anecdotal examples quoted from the north-east, and there is a very real problem. The problem is not theoretical; it is having an impact right now on the ability of local authorities to carry out what I assume is the Government's shared objective with local authorities and, indeed, the

      309
      Opposition—delivering good quality services to local people—and they are not being helped by the introduction of further uncertainty.
      1 pm
      I remain of the view that 10 years would be a sensible period. Clearly, however, seven years is better than five. The Government vehemently defended their five-year proposition in this place, however, and as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has mentioned, they vigorously resisted his suggestion that a six-year period might be worth exploring. I am not sure why the Government, having vigorously rejected 10 years and six years, have concluded that seven years is acceptable. Five years was not selected by the Government as a random figure—it was not just plucked out of thin air—and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said in Committee:
      "A five-year period strikes the right balance … We want to strike the right balance and we believe that an interval of five years does that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 36.]
      He continued:
      "I think that the question of precedent was addressed in the debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to be given additional justification … he should be made aware that a five-year period is the provision within the Local Government Act 2000 for repeat referendums on mayoral constitutional arrangements … There is another obvious logical reason why we decided on five years; that is the maximum period for the life of a Parliament. Therefore, we believe that five years is appropriate. There is a precedent for it and, above all, it is the right period of time … I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is now satisfied that five years is better than six."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 38–9.]
      The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), said much later:
      "The Government have not plucked that five-year figure from the air. As Members will know, five years is the maximum interval between general elections and is also the standard interval for European parliamentary elections. I believe that five years is the right interval."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 491.]
      It seems to me that the Government's stance is in strange contrast to their intransigence in the face of the range of suggestions and the rationale put forward at an earlier stage. The Under-Secretary mocked us in Committee when, after suggesting 20 years, we tried 10 years, to see how the Government would react. He remarked that the Opposition had changed their mind and by doing so had proved his point that five years was the optimum period. The Government are therefore also capable of changing their mind.
      On balance, therefore, seven is better than five but not as good as 10. What a display of synthetic self-righteous indignation we had to go through in Committee—I include the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in that—to reach the compromise of seven years. In future, when Ministers say that they have not plucked a figure out of thin air, that they have considered the matter long and hard and that they genuinely believe that it is the right solution to the problem, we will know exactly what they mean.
      Mr. Davey: We should welcome the Lords amendments. The hon. Member for Runnymede and
      310
      Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was right that we had a tough debate in Committee on this issue and that various propositions were put forward. The Government resisted them at the time, as they resisted every Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment on all aspects of the Bill. They listened to the weight of our argument, however, and while they tried to stare it down at the time, they were forced to consider it.
      In the other place, those arguments were strengthened. In this case, an argument from a Conservative peer persuaded them, and I am glad that Ministers reflected on those arguments and changed their mind. It is a matter of judgment, as I said in Committee, as to whether the period should be four years, five years, six years or seven years. It is question of striking the balance. In the Minister's initial statement, he tried to suggest that there was logic behind seven years. I am not sure whether I am convinced that there is logic; I think that it is a matter of judgment. If the House decides on seven years, I think that that is probably better than five: it means that the problems of instability in local government, to which the noble Lord Hanningfield referred in the other place, will be dealt with properly. It would be interesting if the Minister were to explain a little more of the logic of seven years, for the record. Therefore, should the House ever have to return to the point, we will at least be able to review the argument that was put at this time.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased that there is broad agreement to the amendments. No Member objected to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised a question about clause 1(9), which, of course, is not being amended. I should therefore correct his unfortunate impression that the Government would use that subsection to postpone a referendum if they felt that the right outcome was not likely: that is neither the intention nor the scope of the power, which allows the Secretary of State to vary or revoke an order if he thinks that it is not appropriate for a referendum to be held on the date specified.
      I explained in Committee, and perhaps I should explain again for the benefit of the House, that the date might have been fixed some time in advance because of the process involved, and that other circumstances might make it wise for the date to be varied and for postponement to take place—for example, a couple of years ago elections were postponed because of foot and mouth disease. The other obvious example would be a major state funeral, or an event of that nature, clashing with the date pre-arranged for a referendum.
      The other crucial safeguard is that any amendment must be made by an order subject to affirmative resolution. The somewhat underhand approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman is therefore not possible, so I hope that he will accept that it is necessary to include the safeguard in the Bill for good reason. It is not the subject of the Lords amendments, so I hope that we can pass over the issue rapidly.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I understand the Minister's explanation, and I understand why it may be necessary to vary the date of the order, but I cannot understand why he would feel it necessary to revoke it.
      Mr. Raynsford: There might be a significant change of circumstances between the date on which the

      311
      referendum was initially set and the date on which it was due to take place. The opportunity to postpone or revoke is therefore a necessary safeguard, but it is subject to affirmative resolution. If a Government wished to revoke, they would have to explain why. I can envisage circumstances in which, rather than postponing, it might be necessary to start from scratch and begin the soundings exercise again before a referendum was held—for example, where new evidence had come to light about whether there was a real interest in holding a referendum in a region. That is a necessary and useful safeguard, but the Government would have to justify the use of the power for that purpose. I hope that hon. Members will accept that there is nothing nefarious about that. The provision is entirely sensible and pragmatic to ensure efficient administration and to avoid possible illogicalities in the implementation of the policy intent.
      Mr. Hammond: The Bill clearly allows the Government not only to vary the date but to revoke the order. I thought that, in the Minister's initial response, he was reading into the record a limitation on that scope, making it clear that the Government would never use that to cancel a referendum that had been ordered, but in responding to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) I fear that he went backwards and confirmed that the Government could cancel a referendum that had been ordered.
      Mr. Raynsford: I thought I had already made it quite clear that the purpose of the power is simply to allow for a change of circumstances that might make it inappropriate for the referendum to proceed. One such circumstance would be a clash of dates, and that point has been widely accepted.
      The second circumstance that I set out was if, in the period between the initial date set for the referendum and the point at which the Secretary of State chose to introduce an order, it became clear that a material change in circumstances had occurred that might necessitate a further soundings exercise before the referendum. We have been through all these issues in considerable detail, because there is a process between the initial indication that a referendum will be held and the holding of the referendum. That process involves the boundary committee conducting a review of local government boundary arrangements and making recommendations for a wholly unitary structure of local government. That is a time-consuming process. In that time, circumstances can change, and it is obviously sensible to have provision to cope with that. I have explained why the provision is in the Bill. It is not a nefarious or suspect process; it is there for good administrative reasons.
      Mr. Graham Stringer: I would find it easier to accept my right hon. Friend's arguments if we were clear about the objective basis by which the Secretary of State would determine the level of interest in a region before the referendum process was set up. In Committee, my right hon. Friend repeatedly failed to explain what the objective basis would be. If we do not know what the objective basis is, how will we know whether it has changed?
      Mr. Raynsford: I did not repeatedly fail to give assurances. My hon. Friend may have repeatedly failed
      312
      to listen to the assurances, but that is a different matter. The Secretary of State is required to take soundings, and he will have to have regard to those soundings and could certainly be subject to legal challenge if he acted in a way that indicated that he had not had regard to them. In the circumstances that I have just described, an event could take place in the period during which the boundary committee was conducting its review—I have already referred to foot and mouth disease—that would make it inappropriate for the referendum to proceed on the given date. Indeed, a delay would be inevitable. If there were any suggestion that, as a result, the basis on which the Secretary of State had taken his decision about the soundings was no longer valid, he could be open to challenge if he had not had regard to evidence suggesting a change in the circumstances that had led him to call a referendum.
      Those are the circumstances—I do not think that they will happen often, but they could—that might require the Secretary of State not simply to postpone the date of a referendum, but to begin the process again. Obviously, there could be other circumstances—I hate to envisage them happening—in which a prolonged delay resulting from a major war or event of that nature would make it inappropriate to hold a referendum and wrong to postpone it indefinitely. Therefore, for practical reasons, there must be a power to terminate as well as to postpone. However, I hope that the House will recognise that there is a real safeguard, because the Secretary of State will be able to use the power only by means of an affirmative resolution. The House will have every opportunity to reject an order if it does not believe that there is good logic behind it.
      Andrew George: I appreciate that the Minister and his Department are optimistic that regions will proceed along the lines of the boundaries proposed, but to what extent do the Lords amendments, which I support in principle, allow for the fact that, as I and colleagues confidently predict, the Government will not succeed in achieving regional assemblies on the boundaries as currently proposed for certain areas? Do the material changes referred to in the amendments allow for the likelihood that certain regional assemblies will not be set up in the way that the Government hope by containing provisions for new boundaries to be proposed?
      1.15 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in the boundaries for understandable reasons, but none of the amendments that we are considering today impacts on boundary issues. The Government have made clear their policy intention to proceed on the basis of the existing Government office boundaries. We have not precluded a further look at these matters in the longer term, but, in the short term, we are proceeding on the basis of the existing Government office boundaries.
      Other amendments in this group relate to the period between referendums. I make it clear once again to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that our objective has always been that there should be a five-year period between referendums. That was the basis on which we opposed his amendments in Committee and on which we rejected the Liberal Democrat amendments.

      313
      As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly pointed out, we considered the possibility that the practicalities and mechanics leading up to a referendum would bite into that five-year period. Lord Hanningfield made that point in the other place. The process of taking soundings and commissioning a boundary review could take up to two years out of the five-year period. In practice, rather than there being a five-year gap between referendums, there would be a three-year gap between a no vote and the beginning of the process. We accept the argument that that would be too short, would be disruptive and would have an adverse impact on local government.
      To stay true to our objective of a five-year period between disruption, we have accepted the amendment that allows for a seven-year period between referendums, because the preliminaries could take up to two years. It is a practical, pragmatic response. That is the logic, and there is sense behind it. I hope that hon. Members, who have broadly welcomed the outcome, will not continue to quibble about the precise way in which we are acting. It is a sensible response to genuine concerns voiced in this House and the other place.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister is now defining his objective as achieving a five-year window between, as he puts it, disruption. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has given a clear example of the way in which disruption is continuous if the threat remains hanging over local authorities. Does the Minister not believe that the threat of reorganisation will make it difficult, if not impossible, for local authorities to recruit and retain good staff in the intervening period?
      Mr. Raynsford: I do not accept that, because the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was making the point that we are currently engaged in a soundings exercise. That has naturally caused concern in authorities in two-tier areas, such as in his region, where, it is fair to say, as I have always said without anticipating the outcome of the exercise, objective evidence suggests that there probably is significant interest in holding a referendum. That is why we have accepted the amendment, as it deals with part of the period of up to two years leading to a referendum. However, once the referendum has been held, there will be a guarantee that there will be no further possibility of change for five years. That is the safeguard against the fear that the hon. Gentleman raised.
      Mr. Hugo Swire: I did not serve on the Committee, but I have taken a close interest in these matters and was proud to launch "Devon says no to regional government" last Friday. In the five-year window that the Minister is describing, how can he guarantee to those of who are sceptical about this regional odyssey that untold pressure will not be brought on councils in areas that rejected the referendum first time round or voted no? Will he guarantee that they will not be penalised in the intervening period and that no Government money will be used to soften them up for round two, which, if he
      314
      had his way, would be replaced by rounds three and four at five-year periods until an area was subjugated to following his line?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee because that might have helped to allay some of the paranoia that clearly affects his judgment. We have absolutely no intention of bringing pressure to bear; there will be a choice. Each region will be free to express its views in a referendum and we repeatedly made it clear that we do not expect all regions to express similar interest in an elected regional assembly. We do not wish to impose something universally. In fact, the Conservative party suggested that referendums should be held in every English region. That is not sensible because we know perfectly well that there is not a great deal of interest in some regions and we intend to hold referendums only where there is clear interest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain his anxiety and realise that we are extending choice. We shall give people the opportunity to have an elected regional assembly if they wish, but we shall not impose one if they do not want it. We certainly do not intend to bring pressure to bear on individual local authorities to support an elected regional assembly in their region.
      Mr. Swire rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I see that the hon. Gentleman cannot contain his excitement, so I shall give way once again.
      Mr. Swire: On the subject of regional government, I assure the Minister that I can contain almost everything. My party suggested that if a referendum is held in one area, referendums should be held in all areas because we believe that anything that involves such constitutional change should be subject to a referendum. I am still not happy because an area such as mine in Devon might well vote no the first, second and subsequent times, but be swamped and outvoted by other areas in the artificial creation that is the south-west region, such as the urban areas of Bristol and Swindon.
      Mr. Raynsford: There is probably little hope of dissuading the hon. Gentleman from the paranoia that has engulfed his approach to the issue. It is somewhat illogical for him to support an organisation called "Devon says no" while clearly advocating that a referendum should be held in Devon and everywhere else. He has not followed through the logic behind his position.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Surely the real difference between the proposals of this Government and the previous Tory Government is that we will give local people a say in their regions. Under the Conservative Government's county council reorganisation, Tyne and Wear county council was abolished despite the fact that no local person had any say.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. We are giving people a choice over whether they want an elected regional assembly and, if they do, a choice of the best form of local government reorganisation to accompany that. That is very different

      315
      from the actions of the Conservative Government when they abolished county councils such as Berkshire without giving people one iota of choice about it or any opportunity to express their opinions. The Conservatives abolished the Greater London council without giving people a choice. It is sheer humbug for Conservative Members to talk about giving people choice because they did no such thing when their party was in government.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister desist from saying that he proposes to give people choice about the form of local government reorganisation? He proposes no such thing. He proposes to allow people to express a preference among different forms of unitary local government reorganisation, but that is not a choice about the form of local government reorganisation.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should not try to put words in my mouth. I made it quite clear that we will allow people to choose the form of unitary local government that is most appropriate for their area. A proliferation of tiers of government is not right; indeed, I thought that the Conservative party thought it inappropriate to introduce more tiers. If people want a regional tier—it is their choice—it is right for local government to be reorganised into a single unitary tier so that there would be no more than two tiers of government below the national level—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though we are going very wide of the Lords amendments. Perhaps hon. Members could restrain themselves.
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall be only too happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to tempt me down paths that you, Mr. Speaker, would not regard as appropriate.
      Mr. Atkinson: I hope not, although I might be treading on thin ice. I was hoping to explain to the Minister why my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and I are paranoid about the issue. The Minister said that there was strong interest in north-east England, but I refer him to a written answer that he gave me on 18 March to a question about the level of interest that resulted from his soundings exercise. He said that there had been 4,500 expressions of interest nationally, of which only 300 had come from the north-east. If he thinks that 300 replies from more than 2 million people represents an expression of strong interest, no wonder my hon. Friend and I are paranoid.
      Mr. Raynsford: I cannot speak for the paranoia of the hon. Gentlemen. They will have to answer for that to their electorates; the people of East Devon and Hexham might well say no to them in due course.
      The soundings exercise was designed to elicit responses from people and organisations. We made it clear that organisations, especially representative bodies, that sounded out their members' views or that
      316
      wished to express the views of a wider group should state that in their response so that their views could be given more weight than responses by individuals.
      As the hon. Member for Hexham knows, owing to a Lords amendment that we shall consider in the next group, we considered it right to extend the soundings period to allow people a further opportunity to comment in light of the change. We have therefore not completed the soundings exercise and it would be premature to comment on the level of interest expressed. I shall report back to the House when the extended soundings exercise has been completed, although I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been more responses than the numbers that he cited because we had received 5,500 by the end of the initial period, many of which came from organisations that had consulted widely, meaning that their responses covered the opinions of more people than would be indicated by the number of immediate responses. The exercise is important and we must await its outcome and responses to the extended soundings.
      It is sensible to allow five years between a no vote in a referendum and the time at which it is possible to reinitiate the process through soundings and a boundary committee consideration before holding a further referendum. That was why the period was extended from five to seven years. That is sensible and it meets our original policy objective of allowing five years without the prospect of reorganisation, which will be welcomed by local government. I hope that Opposition Members will not quibble about terminology and about what might have been said at different times but will instead welcome the proposal as a positive and constructive response to sensible comments made by people who want the best possible legislation to allow the people of England to have an elected regional assembly, if they wish, with the minimum of dislocation.
      Mr. Swire rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I hesitate to give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I hope that he will not stray wide of the main subject of the amendments.
      Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to cure my paranoia. A region such as the south-west may reject the idea of regional government in a referendum, after which there will be five years before it is invited to reconsider. Will the unelected regional assembly disappear during that period?
      Mr. Raynsford: There are no proposals to abolish the regional chambers—or assemblies, as they are usually called—that were brought into existence because of the creation of regional development agencies. The chambers' purpose is to provide a framework for representatives from local government and from regions' other interests to oversee the work of RDAs. It is right that such a body should exist and one of an elected regional assembly's remits will be to take control of, and have oversight of, economic development activity and the work of RDAs. If that were to happen, the non-elected regional assembly would cease to exist. But where there is no elected regional assembly, or where people have voted against it, it is obviously sensible to continue to have a body that brings together

      317
      representatives of local government and others to maintain an oversight of the activity of the regional development agency. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so hostile to such a sensible arrangement to ensure the articulation of regional concerns about matters of economic development, which are important in every region. We have given more than sufficient time to this group of amendments—
      Mr. John Bercow: There is a lacuna in the Minister's argument. Given that in many cases there will be elected regional assemblies, but there will be considerable public scepticism as to the merit of their continuation, why should not the principle of a periodic referendum, which the right hon. Gentleman so warmly commended in the other context, apply in this context?
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: There is no amendment from the other place on our amendment paper today that covers that issue. I would not wish to incur your wrath, Mr. Speaker, by going on to that territory. Suffice it to say that the issue was debated at length in Committee and decisively rejected. I hope that the amendments will now be agreed.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

  After Clause 1
  Lords amendment: No. 3.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9, 11 to 19, 23, 34 and 35.
  Mr. Raynsford: As I have already explained, the Government accepted an amendment from the Liberal Democrats in the other place that those in two-tier areas should be given a say in the form of unitary local government arrangements that will be implemented if an elected assembly is to be established. As I have made clear on many occasions, we do not wish to see any increase in bureaucracy or duplication of tiers as a result of the introduction of elected regional assemblies. We believe that two tiers of government below the national level are enough. We also believe that unitary government will streamline government and lay the foundation for an effective working relationship between the regional and local tiers.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early in his speech, but could he clarify what he means by "given a say"? Will people be given a say in the sense that the electorate is given a say when voting for a Government in a general election, or will they be given a say in some different and less forceful sense?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. We believe that it is right that people should have the opportunity, through a referendum if there is an interest in their region in
  318
  holding a referendum, to decide whether they want an elected regional assembly. Every citizen entitled to vote on a local government electorate basis within that region will be entitled to vote on that issue too.
  There will be a second vote for people living in areas that have two tiers of local government—counties and districts—because implicit in the introduction of an elected regional assembly will be reorganisation of local government. They will have a vote about the preferred form of unitary local government for their area. That area could well be the county in which they currently live, or the counties that would be affected if proposals from the boundary committee suggested a form of local government reorganisation that crosses county boundaries, so provision must be made for that.
  There will be a second vote, affecting all the people living in areas where there is currently two-tier local government, on their preferred form of unitary local government. That is the proposal. It gives people a say in the way in which we normally understand the term in this country: through the ballot box in a democratic election. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hammond: Not quite. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that say will be decisive. Is he saying that the view expressed in the referendum will be binding, or will it merely be a factor that the Secretary of State will take into account?
  Mr. Raynsford: We have gone over the matter on many previous occasions. I have made it clear—because this was the issue in relation to the first vote on the question of whether there should be an elected regional assembly—that there could be circumstances in which the majority of people voting in a referendum would not be the final deciding point.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that his party raised questions about whether there should be a threshold, and the answer I gave was that we did not believe that there should be a threshold, because thresholds had an arbitrary impact. I gave the example of Scotland, where a particular threshold made it impossible for the people of Scotland who had voted in the late 1970s for a degree of devolved independence to enjoy that. They lost out for 20 years because of an arbitrary threshold, so we did not accept the idea of an arbitrary threshold. However, I said that the Secretary of State would give that consideration, and if it was felt that the level of participation in the referendum was so low that it did not provide a safe basis to proceed, we would have the discretion not to proceed.
  That is implicit in relation to the region. It is equally implicit in relation to local government reorganisation. If, for example, there were a very finely divided outcome between two options and a very large number of people expressing unhappiness with the options put to them, it is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State might feel that it was right to hold a second vote before deciding the outcome. Therefore, a degree of discretion remains with the Secretary of State. That is sensible, but it is our policy intention to give effect to the outcome of the votes in the referendum. Once again, as with the earlier discussions, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that

  319
  it is right that the Secretary of State should have that necessary degree of discretion to ensure good administration, for the reasons that I have outlined.
  Mr. Bercow: With all due respect, and the right hon. Gentleman knows the esteem and affection in which I hold him, that was a lengthy and entirely unsatisfactory answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). If the right hon. Gentleman complains about circumstances in which the verdict reached would be regarded as arbitrary, will he at least have the intellectual honesty to concede that to vest a capacity in Ministers to decide whether or not to proceed on the basis of the turnout is itself arbitrary?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about esteem. I am not quite so confident about the remarks about affection, but we will pass over that. I hope that he will understand that in these matters, if we are not to have a hard and fast decision rule in legislation, a degree of discretion must inevitably be exercised. That should be properly exercised by a Secretary of State answerable to the House; he would have to answer for his decision. That is the best way to handle such matters.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to specify in legislation precisely what should happen in every circumstance, he will live in a very strange society where no discretion can ever be exercised on matters where it is the function of those of us who are charged with exercising responsibility in public life to use our discretion in the public interest. We will try to do so. I do not believe that that is in any way unsatisfactory. I am sorry that I have again given a long answer, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the right answer.
  I return to the basic principles of the amendments. Amendment No. 3 preserves the key principle of unitary government where elected regional assemblies are established. It extends the principle of choice that underpins the Bill by giving those in two-tier areas a direct say in the shape of the unitary authorities that will be introduced. Moreover, by requiring a vote in each county area, it will ensure that only those in the affected two-tier areas will get to vote in a referendum on the options for unitary authorities. The form of unitary government will therefore not be dictated by those in the region who are unaffected by local government reorganisation.
  I know that one of the principal criticisms of the original proposals was that in regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside, where the overwhelming majority of the population—almost 90 per cent.—live in existing unitary areas, those people living in two-tier local government areas could have their local government changed without having any say whatever. It was an entirely valid concern and the new arrangement is our response to it.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I appreciate that the Government yielded to the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee in another place for precisely the reasons that the Minister has just advanced—because it removes from the Bill the offensive feature that people in areas unaffected would
  320
  decide the future local government structure, while those in the areas affected would not have any choice between the different possibilities for that structure.
  Mr. Raynsford: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman and we think that the Bill is much improved as a result of the amendment. The other amendments are consequential upon it.
  Amendment No. 3 requires that if there is a referendum in a region about whether to establish an elected assembly, there must also be a referendum in each county area on the Government's options for unitary local government. The county area will generally be the existing area of a county council, which of course has both district councils and a county council. However, if the local government options span county council boundaries, the county areas affected will be combined into a single county area. Voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the boundaries used for the county of Durham be the existing county council boundaries or the previous county council boundaries, which included, for example, Darlington, which was removed as a unitary authority?
  Mr. Raynsford: The boundaries will include the existing county council area, excluding those parts that are now in separate unitary authorities, as part of our principle that only those people who are affected should determine the future structure of local government. Those people in Darlington are already in a unitary authority; they are not in a two-tier authority. There would therefore be no change to the local government arrangements affecting them, so they are excluded.
  The one caveat that I would add is that if—I am not suggesting that this would happen—there were to be a decision by the Secretary of State that the north-east should be an area that should proceed to a referendum, and if the boundary committee recommended that one of the options should involve crossing the Northumberland and Durham boundaries, there could be a wider county, which would cover both Northumberland and Durham. I do not raise that matter to alarm my hon. Friend. I mention it only because that is implicit in the proposals. There are other parts of the country where I suspect that such an outcome might be more likely, so he should be aware that that is a possibility. [Interruption.] I have clearly been unwise in raising that spectre, so I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jones: May I caution my right hon. Friend, and not just in terms of going over the border into Northumberland? Some people will argue that Darlington, for example, should come back into the traditional county of Durham, as it was until a few years ago, but my right hon. Friend should resist such a temptation because that would simply unpick local government in County Durham.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

  321
  I should add one caveat. We have also taken the view that, although we do not intend existing unitary authorities to be otherwise affected, in some circumstances it might be appropriate, as part of local government reorganisation, to suggest that a part of an existing two-tier area might become part of an existing unitary authority. We have not ruled that out. That would not mean unravelling the existing unitaries, but it might involve them having additional areas attached to them. That option is there and we think it sensible.
  Mr. Hammond: I was about to ask the Minister about that issue, which we shall come to later, but in those circumstances, by his own logic, should not the voters in the unitary area that is about to have attached to it part of a two-tier area also have an opportunity to vote on that proposal, because it will affect them? The nature of their local authority will change.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is some effect, but it is not the same as the consequence of a change from an existing two-tier to a unitary structure of local government. The effect is much more peripheral. The fear and the concern was that the future of local government in two-tier areas might be unduly influenced by the votes of people not in two-tier local government. On balance, we felt it right that the vote should be restricted to people within existing two-tier areas.
  Were it suggested, for example, that parts of North Yorkshire might be annexed to existing unitaries in west Yorkshire, if the vote was to be extended to the people of those big metropolitan authorities in west Yorkshire, an overwhelming vote could be accorded to those people. We simply did not feel that that was right. It was not in keeping with the spirit of what we sought to do. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there is some, largely peripheral impact, but it will not change the structure of local government and we felt it right to keep to the principle that it is the people within the two-tier areas who should have the vote in such referendums.
  Mr. Stringer: I might surprise my right hon. Friend when I say that I welcome this group of amendments, which removes one of the worst aspects of the Bill, but until he started his explanation I had not really understood that the amendments would allow for the possibility of an amalgamation between Lancashire and Cheshire. Is that right? Can my right hon. Friend help me on that?
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not envisaged that there should be an amalgamation between existing counties, but let me give the example that has already been suggested by one of the county councils in the north-west region. If it was proposed as part of the structure for unitary local government in Cumbria and Lancashire that a single unitary should be created in the Morecambe Bay area, which crossed the boundaries between Lancashire and Cumbria, the second referendum, in which people would be asked to vote on their preferred option for unitary local government in
  322
  their area, would have to embrace the voters in both Cumbria and Lancashire, because one of the options crossed the border. That would be the one area where the two would come together. Usually, our objective would be that the second vote would be on a county basis within each individual county, but where a boundary committee proposal crossed county boundaries there would be a need for a mechanism to allow people in the affected areas to vote, and the only way that we could see that operating would be for the two counties to vote together. Only in that sense would they be brought together. There would be no question of a reorganisation of the two counties into a single county. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  The options put to voters in the referendum will be based on recommendations by the boundary committee. We are quite clear that those must be independent recommendations from the independent boundary committee. It will be required to produce at least two different unitary options. There may be more. In some cases it might be sensible to have more than two options, but there must in all cases be at least two.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has just emphasised the importance of the recommendations of the boundary committee being independent. Will he confirm that before those recommendations are put to the referendum the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to reject any of the boundary committee's recommendations or direct it to make further recommendations to him? That is not most people's definition of fully independent recommendations.
  Mr. Raynsford: I would say that it is, and it is entirely consistent with the existing framework of the relationship of the boundary committee with the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State has the responsibility of implementing proposals. If the Secretary of State does not believe that one of the options is workable in practice, it would be curious if he had no option to request the boundary committee to review the matter. The Secretary of State has that option, but it is the boundary committee that ultimately decides. The Secretary of State cannot tell the boundary committee what option to come up with; he can only say that, in a particular instance, he feels, for the reasons spelt out, that the proposal is simply not workable and should be reconsidered. If the Secretary of State were to do that he would have to have sound grounds indeed, because it would be public knowledge and it would be open to challenge. Clearly, it is not something that would be undertaken lightly. However, there must be that safeguard because it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to implement the arrangements, and if there are genuine concerns that in the course of its considerations the boundary committee had not necessarily considered all the factors, there must be an option to refer it back to the committee. It will then reconsider the matter and make proposals, which will be put to people in a referendum.
  Mr. Beith: May I counsel the Minister against contemplating using the power to reject radical approaches by the boundary committee on the basis of traditionalist conceptions in Whitehall about the appropriate size for a local authority? Such conceptions

  323
  may not take account of the fact that local authorities now contract out much more of their work rather than provide all their services directly. For example, if the committee makes the radical recommendation that unitary authorities can be relatively small, will he not simply reject the proposal out of hand because it does not fit the traditional philosophies of his Department?
  Mr. Raynsford: I can give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the assurance for which he is looking. We have no preconception about the potential outcome. We have been very clear about not putting such criteria into the guidance about size, which we have already consulted on and which we intend to issue to the boundary committee. There is a strong focus on the need for local government to be effective. Clearly, the boundary committee will need to take into account factors relating to size when considering that need. There is no preconception one way or another and certainly not against a radical solution, but there is a practical concern: as the Secretary of State has to implement the recommendations, we must be able to query a proposal that does not seem satisfactory or implementable.
  Mr. Edward Davey: For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I should like to clarify that point. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance given to the boundary committee does not specify the minimum size for a unitary authority? As he will recall, we probed him about that and were keen to ensure that that was the case.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give that assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not included a size threshold. We believe that it is for the boundary committee to determine the most effective form of local government, and that is what it should recommend.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister has raised the possibility of a multiplicity of different options. Can he confirm that in all such referendums, irrespective of the number of options put to voters, the status quo in each and every case would always be one of them?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, because the status quo would involve the retention of two tiers of local government as well as a regional tier. That would work against the policy objective—I thought that the Opposition broadly supported it—of avoiding a proliferation of tiers of government. Clearly, we could not proceed on that basis. There must be a move to unitary local government, but it will be for the boundary committee to take a view about the best options for wholly unitary local government. It will then be for the people to express their choice and preferred option in a referendum. As I made clear, there must always be two options, but there may be more. I can envisage circumstances in which the boundary committee might feel that there are more than two options. I would not want a proliferation, which might become confusing, but it would be wrong arbitrarily to restrict the number if there is, for example, a strong case for considering three separate options.
  Under subsection (6) of the new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 3, the local government referendum must be held on the same day as the regional
  324
  referendum. Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 amend clause 2, which provides the questions that should be asked in the regional and now local referendums and the preambles that should precede those questions on the ballot papers. We have consulted the Electoral Commission, which published on 16 April its views about the intelligibility of the proposed questions and preambles. The amendments reflect its comments and, in addition, provide for a situation in which the questions appear on separate ballot papers.
  To take up the example of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), such a situation could arise if there were four or five separate options. Clearly, it would not be possible to include all those options on a single ballot paper. In such circumstances, more than one ballot paper would be needed, which is the reason why we have changed the Electoral Commission's specific recommendation, which was based on the premise that the options would always be set out on a single ballot paper. We have discussed the matter with the Electoral Commission and it understands the reason for our having the option, which is intended only for circumstances in which it is not possible for all the material to be contained on a single ballot paper, as would normally be our intention.
  Mr. Hammond: The question is a practical one, and we talked about it at some length in Committee in discussing the way in which the primary question would be expressed. Has the Minister considered how it will be possible to express in words and in clear and unambiguous terms something that would be better presented in a map? Does he envisage that maps might be included in the ballot papers?
  Mr. Raynsford: We think that it would be difficult for maps to be included in ballot papers. It would certainly be difficult for a single ballot paper to feature maps representing a number of different options, but we think that it will be necessary to make available additional information, which will probably use maps to show the possible outcomes. Maps will not be included in the ballot paper, but they will almost certainly appear in the form of additional information. The hon. Gentleman will know from our debates in Committee that we intend that additional information should be produced on an entirely factual and neutral basis and that it should set out the different options.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very worried about the Minister. One person's arbitrariness is another's discretion, and I am anxious about the possibility—I put it no more strongly than that—of unwarranted ministerial tinkering. Can he confirm that, if there are four options on the ballot paper, for example, the option that commands the highest support will hold sway? Or is he going to argue on the basis of turnout and modest differences between the numbers of people expressing support for a particular preference that he, in his infinite wisdom, should be the arbiter of which prevails?
  Mr. Raynsford: I counsel the hon. Gentleman not to pursue that argument too hard, because I fear that if he

  325
  does so, we will hear from the Liberal Democrats a strong argument in favour of a proportional system of voting. In that situation, he might not like the outcome.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I put it to the hon. Member for Buckingham that the option that commands the highest support among the electorate is the one that we would normally intend to—
  Mr. BercowNormally?
  Mr. Raynsford: I used the word "normally" because, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, I said previously that if there were a derisorily low level of support, the options were very close to one another, there was very little in it and the turnout was low, we might feel that that was not a sound basis on which to proceed. I have made that point already. Even if he is worried about me, he will know that I usually choose my words very carefully, which is why I used the word "normally". There is nothing sinister for him to read into that word.
  Mr. Bercow: Of course, we all understand the dangers of allowing the Liberals to indulge their pettifogging enthusiasms for proportional representation, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the position would be in the unlikely event of a tie between two options or even, conceivably, four? Would the ballot be re-run or would he, in his infinite wisdom, decide which option should prevail?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman refers to a hypothetical situation. It is extremely unlikely that there would be an absolute tie, but as I told him, if the vote was very close and the participation was not necessarily regarded as a sound basis for a decision, there might well be a case for a further ballot. I can say no more than that, because these are hypothetical situations, but that would be my view as to the most likely outcome in such circumstances.
  Mr. Swire: Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), can the Minister envisage a vote whereby he is satisfied as to the level of participation by those answering the main question about whether they want to have a regional assembly, but dissatisfied with regard to the secondary question about the reorganisation of local government? There may be an enormous number of spoilt ballot papers and people might not understand the choices. What will happen if he is satisfied that there is overall local demand for a regional assembly, but not satisfied by the level of participation with regard to the second issue?
  Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear answer to that. I can certainly envisage that situation arising, because we would be dealing with two separate electorates. The electorate for the regional decision will cover all areas, including those that are already unitary. There could be a derisorily small vote in the local
  326
  government section of the referendum, but a very satisfactory vote in the regional one. In that situation, I think that we would take the view—I cannot say so absolutely because I cannot bind successors, but it would certainly be my presumption—that there should be an opportunity for a further ballot in the local government area affected, because we would not wish to proceed on the basis of an outcome that had a derisory level of participation. That is one of the reasons why there has to be scope for a separate second election, rather than one that happens on the same day, as in the case of the regional one.
  2 pm
  The situation could occur, but I rather hope that it would not, and my judgment is that it will not. I would expect people to be just as interested in how their local authorities operate as in the principle of regional government, so there would be good turnout in both cases. However, I can envisage the possibility, and provision has to be made for it.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry: I provoked him earlier and have been very slow in coming back to him.
  Mr. Davey: I thank the Minister for saying that in the event of a derisory vote in the local government referendum it would be re-run. That is the appropriate response, no doubt with some reference to the boundary committee for England.
  I suggest that in a situation where the boundary committee put forward more than two options in a local government referendum there should be a preferential—not a proportional—voting system, because that would help the Minister to decide on the way forward. As he knows, such referendums are not binding, but they are supposed to tell him what the feelings of local people are. A preferential voting system where there are more than two options would inform the Minister as to the most preferred option. That would be a sensible way forward. Has the Minister thought of putting such a proposal in the final guidance to the boundary committee?
  Mr. Raynsford: There is some risk that we are getting into ever more complex hypothetical situations that hopefully will not arise. The principle that I want to focus on is that there must be a second vote and that it must allow a good opportunity for people living in areas with two separate tiers of local government to express their view about what is the best form of unitary local government. That should determine the outcome, subject to the caveats that I expressed. I hope that those will not be necessary in any circumstances, because the outcome is clear, but I can envisage circumstances in which it might not be. In such cases, our objective would be to act in a way that reflected the views expressed by people in two-tier areas and gave effect to the outcome that appears to command the greatest support.
  I do not want to get into too much speculation about what might happen in extremely unlikely hypothetical situations. The hon. Member for Buckingham

  327
  delightfully conjured up the possibility of four separate options producing a dead heat. I sincerely hope that we never get into that situation.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is being very patient with hon. Members like me who did not serve on the Committee by rehearsing matters that he will have already covered on innumerable occasions. I listened with great interest to what he said about the possibility, which he considers likely in some circumstances, that turnout is so low in a particular area that a clear decision in respect of local government reorganisation is not made. Can he explain what would then happen as regards the decision to move ahead with regional government, given that 90 per cent. of people in the region that he mentioned might have supported it? Would the delay in local government determination in one small part of the region hold up the movement to regional government for the rest of its people?
  Mr. Raynsford: I said that I could envisage the situation arising because there would be two separate electorates. I went on to say, however, that I hoped that it would not, because people would have as much interest in the future of local government in their region as in the future of regional government. My expectation is that there would not be a derisorily low vote in one ballot and a satisfactory one in the other. So yes, I did concede that it was a possibility, and that in that situation it might not be possible to proceed with confidence on the basis of the view expressed in the vote on the preferred option for local government reorganisation. However, I return to first principles: we have always said that the introduction of regional government must be accompanied by a move towards a wholly unitary structure of local government, so the issues must be taken together. It would not be possible to proceed to introduce an elected regional assembly without introducing unitary local government at the same time, so the two would have to run in parallel. There would have to be a decision on the local government issue before elected regional assemblies could be introduced.
  Mr. Davey: I think that we need to press the Minister on this point. There would be plenty of time to run the second ballot on the local government reorganisation question while preparations for setting up the regional assembly went ahead pending the vote on the assembly. Surely we would not want there to be any delay while the second ballot took place.
  Mr. Raynsford: I sincerely hope that that does not have to happen. We want a sensible way forward whereby people can express their view, first, on the merits of having an elected regional assembly and, secondly, on the preferred option for unitary local government in their area. However, we do envisage the possibility of circumstances in which there is not a clear outcome from either ballot, so the Secretary of State has to have the necessary degree of discretion to cope with those situations. That is what we have put into the Bill. It seeks to secure the outcome that gains the support of the majority of people voting in the regional referendum and the local government reorganisation referendum.
  We cannot absolutely guarantee, however, that what secures the largest number of votes will be the outcome, because in some circumstances the level of voting may
  328
  be derisorily small and it would not be safe to proceed on that basis. In that situation, there may be a case for seeking a further referendum giving people the opportunity to vote again, or the Secretary of State might decide that the introduction of elected regional assemblies should not proceed. Those are matters for discretion, as I have made clear throughout our deliberations in Committee and this afternoon. I hope that the situation will not arise other than in extreme and exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. Beith: I suggest to the Minister that what should happen in those circumstances is that if it has become clear, perhaps owing to a boycott or a minimal vote on the local government ballot, that the boundary committee has not come up with a satisfactory form of unitary government, yet the region has voted for an assembly, there is sufficient time—since the Bill to establish the powers will not have been enacted at that stage—to go back to the boundary committee to say, "Please come up with some alternative, more widely-supported proposal", which proposal can then be put to a vote. All that could be achieved before the key dates for the setting up of the regional assembly, and it need not delay its creation.
  Mr. Raynsford: Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted does not contain the provisions that would enable us to go back to the boundary committee in that situation, so it is not possible to envisage doing so. I can understand the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but the Bill does not permit it. There would have to be a re-run of the ballots both for the elected regional assembly and for the local government element, and the whole process would have to be reopened. We simply do not have the power to go back to the boundary committee and ask it to make alternative proposals. We would therefore have to start the whole process again by inviting the boundary committee to review local government boundaries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that while his proposal might be desirable in some cases, it is not a sensible or satisfactory way forward.
  Joyce Quin: I, too, am worried about delay and somewhat concerned about what my right hon. Friend has just said. Will he give a sympathetic response in the case of a region showing a clear desire to create a regional assembly and ensure that it is not thwarted by what could be perceived as a minor problem of local government reorganisation?
  Mr. Raynsford: That is exactly our intention. We do not wish a minor hiccup to frustrate the whole process. Perhaps I did not express well to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) the undesirable consequences of having to re-run the process because of a minor hiccup in the local government element.
  The more we look into the matter and the more we provide for different circumstances, the easier it is to envisage the extreme possibilities that have been conjured. If we become unduly preoccupied with that, we will lose sight of the main objective, which is to ensure an opportunity for people in the region to express, through a referendum, their view of the best

  329
  form of unitary local government as well as an opportunity for those in the wider region to vote on the principle of an elected regional assembly.
  Mr. Edward Davey: It is important not to give parties who follow our proceedings the wrong impression. In some local government areas, people might boycott the local government referendum to hold up the creation of a regional assembly, thus operating a veto. The Minister would know that a boycott was simply a wrecking tactic. Would he use his discretion to prevent such wrecking campaigns?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already made clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) the Government's intention to make it possible for people to express their views on the best way forward through referendums on the principle of elected regional assemblies and local government reorganisation. We do not intend to give any comfort to people who have a wholly negative view of the process.
  We oppose thresholds partly because they give people a perverse incentive not to vote: not voting might make it impossible to implement a measure that many people support but cannot be attained without the participation of sufficient electors to reach the threshold. We are keen to avoid such a perverse incentive and we have therefore resisted the idea of a threshold. We believe however that there must be some discretion for the Secretary of State to cope with circumstances in which participation is derisorily low—not through wrecking tactics—or in which the outcomes are so finely balanced that it is difficult to proceed with confidence. Such discretion must therefore remain.
  We shall proceed to allow the intentions of the majority of people in the region—whether the whole region or the area affected by local government reorganisation—to determine the outcome.
  Amendment No. 5 provides two versions of the preamble for the local government referendum, depending on whether there is a single ballot paper or two ballot papers. The Electoral Commission made it clear that its comments were based on the assumption that there would be a single ballot paper, and the Government would aim for that in most circumstances. However, we must also provide for the possibility of having to hold a further local referendum on its own if the result is overturned in the courts. We might also need separate ballot papers if the local government options are numerous—for example, when county areas are combined because one option crosses a boundary or when the options are especially complex. In the latter case, a single ballot paper with adequate provision for partially sighted people might be unwieldy and it would therefore be better to have two ballot papers.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister guide me to the relevant provision for a stand-alone local referendum in the circumstances that he outlined? I believed that the measure provided only for simultaneous local and regional referendums.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: That is the case but if, for example, a decision in the courts prevented the Secretary of State from proceeding on the basis of a local government ballot, it would be impossible to go further without a second, stand-alone ballot on preferences for forms of unitary local government. If an outcome were challenged because of an allegation of malpractice and the court set aside the unitary local government element, the Secretary of State would have to hold a second ballot. That is the only possible way forward.
  Mr. Hammond: I agree with the logic, but will the Secretary of State have such a statutory power? I cannot find it.
  Mr. Raynsford: In the case that I outlined, the Secretary of State would act on the outcome of a court decision that set aside the original referendum result. I am advised that holding a second referendum would constitute acting properly. I am further advised that amendment No. 11 to clause 5 provides for that.
  Electoral Commission advice recognises that if a local government question is on a separate ballot paper, further explanation will be needed in the preamble. Amendment No. 5 therefore includes two options for the statement that precedes the local government question. Additional text will be needed for the local referendum question once we know the precise options for change that are to be put to voters. Proposed new subsection (2D) of clause 2 provides that the detailed text will given in an order, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The order must also set out the explanatory material that relates to the local government options and will be made available to voters when they vote, either with their ballot papers or at the polling station. As I said earlier, the explanatory material may include maps or other information that will make it easier for people to understand the proposals.
  Amendment No. 5 also provides that the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the text of the options and the explanatory material before he lays the order for the referendum. He must lay a report before Parliament that sets out the commission's views when he presents the order.
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would amend clause 8 to ensure that the Electoral Commission could provide information to voters about the arguments on the local government options. As we have made clear, the Government also intend to prepare and distribute a summary of their proposals for local government and elected assemblies before any referendums. We envisage that it will be distributed to every household in the relevant region.
  Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to clause 3 set out the franchise for the local referendums. Those who are entitled to vote in local government elections in the relevant county area will be able to vote on the second question. Those who live in existing unitary areas will not be able to vote on the local government options. We have already covered that.
  Amendment No. 11 to clause 5 provides that, in the case of a successful legal challenge to the result of a local government referendum, the Secretary of State could

  331
  order a repeat local government referendum. However, a repeat regional referendum would not have to be held at the same time. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). For example, it is possible to envisage a position in which the local government referendum in one county area is successfully challenged but the overall result of the regional referendum is not in doubt. However, the amendment would not allow a repeat regional referendum without local government referendums at the same time. We believe that any doubt about the outcome of one referendum for the whole region must apply to the results of the local government referendums in parts of the region.
  Mr. Don Foster: I apologise for intervening on the Minister again. Perhaps I am being extremely stupid, but he has made it very clear that amendment No. 11 allows for the possibility, if a local government decision is set aside by the courts, of a second, independent vote on that issue without it affecting the regional government decision. Will the Minister confirm that he must surely have been wrong when he said earlier that if there had to be a second vote on a local government issue for any other reason, there would have to be a second referendum across the whole region? Surely that is not right, because if it were, he would have been incorrect to tell the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West a few moments ago that the Government were going to ensure that the few would not hold up the views of the majority.
  Mr. Raynsford: This illustrates the complexity of trying to bring together the two separate elements. Let me try to set out all the circumstances. In an ideal world, one would expect the results of both referendums to be clear and without problems. In such cases, things would proceed perfectly properly. The outcome of the regional referendum will determine whether there is to be an elected regional assembly and whether there is to be local government reorganisation. The outcome of the second referendum on the unitary level government will determine the outcome for the local government areas affected.
  If there were doubt as to the validity of the regional referendum, the whole exercise would have to be replayed. There could be no question of the local government reorganisation element standing; in such circumstances, the whole thing should be replayed. If there were doubt about one of the local government elements—there could well be two, three or four such elements, depending on the number of counties in the area affected—it is possible that there might have to be a re-run, for the reasons that I have outlined, if the courts were to challenge the outcome of one of those local elections. In such a situation, it would be possible to re-run the outcome of that local element without setting aside either the regional result or the results of the local referendums in the other county areas. I hope that that makes it clear for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foster: The Minister has described every set of circumstances other than the one about which I specifically asked him. The circumstances to which I am referring are those in which doubts might be cast about the validity of a local government decision in a
  332
  particular local government area because, for example, of extremely low turnout. The Minister has said that it might be necessary in such circumstances for that local decision to be re-run, and it is right and proper that that should happen. My question is a simple one. In those circumstances, would there have to be a re-run of the regional government ballot as well? The Minister said earlier that that was the case, yet he told the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West that a small number of people in such a local government area would not be able to thwart the wishes of the majority.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is broadly the case, but if there were an effective legal action which halted—
  Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the Secretary of State had no ability to proceed because the outcome had been challenged, the provision in amendment No. 11 states that he may
  "cause a further referendum to be held"
  in the county area affected—just in that county area, not in the wider one. I am sorry that I am finding it hard to follow the argument the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I shall give him a further opportunity to explain it.
  Mr. Foster: I shall try one last time, then I promise that I shall cease. The Minister is still evading the question. He keeps going back to the legal set-aside that is, as he rightly says, covered by amendment No. 11. Earlier in our deliberations, however, he said that in certain circumstances it would be possible for the Secretary of State to use his discretion, not because of a legal challenge, not to go ahead with a decision taken at local level—for example, because of low turnout. My question is a simple one. In such circumstances, if the Secretary of State were to use his discretion to set aside a local government vote and there had to be a re-run, would there have to be a regional ballot for regional government across the whole region?
  Mr. Raynsford: In a situation in which the Secretary of State decided that the ballot was unsatisfactory as a basis to proceed, it would be necessary for the whole process to be re-run. If, however, the outcome in one—or more than one—individual county area of the local government element were challenged at law and overturned, it would be possible to re-run those local components in the referendum as stand-alone elements. That is why there is provision for us to have a re-run of the local component in the referendum without having the whole exercise repeated. But those are the only circumstances in which we would envisage a re-run of those local components.
  Mr. Hammond: I would like to make sure that I have understood this. Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State has no power, other than in a situation of legal challenge, to order a re-run of the local ballot only?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am advised that there are two options for the Secretary of State. First, he may use his discretion to proceed with establishing an elected

  333
  regional assembly and implementing the local government change, or to re-run both referendums. That applies in a situation in which the Secretary of State, using his discretion, determines that the outcome of one or other of the elements in the referendum is unsatisfactory. If the Secretary of State were unable to proceed because an element had been challenged at law, there would be scope to re-run the local element of the referendum without requiring the regional one to be repeated. I hope that we have now established the position.
  Amendment No. 12 to clause 6 enables the regional referendum poll to be combined with the polls for local government referendums. These two referendums must be held on the same day, so it makes sense to enable the polls to be combined to reduce bureaucracy. Under the amended clause 6, it would also still be possible to combine these polls with other polls for local or general elections, or for local mayoral referendums.
  Amendments Nos. 13, 19 and 23 are tidying-up amendments arising out of the introduction of the second referendum question. Rather than have separate requirements dotted throughout the Bill, the amendments bring together in one place the requirements to consult the Electoral Commission before making orders: in clause 11, which deals with supplementary provisions. Amendments Nos. 14, 17, 18, 34 and 35 are all consequential amendments to reflect that there will now be local referendums as well as regional referendums. I hope that we have now covered all the rather complex issues implicit in the amendments under consideration, and I urge the House to support them.
  Mr. Hammond: I congratulate the Minister on thwarting my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in his bet that he would pass the one-hour milestone in that opening speech. We have covered some particularly interesting and detailed points that Members genuinely wanted to explore. I should like to analyse what this large group of amendments does and does not do, and then look at the genesis of the rather cynical pact between the Liberal Democrats and the Government that lies behind them.
  When it left the Commons, the Bill required the boundary committee to have recommended a unitary reorganisation of local government for a region—that is, one single unitary reorganisation pattern for the region—prior to any referendum on an elected regional assembly taking place. As the Minister clearly said, this group of amendments introduces a requirement for two or more solutions for such reorganisation to be put forward, and a provision that electors in two-tier areas only would express a view as between them in a simultaneous referendum.
  I choose my words carefully, because the electors will not be choosing the local government system that they want to live under. They will express a view on two or more options that have been put to them. That is the nub of it. Most of the amendments would simply extend the scope of other provisions to accommodate the proposed changes. Thus, they are consequential, although I want to return to a specific detailed question in a moment.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Beith: As the hon. Gentleman is setting out, quite correctly, what the amendments contain, it might be helpful to make it clear that they would introduce a principle that was not present on any occasion on which the Conservative party reorganised local government, abolished counties or created unitary authorities—namely, the voters in the area concerned would have a vote on which pattern they preferred.
  Mr. Hammond: But they would not have a vote on the possibility of retaining the existing system, although the Liberal Democrats were vehement that that needed to be included when the Bill was considered in this place.
  We have heard the Minister's explanation of the Government's volte-face, which he expressed in terms of giving people a choice. They will have a choice between two alternative forms of compulsory "unitarisation" of their local government, but they will not have the option of saying that they would prefer to retain the existing form of local government.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the previous Government gave local electors no choice at all on the form of local government. Is it now Conservative party policy to be against unitary local government and in favour of the option of retaining two-tier local authorities throughout the UK?
  Mr. Hammond: Clearly, as I have said on a number of occasions, the issue ought to be decided by local electors, but it cannot be, because the Government are explicitly not allowing that choice to be put to them. As Liberal Members know, that point was made strongly from their Benches and supported by us when the Bill was considered in the Commons, so let me explain to the House what has happened here; the real reason for this rather cynical deal.
  The Liberal Democrats, from the outset, have wanted the option of keeping two-tier local government. I assume that that is still their position. Indeed, at the end of the long debate in the other place when these amendments were agreed, Baroness Hamwee expressed that view. The Government, from the outset, have insisted on an all-unitary solution to prevent there being three tiers of government between central Government and the elector in some areas.
  We sympathise with both views. We agree that three tiers are too many, but we also agree that it is wrong to impose unitary local government as a consequence. Our conclusion—the logical conclusion—is that the superfluous tier is not the historic counties or the districts, the tier closest to the electorate, but the proposed regional tier itself.
  The Liberals argued consistently for a three-tier option. The Government, during consideration in the Commons, maintained that a unitary solution is a necessary precondition for elected regional assemblies. The Liberal Democrats also recognised something else, perhaps rather perceptively, early on in the proceedings—the reality that the electorate in two-tier areas are unlikely to believe that the consequence of an imposed unitary local government structure is a price worth paying for the dubious privilege of having an

  335
  elected regional assembly with uncertain, but certainly minimal, powers. They recognised the threat to the programme to introduce elected regional assemblies represented by coupling local government reorganisation with compulsory "unitarisation".
  Scandalously, in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to do away with the requirement for the boundary committee to report before a referendum, as they wanted to avoid the electorate knowing the detail of the changes that would be imposed on them and preferred to keep the electorate in ignorance. The Government, to their credit, rejected the idea at that stage and at least retained some of their principles.
  In response to amendment No. 26, the Minister said:
  "Amendment No. 26 from the Liberal Democrats would remove the requirement for a local government review to be carried out by the Boundary Committee before an order causing a referendum was made. Rather, the committee will only have had to be directed to prepare to carry out a review. We believe that any local government review of a region should be carried out before a referendum on elected regional assemblies, so that voters are fully informed of the implications of a yes vote for local government in their region."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 515.]
  That was at least an honourable position, and we and many supporters of elected regional assemblies recognised that it would make it harder to win a referendum on such assemblies as the cost to be imposed on the electorate in terms of all-unitary local government reorganisation would be spelled out in detail to them at the time of the referendum.
  I am sorry to say that, as the Government have seen support for that extra tier of government fade, even in the areas that they regarded as early candidates for referendums, their principles have been put on the block. The Liberal Democrats, who never had any and who saw from the outset the need to conceal from the electors the detailed consequences of a yes vote, as I have shown by reference to amendment No. 26, have done the Government's dirty work for them in the other place. These are not essentially Liberal Democrat amendments, although the principal amendment was tabled by Baroness Hamwee. However, she acknowledged the work that the Government put in on the amendments and the help that they gave.
  There was a coalition effort at trying to salvage something from the regional agenda, as the Government and the Liberal Democrats—both keen exponents of it—recognise that the mood is drifting from them, even in those areas where they felt most secure.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I will deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's more ludicrous points in my speech, but I want to get this on the record, as I am sure that he does not want to mislead the House. Amendment No. 26 was tabled in relation to other amendments, which were not selected at the same time, to facilitate complete decoupling of local government reorganisation from the regional assembly referendum. That is our main position. He is suggesting that we wanted to keep information from the electorate. That is not the case, and he knows it.
  Mr. Hammond: I simply quoted the Minister from Hansard. My understanding is that amendment No. 26 would have put the local government review after the date of a referendum. People will draw their own conclusions from that.
  336
  Liberal Democrats in the other place struck a deal with the Government, and this is what it amounts to. Liberal Democrat peers, working with my noble Friends, could have written into the Bill many important changes that Liberal Democrats argued for in this House, simply because of the arithmetic in the other place. For example, they could have included provisions on separate referendums on whether electors supported local government reform, rather than on simply which of a number of unitary options they preferred, and on reviewing the artificial and often irrelevant boundaries for the proposed regions. All those things were argued for strongly and passionately by Liberal Democrat Members of this House and by Conservative Members.
  However, the Liberal Democrats chose to abandon the opportunity that presented itself in the House of Lords to push such amendments through in alliance with Conservative peers and bring those proposals back to this House for a further airing. They chose to abandon all those long-held objections to the Bill's structure, including that on imposed unitary authorities, in exchange for Government support for this cynical arrangement, which conceals and will conceal from the electorate the true consequences of a yes vote in a regional referendum. [Interruption.] It will conceal those consequences from the electorate. The original Bill proposed a single clear, unambiguous solution for the imposition of unitary local government on a region in the event of a vote for an elected regional assembly in a referendum. Under the new proposals, two, three or four possible solutions could be presented to the electorate to muddy the water, it being unclear which if any of the options would ultimately be imposed.
  Mr. Raynsford: Why is the principle that the honourable Gentleman quoted me as having enunciated in Committee in any way compromised by the fact that the electorate will have a choice? While knowing full well that the outcome will be wholly unitary local government, they will be able to decide on the option that they prefer.
  Mr. Hammond: We discussed that at length in Committee. The Minister knows that people are very concerned about the minutiae of local boundaries, local organisation and local structures; in fact, one of the great strengths of local government is its relevance to people because it is close to them. People will not be able to focus on three or four options as clear consequences of a yes vote in a referendum, as they could have done under the original Commons proposals.
  The Minister may wish to deny this, but I submit that many Members and people outside favouring elected regional assemblies have observed, since the publication of the original Bill, that the linking of local government reorganisation with the establishment of assemblies and of the boundary committee review with the publication of the committee's decision prior to the referendum would make it significantly harder for them to carry the day.
  Mr. Beith: Am I to understand that the Conservatives will vote against the amendment because they do not think electors should be able to choose their unitary authority, or indeed choose not to have a unitary authority, a choice that would fall to them if they had no

  337
  regional assembly? That would at least be consistent with the Conservatives' previous position: when they imposed unitary authorities, the electorate had no vote at all.
  Mr. Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself, and wait to find out what I advise my colleagues to do. He has, however, put his finger on the problem. Apart from voting against elected regional assemblies, electors still have no way of expressing their opposition to the abolition of their existing two-tier authorities. Liberals in the Commons argued strongly for such an opportunity. I am disappointed that Liberals in the Lords have abandoned not just that but a number of other important issues—for instance, the need for a review of regional boundaries with the aim of establishing something more like real, effective regions, rather than the totally arbitrary and irrelevant boundaries that the Government are imposing. Not a squeak did we hear from them during consideration in the Lords.
  As every Member of this House knows, the House of Lords gives Liberals and Conservatives an opportunity to force the Government to re-examine the issues. That is particularly relevant now, when the Government are extremely sensitive about the time scale and have made it clear that they can afford no delay.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his use of the term "totally arbitrary and irrelevant" to describe Government office boundaries made effective by his party?
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Hammond: They are indeed totally arbitrary and irrelevant to an elected democratic assembly, for which the Government propose to use them. That is not a very good debating point: the Minister has used it before, and I have answered it before.
  For the record, the Government office regions have a long history. They originated in second world war food production planning regions, which were amalgamated in the 1970s and 1980s for economic planning purposes. The last Conservative Government used them as administrative divisions for the regional Government offices, which are administrative bodies and are not democratically elected.
  As I am sure the House agrees, there is no point in my referring to all the amendments. Almost all are paving and consequential amendments surrounding a core principle. Let me ask the Minister one specific, detailed question. Lords amendment no. 11 proposes a new subsection (3G), to which he referred. It accepts a requirement for the Government to present the Electoral Commission's report to each House before an order is made.
  Various amendments were made in the Commons—supported by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—imposing such a requirement on the Government. The Government resisted the requirement for them to publish the commission's report. The commission confirmed to me that it would expect routinely to publish such advice on its website
  338
  and it would therefore become publicly available; I advised the Committee accordingly. The Government, however, have now changed their position and accepted that the Secretary of State should publish the report.
  I have, in fact, two questions for the Minister. First, why have the Government changed their position? Secondly, having changed their position in respect of the commission's report, why have they not been consistent and included a similar provision in each part of the Bill that provides for a report from the commission to the Secretary of State? That is, I think, the effect of the totality of the amendments tabled in Committee.
  The amendments clearly do not offer the option of retaining a two-tier structure. This deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government seals the fate of county councils in all regions that vote for an elected regional assembly. It does not even give local electors control over the form of unitary authority that they have. The Minister has already made it clear that the ultimate discretion will rest with the Secretary of State rather than the ballot box.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense when he says that this will mean the end of county councils. In the county of Durham, for example, the option could be a unitary county council.
  Mr. Hammond: It is conceivable that in some cases the name may survive. In fact, we have already had this discussion. In an earlier debate, I invited the Minister to speculate on whether the Secretary of State might be minded to allow Kent or Essex—both with populations of well over 1.5 million, perhaps approaching 2 million—to become unitary authorities. Although the Minister definitely said that it was a possibility, the consensus is that the Government do not intend the creation of unitary authorities of that size. If they are created, the Government will have scored a massive own goal by moving the lowest tier of local government so far from the people it represents as to make it meaningless to them. The unitary authority of Kent or Essex would have almost the same population as the north-east regional assembly.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be so disparaging about the work of Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart in Kent and Lord Hanningfield in Essex. Both are members of his party, and he describes them as being hopelessly remote from the people of their area. Does he accept that I have always made it clear that it is for the independent boundary committee to come forward with recommendations, and that its concern is to decide on the most effective form of unitary local government for the area? The committee will make that judgment, which could involve a unitary county or a different formulation. However, the judgment will be that of the independent boundary committee, based on the criterion of what is the best form of local government.
  Mr. Hammond: I maintain that, in practice, the deal that has been struck means the death of county councils, at least in the great majority of cases. Let me place on record the fact that I have the highest regard for Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart and Lord Hanningfield,

  339
  although I am quite certain that neither would believe that their county councils—given the scale of the budgets that they control and the size of the populations and territory in which they operate—would be the most effective lower tier of local government, closest to the electorate.
  I am glad that the Minister mentioned that the boundary committee would make the recommendation, because that brings me to another point. The Secretary of State has a power—we have come to expect such things—to give the boundary committee directions. So off it goes, doing its independent thing, but with guidance and direction from the Secretary of State. Given that we are now in a different situation, in which the boundary committee will recommend not a single outcome but at least two outcomes, the Minister could help by giving the House an idea of what the Secretary of State's guidance will be.
  Will the Secretary of State actively solicit from the boundary committee a range of outcomes that are significantly different—in other words, various radical approaches to the problem of reorganisation—or will the committee use the procedure that it would have used in arriving at a single conclusion, and simply stop a little short of that single conclusion, once it has whittled the options down to two? The process that the boundary committee will have to embark on will be very different if what he is trying to achieve at the end of it is distinctive alternatives to put before the Secretary of State and then, hopefully, the electorate. To take up the Minister's point about Kent, perhaps the guidance might be that one of the options presented should always be a unitary county. If that is what the Minister has in mind, it would be extremely interesting and useful for the House to he aware of that.
  These amendments muddy the water by conveying the impression that the electorate has a say in, and a way of expressing a view on, the local government question other than simply voting no in the referendum on elected regional assemblies. Of course, the Government's nightmare—it is certainly the Liberal Democrats'—is that those who are opposed to local government reorganisation will vote no to elected regional assemblies not because of their views on them, but because of their views on local government reorganisation. Crucially, as I said in response to the Minister's earlier intervention, this approach avoids a clear, single, well-defined consequence from a yes vote in terms of local government reorganisation.
  The Liberal Democrats' own Front-Bench spokesman in the Lords, Lord Greaves, at least had the decency to resign in protest at this rather squalid deal to conceal matters from the electorate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote Lord Greaves, because what he said is quite significant. He refers to the
  "amendments on the Marshalled List that are part of a package negotiated between members of my party and the Government—there is no secret about that … The crunch is whether people in areas that are to have referendums on regional assemblies…have the democratic option to decide for themselves and not be told by the Minister, 10 Downing Street or anyone else that two-tier local government is not allowed."
  340
  Lord Greaves was speaking after he had resigned from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He said:
  "In Committee, when I spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of my party … Lord Rooker said:
  'If this measure is decoupled, there will not be a referendum because there will not be a Bill. We shall take it away. That is the price to be paid. It is as simple as that.' … I said,
  'We now have threats, bluster and blackmail from the Minister—not rational argument … The Minister's attitude is not acceptable … We are being threatened that if we do what we believe is right, the Government will take their bat and ball home. If it comes to that, do not blame us. The responsibility would clearly rest with the Government. It is arrogance of the highest order.'
  Later I said …:
  'The Liberal Democrats will not be brow-beaten in every instance'",
  presumably implying that they are willing to be browbeaten in some instances. Lord Greaves then said:
  "I repeat those words at some length because I believed then that I was speaking on behalf of my party. After I spoke, I was not given an indication that I had not been speaking on behalf of my party. But I believe that my party has, regrettably, now agreed to be blackmailed, bullied and browbeaten."
  What is more, he knows who is responsible:
  "I do not blame my noble friend Lady Hamwee for what I think is a very sad series of events. I blame Ed Davey"—
  the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—
  "and my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to stand up in public and say that. I believe that in my part of the world, and in other parts of the world, too, Liberal Democrats will believe that they have been let down on this issue by their parliamentary representatives."
  After this triumph in the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats put out a press statement, to which Lord Greaves referred in the Lords.
  "'These concessions prevent the absurd situation whereby voters unaffected by local government reform would effectively be imposing changes on voters elsewhere in the region.'"
  Lord Greaves said of that press release:
  "That is not true. The amendments do not prevent that. All that they do is give those voters a choice. If they believe that unitary government is some form of hell, it gives them a choice of two kinds of hell."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, cc. 20–21.]
  That is the view of the Liberal Democrats' own former spokesman, who either resigned or was sacked as a result of this deal being struck in the Lords.
  This is a cynical manoeuvre by a desperate Government and unprincipled Liberal Democrats, from which label I must of course exclude Lord Greaves. The Liberal Democrat press release proceeded to crow that the amendments meant regional government was now assured. I am not sure about that, but to the extent that it is more likely, it is not more likely because a fundamental objection—the imposition of unitary local government, to which the Liberal Democrats still purport to object—has been removed, but because a smokescreen has been erected to obfuscate the issues and confuse the electorate. The Liberal Democrats, who so aggressively and implausibly stake their claim in this House to be considered a party of opposition, have demonstrated through this shabby affair—if any demonstration were needed—that they are not a party

  341
  of opposition, but fellow travellers of Labour in England, just as they are in a more formal sense in Scotland and in Wales.
  Mr. Don Foster: Since the hon. Gentleman is so keen on stressing the importance of opposition, could he make a clear statement as to whether his party will vote against these proposals?
  Mr. Hammond: I shall come to that right now. We will not be dividing the House on this issue, and the reason is clear for everyone in the House to see: because of the arithmetic. We know that the Government will get their way in this House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): It did not stop you last night.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says that, but of course the Government will get their way in this House. However, in the other place there is a real chance to achieve some of the changes that we and the Liberal Democrats sought. There is a real chance to change this Bill and incorporate some of those provisions that we argued for in Committee and on Report.
  Liberal Democrats know that they had a real chance of securing a Government compromise in the other place because of the self-imposed time limits—[Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that the single change that he opted for, in preference to all the other changes that he sought, is a poor choice. The Liberal Democrats have not only acquiesced in the matter, but have actively conspired with the Government to ensure the demise of our counties in any areas where elected regional assemblies are set up.
  3 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I will deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points in my speech. However, he quoted the noble Lord Rooker in the other place, who said:
  "If this measure is decoupled"—
  the hon. Gentleman is right that that is what we sought—
  "there will not be a referendum because there will not be a Bill. We shall take it away."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 2003; Vol. 1905, c. 1515.]
  It was clear that we were not going to win: the Bill and the regional government that we support would have been lost, so we compromised. We won a compromise, which brought us far more than the hon. Gentleman gives us credit for. When he finishes, I will outline what we won in more detail.
  Mr. Hammond: I believe that that is what the honourable Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Greaves described as "threats, bluster and blackmail" from the Minister. Lord Greaves went on to say that, regrettably, his party—the Liberal Democrats—had agreed to be "blackmailed, bullied and browbeaten". That is not the best way to proceed, certainly not in the other place, which is renowned for its gentlemanly—I should say gentle—behaviour.
  342
  Liberal Democrats have always been strong supporters of elected regional assemblies, so by extension Liberal Democrat policy should now be viewed as firmly in favour of the abolition of county councils and our two-tier system of local government. It is even worse than that. The original proposal in the Bill was for the boundary commission to make a single unitary recommendation. That would have created considerable disruption and manoeuvring between different parties and different authorities in the area. We all recognised in Committee that disruption at local government level, which inevitably impacts on services, is to be avoided if possible. Now we are to have multiple options and a question that will not be resolved by the time that the boundary committee reports to the Secretary of State, which it would have been in the Commons version of the Bill.
  All that will have a negative impact on service delivery and will prolong and deepen the disruption at local government level. It will impact on the ability of local authorities to recruit and retain staff in the face of uncertainty about their future status—indeed, their survival—and it will be a distraction from the real job, which gets harder by the day, of trying to deliver decent services to local people. The Government and—it seems—the Liberal Democrats are still driven by dogma and ideology. They are prepared to sacrifice the issues of real concern to the public—service delivery—for their own arcane agenda of constitutional reform. They want to create assemblies that will impose huge costs, but not deliver a single extra teacher or nurse, or put a single extra policeman on our streets. That message will not be lost on local electors as they go to the polls tomorrow.
  Joyce Quin: In an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister, I warmly welcomed the amendments and I should now like to expand on my intervention.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who was for a long time coy about how he intended to react to the amendments and whether he would vote against them. He then declared that because of the parliamentary arithmetic, he would not vote against them, which suggests that from now on the Opposition will call no more votes. That would certainly provide a big change to parliamentary procedures.
  I am glad that the amendment was proposed in the other place and equally glad that the Government agreed to it. Rather than it being some sort of cynical arrangement, as suggested by Conservative Members, I view it as a wholly sensible compromise between the Government's understandable desire not to have too many tiers of government, and their intention to ensure that people living in the areas that will be affected by local government reorganisation are not dictated to and outvoted by people already living in the unitary areas within regions, which tend to be the more populous districts.
  As a Tynesider and a Member of Parliament who represents parts of both Tyneside and Wearside, I feel deeply uncomfortable at the thought of voting to ensure a particular local government outcome in the county areas of Northumberland and Durham in my region. I am glad that, as a result of the compromise, I will no longer be put in that position and I can now happily vote

  343
  for regional government without feeling that I am compromising the democratic process—my earlier worry—in any way.
  I have never been, and am still not, keen on the link between regional government and local government reorganisation, because I believe that they are separate issues, which should be dealt with separately on their own merits. Some of the complexities that have arisen—they have already been raised in the debate—somewhat reinforce my viewpoint, but I nevertheless share the Government's perspective on the advantages of unitary local government and their desire to give people in affected areas a degree of choice. Decrying that degree of choice comes strange from Conservative Members, who certainly gave the voters in Tyne and Wear no choice at all about the form of unitary government that they would have when the Tyne and Wear county council was abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) also blew the gaff effectively on the Opposition's claim that they were defending county councils because it is clear that the boundary commissions could recommend the existing county area as the unitary authority of the future. At that point, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seemed less interested in Durham than in Kent, but I remind him that they are both county council areas.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sudden conversion of the Conservative party to the sacrosanctity of county councils is misplaced? The Local Government Act 1972 reduced the number of county councils from 58 to 47, and every major change in county boundaries has taken place under a Conservative Government.
  Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. I intended to make the point strongly that the Conservatives' reputation as the wreckers of historic counties will remain firmly intact, even after today's proceedings. The major changes to historic counties—and their destruction—were certainly carried out by the Conservatives' local government reforms of the 1970s. Those were added to by subsequent changes granting unitary status in other historic counties such as Berkshire, Durham and elsewhere. Any claim of the Conservatives to be the defenders of historic counties is totally unconvincing.
  The amendments would enormously improve the Bill. They would increase the chances of favourable results in referendums on regional government, but in the end, people have a choice about whether they favour regional government. Conservative Members often suggest that people will be dragooned or compelled to adopt regional government, which is far from the case. People will be able to choose whether to move towards regional government, and I greatly welcome the fact that they will have that choice rather than have it imposed on them.
  Mr. Hammond: The right hon. Lady will recognise that in several regions, the majority of the electorate already live in unitary authority areas so they will not suffer from the reorganisation of local government, which is the subject of our concern this afternoon.
  Joyce Quin: I recognise that. As I said earlier, I have never run away from the fact that I would prefer
  344
  regional and local government to be fully decoupled. Even so, it is clear to me that what the amendment offers is a huge improvement on what existed previously. It would give people a degree of choice that they have always been denied in previous local government reforms, and leave them in the happy position that they would not be overruled by people living in the areas already under unitary systems.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady is making a stoical defence of the Government's position to the best of her ability. However, a certain neurosis seems to underlie the Government's stance. I invite the right hon. Lady to reflect on the salience of her reference to the "degree of choice" available to people. Does she not concede that it is rather peculiar to celebrate the merits of choice, and to offer people a series of options, but then for the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to be unable to guarantee from the Dispatch Box that the preferred option will always be honoured in practice? The Minister thinks that his arbitrary discretion should hold sway over the local will, in many cases. Does not the right hon. Lady think that that is contradictory?
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman earlier tempted my right hon. Friend the Minister down various improbable hypothetical paths. My right hon. Friend was right to resist that teasing, and to say very firmly that he would not want to thwart the will of the majority of people in a region when it came to expressing a choice about establishing a regional assembly. He also said that he would not want to influence the choice of people in areas affected by local government reorganisation as to what form that reorganisation should take.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in his intervention also said that I was making a stoical defence of the Government's proposals, but I want to make it clear that I am making an enthusiastic defence of them. As long ago as last July, I put forward the idea of a compromise in a newspaper article, and I also spoke firmly in favour of a compromise in this House on 18 December, when it was not Government policy. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least admit that I have advocated this line for some considerable time. The compromise is a constructive move towards unitary government, which I and the majority of hon. Members strongly support. At the same time, it avoids what would be an uncomfortable option for those of us in existing urban and unitary areas—that is, overriding the wishes of people in two-tier areas.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady knows that I always try to be fair in debate. I would not want to impugn her integrity, or to misrepresent what appears to be a consistent position—with which, as it happens, I disagree. I entirely accept that the right hon. Lady is consistent, although she has the rather dubious distinction of being consistently wrong. Her position contrasts somewhat with that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who is usually wrong, and in this case is inconsistent. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge

  345
  (Mr. Hammond) has very usefully explained how Liberal Democrats in this House and the other place are now united in fraternal detestation of each others' guts.
  Joyce Quin: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will deal with those matters when he rises to speak. I am glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham recognises the consistency of my argument, even though he does not agree with it. However, in all fairness, I must say that Liberal Democrat and Labour supporters of devolution in the north-east of England have felt that the proposal was a sensible way forward, and indeed they advocated it at an early stage. The hon. Gentleman can impugn motives, or otherwise, as he chooses, but there is a long history to the idea under discussion, and that should be recognised in this debate.
  In conclusion, I once again welcome the amendments. They greatly improve the Bill. They take a lot of the sting out of the complications arising from linking regional and local government, and provide a very sensible way forward.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). She has argued in favour of amendments similar to those passed in the Lords, especially the one moved by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee. The support given by people such as the right hon. Lady was vital in persuading the Government to accept the amendments. I therefore pay tribute to the contribution made by the right hon. Lady and other Labour Members to this success.
  The amendments significantly improve the Bill. I shall say a little more about the compromise involved in a second, but the issue has been progressed in a way that people who will be asked to vote in the referendums will see as sensible and valuable.
  We were faced with a Government who were not going to accept the principled position of the Liberal Democrats. We wanted to decouple local government reorganisation from the referendum on elected regional assemblies. That would still be my preference, but compromise is necessary in politics. Instead of negotiating with the Government on the solution that has been proposed, we had two other options. We could have held out for total decoupling and said that we would not agree with anything if the Government did not accept non-unitary government in the areas that opt for regional assemblies. If we had done that, the Bill would have been lost and regional government would have died.
  What would have happened? We would have been left with the quangos that already exist in the regions, many of which were set up by the previous Conservative Government and have no democratic accountability. We believe in regional government because we believe in regional democracy, and we want it to be accountable to people in the regions. We did not want to lose the Bill, because we would have lost the chance for regional democracy.
  346
  The other alternative is that the Government could have said that they want the Bill and that, with no compromise forthcoming, they would push it through using the Parliament Acts. That would have meant that no improvements to the Bill would have been possible; neither of those alternatives was very inviting. We believed that getting involved in constructive discussions with the Government was the sensible way forward. The Government proposal was not our preferred option, but it was as near as we could possibly get to it.
  3.15 pm
  Mr. Hammond: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he is being slightly disingenuous in citing the possibility that the Government might use the Parliament Acts. He knows that the Government, almost uniquely with this Bill, cannot afford any time slippage. They have set out their agenda for the next general election and they want a referendum to be held next year. They simply would not be able to rely on use of the Parliament Acts.
  Mr. Davey: The Government could have taken that decision, or they could have decided to withdraw the Bill, as Lord Rooker said. We must remember that No. 10 did not want this Bill at all. The Deputy Prime Minister had to negotiate very hard with No. 10 to get the Bill in the first place. The Deputy Prime Minister had to compromise with No. 10, for which the bottom line was unitary government. Faced with that reality, Liberal Democrats decided—politics being the art of the possible—to compromise, like the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend may have miscounted, as he said that three options existed. I draw his attention to a fourth option—we could speak out strenuously against something and then, as the Conservatives are doing, not even bother to vote against it.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. He exposes the nonsense that is the Conservative position, and I hope to go further in that respect.
  It should come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats have negotiated with the Government on constitutional reform issues. We were part of a Cabinet Committee that sat for several years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was a member of that Committee, which dealt with constitutional reform in respect of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, freedom of information and human rights. Liberal Democrats were involved in negotiations on all those major constitutional reforms. This measure is part of that tradition.
  Such compromises have not prevented the Liberal Democrats from opposing the Government on many issues; for example, Iraq, or tuition and top-up fees. In no way do we agree with every part of the Government's agenda, but, when we do, we try to work with them to reach a compromise. That is grown-up politics.

  347
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) quoted my noble Friend, Lord Greaves, but, interestingly, he did not cite his noble Friend Lord Waddington, who said:
  "My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment"—
  the noble Baroness was the Liberal Democrat, Lady Hamwee—
  "which appears to be an important step forward, allowing people the opportunity to say what form of unitary local government they want in their areas."
  Lord Waddington seemed to think that was a good idea. Indeed, he helpfully went further when he said:
  "But, assuming that the Government will not resile from their determination to use their voting power to ensure that the price of having a referendum is to have unitary local government, does not my noble friend agree with me that, if we are eventually left in that position, it is better that local people should have the opportunity to choose what form of unitary government they should have …?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 17–19.]
  Lord Waddington clearly supported the compromise.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I shall give way in a moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to quote from Lord Waddington's remarks later in that debate when, having realised that he should not be engaging his brain but donning his party colours, he went back on his earlier statements. Does the hon. Gentleman still want to intervene?
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman generally runs a commendable campaign against selective quotation. However, later in the same debate, Lord Waddington said:
  "My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I stand condemned of the most appalling naivety? I had not the slightest idea of all the comings and goings between the Liberal Front Bench and the Government. If I had known more about that, I would have thought twice before speaking."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 26.]
  He, too, was appalled when he understood the nature of the squalid and cynical deal that had been stitched together between the Government and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman should stop digging. As soon as Lord Waddington had been nobbled by his Whips, he decided to resile from the position that he had put on the record, not once but twice, supporting the compromise. The hon. Gentleman should be careful.
  I shall set out the options that were open to us once we had accepted the constraint that the Government would not allow decoupling. We thought long and hard about how to empower local communities and get round some of the problems involved in the Government's intention to push the enforced coupling of the two issues.
  There were four alternatives. The first was that people in the areas that had experienced local government reform should vote on one option proposed by the boundary committee for England. If the majority voted no, another solution would be imposed. That idea was batted about. We did not like it because eventually it could have led to an imposed solution.
  348
  Secondly, if the option proposed by the boundary committee was rejected in a vote, a further solution could be put to a referendum; there would be a second ballot. We had more sympathy with that proposal, but it could have meant an expensive and time-consuming series of ballots, so there were some disadvantages.
  Thirdly, if the proposed option was rejected in a vote, the elected regional assembly would decide on the reform of local government in its area. Again, we had some sympathy with the proposal, but there could have been practical problems, especially in the first wave of regional referendums. The powers would not have been enacted and it would have been some time before the first regional assemblies were elected, so there could have been instability in local government. We spent some time exploring that option, although it was not practical.
  Having rejected three possibilities, we ended up with the proposal that we are discussing today: that the boundary committee should be required to produce at least two options for local government reorganisation, which should be put to the ballot. That seems the best possible solution, given the constraint imposed by No. 10 that there will be no decoupling. It is important for the House to realise that careful negotiations were undertaken and that we thought long and hard about the solution that we are discussing: it is the best one possible.
  The proposal has four benefits. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, only those voters affected by local government reorganisation will be able to vote. In other words, those outside the area affected will not be able to vote. That is important, and it deals with a damaging part of the Government's original proposals, which we strongly opposed. My right hon. Friend put a strong argument against them.
  The second benefit is that there will be a vote. As we have already heard, under the previous Conservative Government there was no vote on whether unitary government should be established. People in the areas affected were given no choice; they had no democratic voice. The proposal is thus a major step forward. It is worth emphasising that this is the first time in the history of this country that local people will have the chance to vote on the form of local government in their area. That concession was wrung not only from Ministers but from Whitehall. It is the sort of thing that Whitehall does not like, so it is a major achievement for the whole House as a democratic body.
  The third benefit is that there will be a real choice, not merely a take-it-or-leave-it. There could be as many as four options, one of which could even be that the unitary authority was a county council. The key point is that voters will have a choice.
  Mr. Hammond: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I put to the Minister earlier? How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the boundary committee being directed? It is possible that the four choices would be merely nuances of each other, so does he envisage radically different choices being put to the electorate?
  Mr. Davey: The boundary committee must make the recommendations that it deems best. It would be odd,

  349
  however, if the committee came up with two or three very similar proposals. I am sure that the committee will take note of the arguments that have been made in this place and will want to give people real choice, so presumably there will be real differences between the options that it proposes.
  The fourth benefit, on which I am sure that the Conservatives will not agree, is that the compromise solution will produce a much better chance of wining the referendums on regional assemblies. There was real concern that those devolutionists who wanted regional government would have to vote against it because they disliked the local government reform tied to it. That was a problem, and it put those people in all political parties who argued for regional devolution in an almost impossible position. This solution gets us out of that problem and takes away an argument from some parties and people who are against regional devolution, so there are some real benefits.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that that solution is the only thing that had been won in this package. I can tell him that it is not: we shall come to some of the other issues later, but I shall just list them for him now. First, in the Government's original proposals, the boundaries of existing unitary authorities in various regions could not have been touched, even though it would have made sense to merge, for example, an adjacent district council with the existing unitary authority, but we have managed to persuade the Government to change their mind. That is very welcome, as it will allow an existing district to join an existing unitary authority where doing so makes sense because of local government boundaries. That is a common-sense, practical solution to a fundamental problem with the Government's original proposals.
  We have also persuaded the Government that they should use their best endeavours to publish a draft Bill before the first referendum. That is a significant victory. I accept that that is not in the Bill, but the Government are on record to that effect, having been previously opposed to that solution. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they were not opposed to it, and I do not have the Hansard reference.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: We were never opposed to that. We always made it clear that we saw merit in the possibility of publishing a draft Bill, but we were concerned about the timetable implications. We will use our very best endeavours to ensure that a draft Bill is published before a referendum, so that people have the opportunity to see it, but the timetable implications remain the prime concern. That was the only reason why we were not previously prepared to commit to doing so.
  Mr. Davey: Right hon. and hon. Members may think that a nuanced shift, but it is still an important shift. When we argued with the Government, they did not seem that keen on the idea; they seemed not to want to be constrained or to make promises on the record. The Government have shifted, and I certainly take the Minister's good will in our discussions as a sign that they will try extremely hard to ensure that that Bill is
  350
  published before the first referendum. That is very important to ensure that people have the right information on which to vote—in other words, the details of what regional assemblies will be able to do—and that the House has a chance to start pre-legislative scrutiny and to try to argue for more powers for regional assemblies.
  One of our problems with the Government's package of regional devolution proposals is that it does not pass enough power from Whitehall to the regional assemblies, but a draft Bill will allow us to begin to engage in that debate to ensure that more regional devolution takes place.
  I was also very pleased when one of the Minister's colleagues in the Lords confirmed in an parliamentary answer to the Earl of Caithness that
  "the Government are keen further to decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes. There are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to elected regional assemblies as time goes on."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. WA67.]
  The Government are clearly signalling that they are prepared to augment the powers of regional assemblies over time, and we very much welcome that. A number of concessions have been wrought from the Government during these negotiations. They did not go as far as we should have liked, and there is no shame in that. If we could have won everything, it would have been absolutely fabulous, but we have won a large part of the agenda.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge specifically mentioned regional boundaries, and it is worth commenting on that because my hon. Friends and I were concerned when we previously debated the Bill that there was no review of regional boundaries, and we still have that concern. I predict that, when the Government have gone ahead, as I hope that they will, with referendums on regional assemblies in the three northern regions—the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside—they will embark on a review of regional boundaries elsewhere in England.
  We will argue for such a review, especially when the powers Bill is introduced in the House. We have not given up on that point at all; we will be campaigning very hard. The logic of the politics is that there must be more regions in the rest of England outside the three northern areas. Neither I nor my hon. Friends believe that the current regional boundaries for areas, such as the south-west or south-east, make sense. They need to be reviewed, and we will press for that. I believe that a referendum could not or, indeed, should not be won until the regional boundaries have been reviewed.
  This set of Lords amendments makes a major improvement to the Bill. I am proud to be involved, with many others, in securing the amendments. The Government were persuaded by argument, which is an example of this House working at its best. I commend the amendments to the House.
  I shall end on this point: the Conservatives, who do not want to vote against the amendments, should at least confess that they do not want to give people choice. Not only are they against regional government; they are against giving people the choice of regional government. Not only are they against local government

  351
  reorganisation; they are against giving people the choice of local government reorganisation. From being the party of choice, they have got themselves into a sorry state.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I, too. welcome Lords amendment No. 3, as it will give my constituents in North Durham a say not only in a tier of regional government but in their local government structures, which, as we have heard previously, they have been denied in the past.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) is a passionate advocate of regional government, which is a passion that I share. We disagree, however, about reorganisation of local government. I have always argued that having a tier of regional government necessitates a review of local government. The reason is that I do not accept that voters in any area will vote for more politicians or an extra tier of government on top of what already exists. A clear case exists that Durham is currently over-represented in local government. In the seven parliamentary constituencies that cover Durham, we have 421 councillors: an average of 60 councillors per constituency. The neighbouring area of Tyne and Wear has 13 parliamentary constituencies and 339 councillors: an average of 26 per constituency. It would be difficult to argue to the electorate that putting another tier of regional government on top of that would be efficient.
  There is also an opportunity to address some of the disparities that already exist in local government in County Durham.
  Joyce Quin: Perhaps I can make my position clear. Certainly, we should not rule out considering the numbers involved in local government at present, or those in the House of Commons, in terms of the modernisation of our democracy. However, in terms of the immediate issue, I was simply not keen on the link being drawn between local government and regional government. Some of my hon. Friend's points, however, are very worthy of consideration.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that clarification. This is an opportunity to address some of those issues.
  As I said, I do not think that the electorate will vote for more politicians. In Committee, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) described what the Minister referred to as the Liberal Valhalla, in which the electorate would come forward with great gusto to vote for more councillors and more local representatives. I simply do not think that that is the case.
  We have heard again this afternoon, as we heard in Committee, that this Bill means the end of county councils. I do not think so. In County Durham, a strong case exists that the county area should be that of the new unitary authority—at present, it spends 80 per cent. of the local government budget in the county—and I shall argue strongly for the new unitary authority in that regard. Currently, the two-tier system does not work, it is inefficient, and I simply do not accept the idea that local people somehow identify closely with Derwentside or Chester-le-Street district councils as bodies for which they will do or die.
  We are now at an historic moment in the development of regional policy in this country. People in the north-east have waited a long time for a chance to vote for and
  352
  elect a democratically elected tier of regional government, which will make a great difference not just in terms of ensuring that their voices are heard nationally, but in giving them a sense that their identity, about which they all feel strongly, is recognised, as is the case in other parts of the nation.
  The amendment is sensible. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, it will provide an opportunity for the Bill to get through. Over many years, the Conservatives made deals in this House and the other place to ensure that legislation got through, and this sensible amendment will be welcomed in County Durham.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said. If we are going to go down the line of regional government, we must lose a tier of local government. That is one of the reasons why I am fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of regional government.
  There is something worrying about a handful of MPs sitting in the Chamber on the eve of an important local government poll discussing the minutiae of a Bill that, as we have been reminded by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), No. 10 does not even want. It has resisted it, and the fact that we are debating it today is a sop to the Deputy Prime Minister. If we were not here but instead campaigning for the local government elections, we would find that no one was raising the issue of regional assemblies on the doorsteps. People are concerned about their council taxes escalating and local schools facing a funding crisis. Those issues concern the electorate—not this sophisticated argument about changing the local government structure of the regions.
  I remind the House of the answer that I received from the Minister of State when I asked him about the level of interest in regional government in the north-east. He told me that, by the 3 March deadline—I appreciate that it has been extended—there had been only 4,500 responses from the whole of England and Wales, of which 300 were from the north-east. To argue, as the Minister did, that those 300 people are somehow all representative of huge organisations and bring with them a block vote to the debate is, I regret to say, arrant nonsense. The people of the north-east do not want an assembly; they could not care less about it. Even the polls conducted by the Journal newspaper, which we all know is an absolute enthusiast for regional government, show that the majority of people that it questioned—we never knew the size of the sample—were against the idea of regional government.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I agree that if we hold a referendum in the north-east it will be a big job to convince people to vote in favour of an assembly. Will the hon. Gentleman say today whether he and the Conservative party in the north-east will campaign for a no vote in that referendum?
  Mr. Atkinson: I cannot speak for the entire party in the north-east, but I shall certainly campaign against a regional assembly. I do not want local government in my authority of Northumberland to be smashed up, but that is exactly what would happen. It is true that, perhaps in Northumberland as well as Durham, it may well be that the county survives and the districts die.

  353
  The problem with Northumberland is that it has a population of 300,000 compared with populations of nearly 2 million in Essex and Kent. It is a tiny number in a large landmass that is currently served by six district councils. It would be a very difficult for the boundary committee to decide to have a number of unitary districts with a total population of 300,000. Therefore, it would tend to go for a unitary county, but there is a huge disadvantage with that.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Atkinson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on this point. The huge disadvantage of a unitary county is that the whole of Northumberland would be run from the centre, which is many miles away from the people of Berwick, Haltwhistle or the west of my constituency.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would prefer to keep the present system in which most local government decisions in Northumberland are taken by Northumberland county council, dominated, as it is, by the urban south-east? Would he prefer the continuance of that to, for example, a unitary authority based on the boundaries of his constituency, which would be a substantial area and similar in number to some existing unitary authorities?
  Mr. Atkinson: At the time of the last proposed reorganisation of local government, I was certainly in favour of dividing Northumberland into three unitary authorities if that was the option for change. However, it became clear that the boundary commission would not have that. It was pointing to a very out-of-touch unitary county.
  3.45 pm
  The real purpose of my remarks is to ask the Minister to flesh out one or two additional pieces of information about who may vote. It is curious that I am still learning more about this complex Bill at the eleventh hour. I did not serve on the Committee, so I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I think that the Minister talked about the Morecambe Bay option, meaning that the boundary committee could move part of an existing unitary authority into an area currently covered by a two-tier authority. I shall give an example from the north-east. I have explained that the county of Northumberland has a small population and a large area. It is hypothetically possible that the boundary committee could decide to create two unitary authorities and return the area covered by the old county borough of Tynemouth back to Northumberland to boost its population, which would be highly popular.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkinson: The Minister does not think that that will happen, but if it did, would the people living in the area covered by the old county borough of Tynemouth be able to vote in the local government referendum? If
  354
  that were the case, it would introduce a new and interesting aspect to the Bill. Will he confirm that the boundary committee could include part of Tynemouth in a part-Northumberland unitary authority? That would allow us to reopen the argument of whether people living in unitary authorities could be moved into a different area, even if they could not vote on that.
  I am not sure whether that was clear. During these debates, one always has the choice of staying in the Chamber or going to lunch. I decided to stay, although I am not sure whether that was a good idea because I am probably more confused now than I was when the debate started. I hope that the Minister will address the problem in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Don Foster: Until a few months ago, before I went off to play with trains, boats and planes as the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman, I had responsibilities for these matters. I must confess that when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) took over those responsibilities, I was feeling fairly depressed about progress on the development of regional government in England. I am delighted to say that I feel far more optimistic than I did then, which is largely due to my hon. Friend's endeavours. I congratulate him on his work.
  It has been said on several occasions, not least by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), that Liberal Democrats have long argued the clear principle that issues relating to regional government should be decoupled from those relating to local government. I still believe, as do my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton and my colleagues in another place, that that would represent the right way forward. It is almost incomprehensible that the Government are not prepared to accept arguments for such decoupling.
  I do not accept that the establishment of regional government, for which my party has argued for a long time, would add an additional tier of governance in England. We already have a tier of regional governance. There are many unelected quangos that spend billions of pounds in our regions, have a huge associated bureaucracy and cost a great deal. The establishment of directly elected regional government in each of the regions would provide the opportunity not only to reduce cost and bureaucracy, but to allow much more joined-up thinking than may occur through the work of those separate quangos. We would also fill the democratic deficit that exists because people would be elected to represent local people and determine how money that is intended to help them should be spent.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that despite the Government's protestations, they are imposing an additional tier of government on many parts of the country that are already under unitary local government?
  Mr. Foster: One important principle that the Liberal Democrats and I hold is that decisions on the number and arrangement of tiers is best made by the people whom the tiers serve. I have always rejected the argument that central Government should impose such decisions on local people. I deeply regret the way in

  355
  which Conservative Administrations imposed rearrangements of local government on local people without those people voting on the proposals.
  Mr. Swire: Given that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the number of quangos that handle so much money and would prefer regional government of one sort or another, does he agree that if a region votes against an elected regional government, the unelected regional assembly in that area should cease to exist?
  Mr. Foster: No, I do not. If a directly elected regional assembly is not supported, there is merit in considering ways to integrate some of the different quangos and allowing the unelected assembly, which represents many groups, to have greater powers of scrutiny of those quangos and the RDAs. The representative assemblies were a good move and are welcome.
  I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would argue that my support for regional government and the suggestion that it would sweep away those quangos was a fanciful thought because the Government's proposals will not achieve that as they stand. In that context, it was encouraging to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton stress that the Government's answer in another place reflects their willingness to address and enhance the powers that the directly elected regional governments will have. Hopefully, they will be responsible for more quangos. I welcome that and look forward to hearing the Minister assure us that that will be the case.
  Given that there is no obvious correlation between the roles of regional government and local government, there is no need to link them in the way that the Government initially proposed. They should be treated separately. If there is a case to reorganise local government in an area, it might be appropriate to discuss that, but that should not be linked to the establishment of regional government, which is, after all, about democratising a tier of governance that we already have. Nevertheless, it was made clear—not least by the intransigence of No. 10 Downing street—that the Government would not adopt that approach, so it was sensible to find a compromise.
  My noble Friend Baroness Greaves was mentioned in the context of the Liberal Democrats being blackmailed on the issue. I have much respect for my noble Friend—
  Mr. Hammond: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of respect for his noble Friend, but he obviously does not know who his friend is because he is, in fact, Baron Greaves.
  Mr. Foster: I think that we are both wrong.
  Lord Greaves, better known to his friends as Tony—I count myself as one of his friends—was wrong. If blackmail were involved, it was the other way around, admirably organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The Government, and in particular the Minister, knew that without such a compromise the Bill would be lost for the very reasons set out by the hon. Member for Runnymede and
  356
  Weybridge. They had a great deal riding on this and if anyone could be accused of blackmail it is my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I can confirm that that was our position. We agreed as a team that we would have to kill the Bill if the Government did not give way. We did not want to do that, but we were prepared to act in that way.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful for confirmation of what I assumed to have been the case. As a result of that, my hon. Friend was able to wring from the Minister a number of concessions, which he has outlined. It seems that at the last minute several people were wringing concessions out of the Minister—even his noble Friends on the Front Bench in another place. I note that Lord Rooker, speaking at 3.30 pm two days ago in response to Baroness Hanham, having been told that he was being rather curmudgeonly on that occasion, said:
  "My Lords, I am cheesed off, having been ultra friendly and having wrung an extra little concession out of my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford as late as twenty past two this afternoon."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 457.]
  Everyone managed to wring concessions out of the right hon. Gentleman up to the last minute.
  I am delighted that it was as a result of Liberal Democrats that the major concessions were obtained. Those are major concessions. They might not have been what we wanted, but it is important that if the local government decision was to be linked with the regional government referendum, local people would have a choice. It was important that it was only local people affected by that decision who would be involved in making the decision.
  During an earlier exchange we saw the difficulties of linking the two. It is still not clear to me whether it will be possible for a group of people in one local government area effectively to hold to ransom the entire region. We have not had a clear answer from the Minister in that regard, but no doubt in the course of proceedings today he will get further little notes that will provide a clearer answer to the question. That may even result in our having wrung a further concession out of him. The important thing is to adopt the advice offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that where there is a need for a second vote on the local government issue, there should still be plenty of opportunity for the regional arrangements to continue before a final decision is made, and the proceedings should not be held up.
  In grown-up politics we should end the Punch and Judy approach. Where there is a greater goal—in this case, the introduction of powerful, democratically elected regional government—it is sometimes necessary to make compromises. The proposals today offer a much greater likelihood of the advent of regional government. I am delighted not only that the amendments are part of that compromise, but that there is more in the pipeline, such as the discussion about improving the powers of regional government.
  As I no longer have responsibility for these matters on behalf of my party, I am no longer in a need-to-know position, but I noted with considerable interest the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and

  357
  Surbiton when he assured the House that he was confident that after the first three referendums took place, there would be a reconsideration of the boundaries. On what basis he gave us that assurance I know not, but he is in a need-to-know position and I am not. I welcome that further concession, if that is what it is.
  In conclusion, regional government is long overdue. I am delighted that by agreeing the amendments and the compromise today, as I hope the House will, apparently without a Division, we are moving forward the cause of regional government rather more rapidly than I thought possible just a few months ago.
  Mr. Beith: The area that I represent will be directly affected by the Bill and the amendments. It is an area in which many people believe that we ought to have more decisions made closer to home, in the north-east rather than in London, just as, when we look across the border, we see that Scots are able to have decisions made in Edinburgh rather than in London. It is also an area in which many people would have been faced with a difficult choice if they had been told that in order to have a regional assembly, they had to accept one and only one possibility for unitary local government. Further, they were being told that they would not decide that issue, although they would be casting a vote on whether to have a regional assembly. The far greater numbers of people in unitary areas, who need not be influenced by this point at all because it would not affect them, would, by voting for a regional assembly, determine that the minority of areas got that change in the local government structure.
  4 pm
  Those were offensive features of the Bill and they were likely, as I think is now agreed on both sides of the House, to undermine the genuine arguments for the creation of regional assemblies. I therefore welcome the amendments and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), because I know how much work he did on this, and our local Government team in the Lords, which I am bound to commend because it includes my wife, which did excellent work and had to make the difficult decision about what could be secured while ensuring that we continue to have the Bill; and what was secured was extremely valuable. I am also grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) who from the beginning has made it clear that she wanted the Bill to be changed in this way.
  Andrew George: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must praise the achievements of our hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), certainly for the significant concessions that have been wrung from the Government? Although from the perspective of his region my right hon. Friend might see the Bill as being half full, when from a Cornish perspective it may appear half empty, at the end of the day that is a geographical view, not a political difference.
  Mr. Beith: I am not sure that I understood my hon. Friend's intervention, but I did understand my own
  358
  words when I praised my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who used to work for me in days gone by and whose work on the Bill has been as excellent as was his work when he was a member of my staff.
  The value of the amendments is not only that they remove those offensive features of the Bill, but that they bring a new principle into local government reorganisation in Britain, a principle which would have been welcome when the Conservative Government were going around abolishing counties, creating unitary authorities, and putting people in areas that they did not want to be in, but which they never for a moment entertained and which even today they are ambivalent about—which is why they do not want to vote at all either for or against this set of amendments. They do not want to admit the principle that people should have a choice in these matters. We think that that is a good principle.
  Obviously, as my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West made clear, many of us would have liked the choice to include the retention of a two-tier system, although as I shall come on to say in a moment, there are increasing arguments against the two-tier system and in favour of a unitary system. The Government believe that those arguments are conclusive if the additional tier of regional democracy is introduced. It is only an additional tier of democracy; it is not an additional tier of government. The apparatus of government is already there. It is an additional tier of democracy, and one that we believe is necessary because powers are being exercised at regional level.
  Another effect of the amendments is to remove the notion that the Bill is either about or will necessarily lead to the abolition of counties. If people in a given area believe that the county is the finest form of government ever known to man—a view that did not use to be held in the Conservative party when it abolished Herefordshire, Worcestershire and the royal county of Berkshire—they can vote accordingly. If my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), believes that what remains of the old county of Northumberland—it is not the historic county of Northumberland, the county for which people play cricket, although not, I am sorry to say, first-class cricket, but the county that exists for many voluntary organisations—is the right structure, he and others who believe that can vote for it, because they will in future be given a choice.
  It is likely that the range of options that the boundary committee will put forward if it has any sense—as I used to answer questions for the Electoral Commission I am bound to say that I think there is quite a lot of sense in there—will include an option that comes close to a county-based option, and one that is one much closer to the districts, or possibly, for example in the case of Northumberland, a county-based option, an option close to existing districts and one that falls somewhere between the two.
  That is where the argument and discussion will run in a county such as Northumberland. People will be asking whether there should be county-based government involving a lot of devolution to area committees and parish and town councils—the option for which the county council is trying to argue—or whether it would

  359
  be much better to recognise that local government can be run with smaller units nowadays because local authorities are not trying to provide services directly as much they used to do. Previously, they had vast staffs, but they are now enabling or contracting out more services and ensuring that a variety of other bodies put those services in place. Thus rather smaller districts are now considered more feasible than Whitehall civil servants, who like dealing with a relatively small number of authorities throughout the country, used to argue.
  Mr. Hammond: As the right hon. Gentleman has obviously been close to the Electoral Commission, will he tell us whether he believes that the boundary committee should propose a unitary county option in every case? If so, does he think that the range of population sizes between different unitary authorities that that approach would involve if it were adopted throughout the country would be acceptable? The Minister was not prepared to agree with that proposition.
  Mr. Beith: I do not believe that we should prescribe that the committee should propose such an option in every case. It will have discussions in the areas for which it is formulating proposals. There may be no interest in an all-county option in a given area. None the less, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as I think that a large disparity is possible in the size of authorities. There is already a huge disparity in size between unitary authorities in cities with large populations and the relatively small unitary authorities of which I should imagine that he is in favour, such as Rutland.
  Many countries are not uncomfortable with such disparities and have large disparities in size between their local authorities. In such countries, the biggest local authorities will probably provide the whole range of public services, while smaller authorities can share responsibility with several others by grouping together with them in providing particular services. For example, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will find that there is no assumption in French local government that every local authority should be of the same size and cover the same population. That is a London view of local government, and those of us who represent different types of area should reject it from the beginning.
  The local government system needs to be much more flexible, to involve different scales of local authorities and to recognise that there can be co-operation. If there are two or three education authorities in an area that used to be a county, they will not run two or three educational psychology services; they will need to establish a leading authority, participate in a sharing arrangement or contract out that service to some other body, whether it is a private sector or public sector one, as will be much more likely in such cases. There is scope for a much more radical approach to local government that allows us to keep it as local as possible while ensuring that it does not have so many levels.
  That leads me to the unitary issue. It is argued that the choice that people will be given by the amendment—a choice that they would never have had before—is limited to a choice between types of unitary authority. I have referred to that drawback before, but I have become gradually more persuaded of the merits of
  360
  unitary authorities as a way of running local government. For example, most of our electors simply do not understand which local authority provides which service and find the current system extremely confusing. That confusion is apparent in my mailbag and in my constituency surgery, and it does not help democratic accountability. Indeed, many people will go to the polls tomorrow thinking that they are voting in respect of the education service in their area and not realising that they might be voting for an authority that has absolutely no influence or role in providing that service.
  Reference has been made to the large number of councillors needed under the two-tier system. There are almost 70 councillors in my constituency. In the current elections, 12 of them have already been elected unopposed; most of them are Liberal Democrats. In one ward, only two candidates stood for three seats, so there is a vacant seat. It is increasingly difficult to find people to take on the heavy responsibilities of local government. Many would argue that we do not need as many councillors as the two-tier system necessitates.
  I said that I had become increasingly persuaded, but I started from a position of being extremely worried about the creation of large unitary authorities when the Conservatives were in power and tried to impose unitary authorities on us. When Lord Heseltine was Secretary of State, he eventually backed off doing so. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, there are areas where it would be very difficult to impose a county-wide unitary authority without giving many people the feeling that it is far too remote from them in respect of many local government services. The two-tier system is a compromise to deal with services that might need to be delivered on a larger scale and those that can be delivered more locally. Smaller unitary authorities offer an alternative route. I am no longer wholly persuaded, however, that the two-tier system has sufficient advantages to outweigh its manifest disadvantages. I have talked to many councillors in the two-tier system who have come round to that view independently of all the discussion about the creation of regional assemblies.
  In an ideal world, I should want to resolve the issues separately. If, in the course of the process, the boundary committee managed to come up with a scheme of unitary authorities that was popular in Northumberland, and unfortunately we lost the referendum, some people—even Conservative councillors, if there are any left—might say, "Please can we still have the local government reorganisation that we spent all that time discussing, because we have decided that it is actually the best option?" If so, it will be because people have been able to exercise a choice, and the boundary committee has been forced to consider the alternative possibilities. It should not be allowed to take the easy option of saying, for example, that a minimum population of 200,000 falls within a county structure; it should forced to consider whether smaller-scale unitary authorities could co-operate to enable local government to function effectively. That process could result in a sensible review of local government in areas such as mine. It would certainly ensure that local people have a choice, which they never

  361
  had under the Conservatives, and would have been denied if my hon. Friends, with good support from other hon. Members, had not secured the amendments.
  Mr. Raynsford: We have had a thorough and detailed debate covering many issues. I shall try to be as brief as possible while doing justice to hon. Members' contributions and responding to the questions that were put to me.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) revealed the teal motivation for his response to the Bill in its current form—namely, pique that his hope of wrecking the Bill has been frustrated. Ultimately, what Conservative Members have tried to do throughout its passage is to deny people the chance of an elected regional assembly in those regions that want one. That is, of course, entirely consistent with Conservative policy. They opposed devolution to Scotland, to Wales and to London. They were defeated on every one of those occasions, and they are now opposing devolution to the English regions. I give him a forecast that they will be defeated again. Then, once again, they will change their tune, and in a few years' time we will hear a different tune on devolution in England.
  The hon. Gentleman continued with his bogus claim that our proposals mean the death of county councils. I simply say to him that there is absolutely no substance to that. There is no intrinsic threat to counties. The boundary committee will be free to decide what, in its view, are the best options for unitary local government and to put them forward. The people of each region that opts for a referendum will then be free to decide which they prefer. The boundary committee will have, in essence, two criteria: first, it must have regard to reflecting the interests and identities of local communities; and secondly, it must ensure effective and convenient local government. We will leave it up to the boundary committee to decide what options to come up with. We have not said that it should be limited to just two options—we have given it the freedom to decide to have more. It will also be for the committee to decide whether there should be one modelled on the county structure and one on the grouping of districts, or whatever other formulation it chooses. There will be no prescription—it will be for the committee to recommend the right way forward.
  As for the Conservative nostalgia for county councils, many other Members forcefully made the point that in the course of 30 years the Conservative party consistently abolished councils, giving the people of the affected areas no option to have any say whatsoever. The people of Berkshire and Cleveland had no say when their counties were abolished, the people of Hereford and Worcester had no say about amalgamation and so on. I could go on at length. It is therefore humbug for Conservative Members to claim to be the champions of county councils.
  4.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked an important question about the implications of
  362
  amendment No. 11, which would require the Electoral Commission to publish its views on the intelligibility of the referendum question. The Electoral Commission is already required to publish its views on the intelligibility of the main question on an elected regional assembly. It has done that and we have taken its views into account and amended the question accordingly.
  With the second question, the intelligibility of the formulation of the options for wholly unitary local government must be considered. We do not know what the boundary committee will recommend or how the options can be expressed. The amendment would therefore provide for the Electoral Commission to present its views at an appropriate stage. I hope that that explains the reason for the amendment. We cannot yet anticipate the exact formulation of the question, and the Electoral Commission must have an opportunity to consider its intelligibility and make recommendations, which we shall consider as we considered those on the wider question on the elected regional assembly.
  I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge conclude that he would not recommend that his party vote against the amendments, on the curious constitutional premise that it was bound to be defeated because of the size of the Government majority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) was right to say that in that case, we would have no more votes for the rest of the Parliament. Even without the assistance of the Liberal Democrats, the Government have a large majority and might be presumed likely to win every vote.
  I was first elected to this place when our party was in a small minority compared with a large Conservative party. We voted on principle, irrespective of whether we expected to win. I am astonished that today's Conservative party does not have the courage of its convictions and vote, even if it has opposed the amendments in the debate.
  Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend suspect that the Opposition realise that the amendment might prove popular after all and they do not want to be on the wrong side of the argument?
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall not be tempted to make any more suppositions about the Conservative party's motivation. It has dug itself into a sufficiently large hole without my needing to help it.
  I was grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West in her contribution. She has been a stalwart supporter of regional government for many years and is obviously delighted that she can continue to give full support to the Government proposals. She believes that it is right for people to have a say about the form of unitary local government in the north-east region.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) clearly supported the amendments. He played an important part in the development and formulation of several of them. I pay tribute to his commitment to ensuring the Bill's passage and making available the option of regional government to people throughout the country. We believe that it is right that people should have that option and I know that that is the Liberal

  363
  Democrats' view. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman persuaded some of his Friends in another place who were less committed to regional government not to block the Bill. I am also pleased that they succeeded in avoiding the outcome that the Conservative party would have liked—of preventing the measure from reaching the statute book.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and assure him that we shall continue to work constructively to ensure that people have the option of regional government, and that the dream is realised for regions that want the ability to take charge of their affairs and have elected bodies in the region making decisions rather than Whitehall or quangos.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is also a strong supporter of regional government, and he reiterated his belief in the need for the appropriate reorganisation of local government. I am delighted that the amendments make possible the outcome that he clearly wishes for his county—if that is what the boundary committee comes forward with, I hasten to add, because that will not be my decision.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked whether unitary Tynemouth could be reunited with Northumberland. I am sorry to disappoint him, but we have no provision for an existing unitary area to be taken out of its current unitary status and transferred into a two-tier area. It is possible, however, that the boundary committee might recommend that part of the existing two-tier Northumberland might be connected to Tynemouth, or indeed to other adjoining unitaries. That would be up to the boundary committee to decide. If that were the case, only the people living in the two-tier area—that is, the existing county of Northumberland areas—would have the vote. As I explained in response to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, that is because if we were to extend the vote to people within the existing unitary area, we would have the problem that has been highlighted earlier, of the votes of the people in the two-tier area being swamped by the much larger numbers living in the predominantly unitary area.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the reference that he just made to Tynemouth and Northumberland? He well knows that these issues are closely followed in the local press. Will he confirm that he was not in fact proposing that those two areas should be joined, but that it is an option that could be put forward?
  Mr. Beith: A hypothetical one.
  Mr. Jones: Indeed. Otherwise, we might see headlines tomorrow stating that Tynemouth is to become part of Northumberland.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating the possible misinterpretation of what I was saying. I was making it clear that the Bill now provides for the option, when the reorganisation of unitary local government takes place, for some parts of the two-tier areas to become linked to existing unitary authorities. That is the option, and it might happen in some parts of the country, but I have no view at all about
  364
  either the likelihood or the desirability of that happening in respect of any part of Northumberland, Durham or, indeed, any other region of the country. This is not my decision; it will be a matter for the boundary committee to decide. I certainly know of no proposal to link any part of Northumberland with the existing unitary authority of North Tyneside, to give it its proper title.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) intervened on him, because I was hoping that the Minister would set that hare running. It would have made headlines in the morning.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy that I have prevented that particular hare from running, and I shall resist the temptation to speculate as to what might be appropriate outcomes in other parts of the region. I must also apologise to the hon. Member for Hexham for having caused him a late lunch; I hope that he will be able to get away reasonably soon.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) finds it difficult to understand why we cannot de-couple regional issues from local government reorganisation. The answer is a very simple one. Unlike his party, we do not believe in the proliferation of tiers of government. Unitary local government exists in every area of the country in which there has been devolution—whether in Scotland, Wales or London, where we have the Greater London Authority. People are not, therefore, confused by a proliferation of different tiers of government. We believe that it is right that, where English regions opt for elected regional assemblies, there should be no more than two tiers of government below the national level—obviously excluding parish councils. Essentially, that means that unitary local government is, in our view, a necessary concomitant of the move towards regional government, and the two must go together.
  The only other interesting observation that the hon. Member for Bath made was that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton had been wrongly presented as having been blackmailed. The hon. Gentleman himself chose to portray his hon. Friend as the blackmailer rather than the blackmailed. I have to say that, on that one, his judgment is quite wrong. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has, as I have already made clear, shown a strong commitment to furthering the cause of regional government, but he has not been in the position of being either the blackmailed or the blackmailer. I am sorry that he has been done such an injustice by the hon. Member for Bath, to whom I happily give way.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister, although I shall leave it to others to decide who did the blackmailing. The evidence is fairly clear that my hon. Friend has wrung a large number of concessions from the Minister, and whether that is blackmail or not does not matter.
  May I make another point to the Minister before he moves on from me? I pointed out that I am not currently in a need-to-know position, but, nevertheless, we have had assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we can anticipate the

  365
  possibility of boundary reviews in come regions after the first three years. As I am not in a need-to-know position and as there are relatively few of us here, will the Minister at least bring us into his confidence on that issue?
  Mr. Raynsford: I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to remain in a position in which he has no need to know. All I can say to him is that we have no plans at the moment other than to proceed on the basis of the existing Government office boundaries. That is what is stated in our White Paper, but also in our White Paper we said that that does not preclude the possibility, at a future date, of some review of the boundaries. That has been our position consistently; that remains our position. He need read nothing into those remarks, as there is no change in the position.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) welcomed the amendments and the greater choice available to electors. He also made a number of interesting observations on how the case for unitary local government has become more persuasive over the years. He was absolutely right in talking about the public confusion over what responsibility lies with particular tiers of government. In answer to the hon. Member for Bath, I say that that is one of the strongest reasons for insisting on a unitary government framework where there is a regional tier, because the scope for confusion would be even greater if we had a regional tier, a county tier and a district tier responsible for different services.
  I very much appreciate the support of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I welcome the fact that by far the majority of Members who have spoken support the amendments. I hope that we can now agree to them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 19 agreed to, some with Special Entry.

  Clause 10

    EXCLUSION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
    Lords amendment: No. 20.
    Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
    Mr. Leslie: After a long but very interesting debate on the previous amendment, it gives me enormous pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss in great detail, but fairly briefly I hope, the issues surrounding these Lords amendments, which relate to the circumstances for the exclusion of legal proceedings challenging the certification of a referendum or referendum results.
    Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are consequential on the introduction of a local referendum in areas with two tiers of local government, and it is right that the same provisions for legal challenge to a count should apply to
    366
    local referendums under the new clause 2 as well as to the regional assembly referendums under clause 1. These two amendments would achieve that. Amendment No. 22 represents a slightly more significant change rather than a consequential matter. I hope briefly to describe what that entails.
    There has already been quite a lot of debate in both Houses on the terminology used in what is known as the ouster clause—clause 10—which would prevent frivolous legal moves that might delay a Government responding to the result of a referendum. We have always said, and this remains the case, that serious challenges would not be barred, but we have listened and responded carefully to the debates and queries on the wording and meaning of the so-called ouster clause, which were raised in Committee, during earlier proceedings in this House and in another place.
    We feel that this amendment helps to clarify the matter. Legal challenges to the certification of referendum results will now be clearly allowable in two specific circumstances—if they are brought by a claim for judicial review, and if they are brought within six weeks of certification.
    4.30 pm
    The amendment was prompted in particular by questions about how third-party fraud might be handled if it occurred during a referendum process. What would happen if someone sought to issue a legal challenge to the certification of the result? We should draw a distinction between the processes involved in the counting officers' work and the actual certification process. Third-party fraud might not be considered to have occurred during the latter process. We felt that we should spell out the circumstances in which a legal challenge would be possible and might be necessary, and we have therefore specified both a time frame and a mechanism for such challenges.
    The amendments make clear the circumstances in which legal proceedings could be excluded or allowed, and improve the Bill in a way recommended by both Houses. I hope that this House will accept them.
    Mr. Hammond: This is a curious grouping. I can say that because I was advised by the Clerk last night that the Minister in charge, rather than Mr. Speaker, is responsible for grouping Lords amendments.
    Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21 extend to the proposed local authority referendum provisions already applying to the main referendum. We may have our differences about the Bill—indeed, we have aired them effectively this afternoon—but given that the House has already agreed to the earlier amendments, this must be seen as an uncontroversial proposal, ensuring some continuity of architecture.
    Lords amendment No. 22 is more substantive. Of course these are only words, but I am grateful to the Minister in the other place for accepting the need to clarify the fact—it is, I think, no more than a clarification—that the exclusion of access to the courts was never intended to mean exclusion of the possibility of judicial review. Nevertheless, given the principle that Acts of Parliament should be plain speaking, it is surely sensible to include a specific reference to the availability to a member of the public, or an organisation, of access to the courts through judicial review.

    367
    As I probably say about 500 times during the consideration of every Bill, I am not a lawyer. I was, however, interested to see a specific reference to a period of six weeks for the bringing of a judicial review application. As a layman, I understood that hitherto the law had stated that judicial review applications must be brought as soon as practicable, and in any event within three months. A relatively recent appeal decision suggested that "as soon as practicable" would normally mean six weeks, in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The Bill, though, specifies six weeks, with no reference to exceptional circumstances. My interpretation of that is that an application brought seven weeks after the relevant date would automatically fail without such a reference.
    Mr. John Taylor: Not least on the basis of my own experience, I urge my hon. Friend never to be deferential or apologetic about not being a lawyer. In a long career, I have encountered cases in which the lawyer knows the legal position exactly, but the layman knows that it does not matter.
    Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that pearl of wisdom; indeed, I am often grateful to him for such pearls.
    Perhaps the Under-Secretary could explain to the House whether it is intended that this provision is a precedent-setting departure, and whether the judiciary is supposed to infer something from it in relation to judicial review in general. That is a genuine question of some importance, although I realise that the Under-Secretary may not want to answer it off the cuff. If he has no advice readily to hand, I should be grateful if he offered a commitment to write to me about it.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome these amendments, which were agreed by all sides in the other place. It is interesting to note that when we raised these issues in Committee, the Minister was not quite so happy. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who tabled amendments in Committee. I had missed the point relating to judicial review when I scrutinised the Bill, and it was the hon. Gentleman who, with his razor-sharp analysis, raised it. I credit him for that, and I am glad that the issue was taken up in the other place.
    When we debated the hon. Gentleman's amendments—I was in total agreement with them; indeed, I voted for them—it seemed odd to me that we were not allowing judicial review on an advisory referendum on the basis that it might hold matters up, given that the United States of America had had a judicial review into some hanging chads on which the future of the American presidency was determined. The Government were taking a rather odd position, therefore, in not allowing judicial review.
    There was some debate as to whether judicial review was implicit, but as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, including such a provision in the Bill in plain English is a step forward, and I hope that future draftsmen of future Bills on related matters will learn from this experience. In conclusion, I offer my support for these amendments from the other place.
    Mr. Leslie: I am sorry that I have to interrupt the love-in between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative
    368
    party. I am of course more than happy to acknowledge the razor-sharp acumen of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), although not necessarily in respect of these amendments. Colleagues have told me that on the morning in question, the hon. Gentleman may have arrived in Committee a little late. I am not sure that that is true, so I shall check the relevant Hansard.
    These changes are reasonable and add clarity to the circumstances in which legal proceedings should, or should not, be allowable. The reason for choosing the six-week period is specific to this case; it is not a general principle that we are seeking to establish. We feel that it strikes the right balance between allowing a challenge to take place, and giving the Government the opportunity to get on with implementing the outcome of any referendum. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has spotted the normal rules in respect of judicial review for the three-month period, and the six-week period would certainly fall within that. But if there is anything to add to the comments that I have already made, I shall certainly endeavour to write to him. With those closing comments, I hope that the amendments can stand.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.

  Clause 13

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW: SUPPLEMENTARY
    Lords amendment: No. 24.
    Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33.
    Mr. Leslie: The amendments are largely a consequence of giving people a say in the shape of unitary local government in regions that opt for an elected regional assembly but that presently have two-tier local government. We have already debated the principles underlying that. The Lords amendments also alter the basis on which the boundary committee conducts local government reviews; a response to concerns expressed in both Houses during the Bill's passage.
    Amendment No. 25 would allow the boundary committee to consider the boundaries of existing unitary authorities where it makes sense to do so. The Government maintain the view that there is no need for a general review of unitary boundaries; an important point that I want to stress. The impact of the reviews should be limited, but we accept that, in some circumstances, the boundaries of existing unitary councils might need to be expanded to take in parts of an adjoining two-tier area.
    Amendments Nos. 24 and 27 make necessary changes to the local government review process to ensure that the Government can allow voters to consider different options for unitary local government in those parts of a region voting on an elected regional assembly where there is currently a two-tier local government system. The boundary committee will now have to make

    369
    recommendations for at least two options for each county area. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions mentioned earlier, if county boundaries are crossed, the referendum would apply to the combined areas of both counties. All options must be assessed against the same criteria; first, on the assumption that an elected regional assembly will be created and, secondly, with regard to the need to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government.
    Amendments Nos. 26, 28, 29 and 30 are minor technical adjustments to the Bill to facilitate the changes that I have described. Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 provide the Secretary of State with greater discretion to require the electoral commission, under part 3 of the Bill, to advise on electoral matters on the basis of different scenarios for local government restructuring. The changes are necessary because of what might arise when local government referendums take place in parallel with regional referendums. Amendment No. 32 gives the Secretary of State discretion to require that the Electoral Commission give advice on a specified number of electoral options when issues are at hand. Amendment No. 33 is a contingency provision for the remote circumstances in which we might need to vary an electoral direction outside the two-year period within which the Secretary of State must issue an order for an electoral provision following a vote in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly. I hope that the House will support the amendments.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Hammond: Time is short, so I shall focus only on amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Although the Under-Secretary presented them as consequential on the introduction of the multi-option local authority restructuring, they raise some questions. The amendments would give the Secretary of State the ability to direct the Electoral Commission to present a specified number of alternative ways of dividing up a regional assembly area for the purposes of elections. As the Bill stands, that exercise will not take place until after a referendum had been held. The Under-Secretary is not right to say that because of the possibility of adopting one of several local authority structures, it is therefore necessary to ask the Electoral Commission to come up with more than one solution.
    370
    I was intrigued by the similarity between what is being proposed with what was agreed in the other place about the local authority review. My principal question to the Under-Secretary is whether the Government intend to use a referendum to allow the inhabitants of a region that had opted for an elected regional assembly to choose between different alternative arrangements for the division of the region into electoral areas. The Electoral Commission could be directed to produce two or perhaps more solutions. Is that what the Government have in mind?
    Mr. Leslie: No, the Government do not have such thoughts in mind, although enthusiasm for extra referendums is clearly affecting the hon. Gentleman's thinking. A third referendum was not something that the Government intended. Perhaps I did not explain the purposes of Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32 clearly. The second, local government, referendum will be significant because when the Electoral Commission draws up the constituency boundaries for an assembly, it may change its recommendations, depending on the options available in respect of local government reorganisation. That was the point that I sought to make. I hope that that is helpful and that the amendments will be accepted.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 35 agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 27th January 2003—
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  Subsequent stages
  Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put and proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.

  Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
    Clause 2

      REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON CAPACITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN SECURITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      4.48 pm
      The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      First, I should explain that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction is in the western isles today, and that the privilege of taking this part of our consideration of the Bill through the House therefore falls to me.
      Lords amendment No. 1 clarifies the Government's intentions for the use of clause 2(1). It does not reduce the Government's flexibility to react to what happens to British Energy, but it does help to spell out our position with more clarity than might have been the case before. I believe that the House will welcome the change.
      I remind the House that the main function of clause 2(1) is to repeal sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989. Our intention in repealing those sections is to remove an impediment that exists at present, and to allow the Government to buy shares in British Energy in the event that the company goes into administration. That step would be taken only in that eventuality, and even then only if no private-sector buyer was to come forward. Throughout the Bill's progress through the House, we have stressed that although the company's solvent restructuring proposals appear to be progressing satisfactorily—and we welcome that—we must be prepared for every eventuality.
      In the course of the debates on the Bill, in this Chamber and in the other place, fears were expressed that clause 2 would create new powers for the Government. Concern was expressed in particular that the reference in clause 2 to acquiring "securities of any company" might give the Government a new right of compulsory purchase.
      The clause was certainly not intended to do that. Lines 16 to 18 on page 2 of the Bill are there to clarify that the powers that the Government were able to exercise before the introduction of the 1989 Act will be properly restored once sections 72 and 74 are repealed.
      The Government consider that the amendment is not strictly necessary, but we have accepted that it helps to explain that this part of clause 2 is for clarification, and that allays entirely concerns that have been raised. I therefore hope that the House will agree to Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sorry that the Minister for Energy and Construction is not in his place. He seems to be making a habit of it: when we debated the Sustainable Energy Bill, one of his ministerial colleagues stood in for him. On that occasion the Minister was not campaigning, but properly carrying out negotiations in the British interest on a gas deal with Norway. Indeed, given the critical position of the
      372
      United Kingdom's future supplies of natural gas, after the complete inadequacy of the Government's White Paper, the hon. Gentleman would have been better employed in continuing to work for the future security of our energy supply than in campaigning in the western isles. However, such are his priorities and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber.
      The amendment is described as a drafting amendment. It is remarkable that my noble Friend, Lord Jenkin of Roding, managed to convince the Government that they should include the expression
      "For the avoidance of doubt".
      It must be unique in legislation for a Government to accept and propose for the endorsement of the House an expression that is, as the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness has told us, formally meaningless.
      I congratulate my noble Friend on convincing the Government that those words should be included. He was making a point about the doubt that runs through the whole Bill. Ultimately, none of the reassurances that have been given by Ministers in this place and by Lord Sainsbury in the other place have the weight of statute law. The Government were presented with a series of opportunities that would have enabled them to avoid doubt, yet all that we have been able to secure from them is this amendment.
      The Bill comprises a raft of issues, not least the potential for unlimited public expenditure to support the company. The Government had the opportunity to ensure that such expenditure was limited. We were even told by Lord Sainsbury that the Government had no desire to go beyond the spending limits already set out in existing legislation. However, even though—for the avoidance of doubt—the Opposition proposed an amendment that would have quadrupled those limits, the Government would not accept it. We are left with merely a humorous aside.
      The Bill is riddled with doubt as to the Government's intentions and their request for flexibility in dealing with British Energy. All the proper limits that we requested have been reduced to the expression
      "For the avoidance of doubt".
      That the Government believe those words will bring clarity merely reinforces the concerns expressed about the Bill in this place in our previous debates and by my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, a former Minister for Energy, when he persuaded the Government to accept the amendment.
      This is not a good Bill: the incorporation of the amendment—that little phrase—is to be welcomed as it makes the point.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2.
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Timms: My noble Friend, Lord Sainsbury introduced these amendments on Report in the other place. I hope that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr.

      373
      Blunt) can be a little less churlish in his welcome for them than he was for amendment No. 1. The effect is to change the scrutiny arrangements for the delegated power in clause 2 from the negative to the affirmative procedure—a change that I am confident will not be opposed by those on either side of the House.
      Let me remind the House of the rationale behind the decision to take a delegated power to repeal part 2 of the Electricity Act 1989. The outright repeal of sections 72 and 74 has been discussed already, but it will give the Government the option to repeal any further sections in part 2 of the 1989 Act—a part that is now largely redundant. The reason for taking the delegated power is simply that we wanted more time to consider the effect of repealing the provisions in part 2 before doing so and to ensure that there is no adverse effect.
      The Bill was originally drafted with the negative procedure attached to that power, as we considered that sufficient given that the power is relatively minor. In Committee, the Opposition tabled an amendment—I think that the hon. Member for Reigate did so—but there was not enough time to debate it. Concerns were expressed in the other place, most notably by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which was concerned that the Government could, in theory, repeal live and significant provisions in the 1989 Act.
      The Government recognised the concern expressed in both Houses and agreed to change to the affirmative procedure. My noble Friend therefore moved Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to give effect to that change. Lords amendment No. 2 makes it clear that the order would be made by statutory instrument. Lords amendment No. 3 sets out the procedure to approve the order. The change will not adversely affect the original aims of the Bill, and I ask the House to agree to these Lords amendments.
      Mr. Blunt: Of course I would not want to be seen to be remotely churlish in wholeheartedly welcoming these Lords amendments. It is, frankly, an absolute scandal that we should have to consider them anyway; we should not have had to amend the Bill so that the negative procedure in either House is not used when the Government seek to take powers to repeal great chunks of legislation.
      When the Government originally introduced the Bill, their case was that the sections of the Electricity Act 1989 that might be repealed were all superseded by the fact that privatisation had taken place, that things had moved on and that that legislation was redundant. What are all the officials doing in the Department of Trade and Industry? Why were they not preparing properly for the Bill, so that they could tell us during its various stages of consideration, exactly which parts of the 1989 Act were redundant and should be repealed properly by the Bill? We attempted to give the Government the opportunity to do so, but, again, they wanted everything to be taken on trust.
      The Government initially tried to ignore the recommendations on procedure made by the Select Committee to which the Minister referred. Of course I
      374
      am pleased that the Government have, in effect, accepted the amendments proposed in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Miller, by reworking them in the Government's own words, but it should never have come to this.
      It says something about the Government's mindset and the assumptions that underlie their position that they should even think of taking powers by the negative procedure in either House of Parliament to repeal chunks of legislation. I say that happily with the Leader of the House in his place, and I hope that, under his tenure of leadership, the Executive will treat this institution with proper respect and that we will not have such an occasion again when their Lordships' House has to introduce amendments to show proper respect for Parliament.
      The House should not be taken for granted. The effect of these Lords amendments is welcome because that will not happen, but those provisions should never have been included in the Bill in the first place. Of course, as these Lords amendments were Conservative proposals, as the Minister has pointed out, we wholeheartedly welcome them, and we will certainly support them. I commend them to the House, but it should not have come to this, and I hope that it will not happen again.
      5 pm
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). This is not, of course, another forum to debate the Bill as a whole, with which we are profoundly happy, but we have been trying, as have the Conservatives, both here and in the other place, to increase the precision of the Bill and to improve parliamentary scrutiny. The proposal is a small gesture in that direction, which we very much welcome.
      I want to pose a few issues of substance relating to the Bill, to inquire about the circumstances in which these affirmative procedures might be used. What changes in context might lead to fresh action having to be taken in relation to the industry? First, under the existing arrangements, the Government have made a loan of £650 million to the industry, and it is assumed that that will be repaid out of the surplus over operating costs following the restructuring that has now been agreed. Can the Minister indicate the progress of that repayment, and when the Government expect it to be completed, under the assumptions that I presume they are making in relation to the prices operating in the market? Clearly, if the assumptions are not right, the Government may have to return with fresh legislative changes under the procedures that we are discussing. A progress report would indicate the soundness of the assumptions under which the legislation is operating.
      Secondly, one of the other key uncertainties hanging around the Bill, which may result at some point in us having to revisit it through this procedure or some other, relates to the approval that must be given by the European Commission. I understand that that is a prolonged process. There are objections from the other producers, as the Minister knows. Can he indicate when the procedure is due to be completed, as I understand that it could take as long as 18 months?
      Thirdly, another of the key uncertainties underlying the Bill, which affects the whole operating economics of the industry and, therefore, the circumstances under

      375
      which we may need to revisit it with changes, concerns the excess capacity that operates in the industry. There has been a lot of uncertainty—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now abusing the confines of the debate. A very thin thread connects those matters to the Lords amendment that we are discussing. He would be advised not to develop those points further.
      Dr. Cable: My questions were posed in good faith and in the belief that they were fully within the remit of the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was never suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was acting in bad faith. I am merely trying to keep the House in order.
      Dr. Cable: Of course, I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I reiterate simply that we welcome the procedural changes, and I do not think that there will be any further question of a Division on the Bill. I fully accept the spirit of the Conservative spokesman's comments, however.
      Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he would like a little further information, and perhaps we can deal with the matter through an exchange of correspondence. Good progress is being made, however, particularly on the loan. As he will know, British Energy's Canadian assets were successfully disposed of recently, and, of course, part of the loan was to enable that operation to continue successfully. He need not have any concerns on any of those matters, therefore, although the amendments are not connected with the points that he raised.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the fact that these amendments were tabled by Conservative Members, but that we simply did not have time to consider them in Committee because of the time allocated for the Bill. Does he think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs? What should be done to ensure that that does not happen again and that we do not have to rely on another place to put right what we have simply failed to achieve?
      Mr. Timms: Anyone considering the scrutiny that the Bill has received in its parliamentary process in this House and the other place will reach the conclusion that it has been very thoroughly scrutinised and that we have been able to make significant changes that have improved matters. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends need to examine how they manage their contributions in Committee to ensure that there is adequate time for scrutiny of important issues. Large amounts of time were applied to matters of little importance and, as a result, significant issues were left. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

  Modernisation of the House of Commons
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr Robin Cook and Lorna Fitzsimons be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be added.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: There has been a depressing pattern to these motions of late. Sadly, under new management, the Government appear to be following the same practice. I hope that, at some point, the new Leader of the House will assure us that the practice will cease. However, I suppose that we have to give him a little time to run himself in before he realises what is going on.
  The motion looks routine—some might say almost bland—but it contains some potentially rather controversial elements. The House would want to pause a moment to consider whether we want to go ahead with the motion in its present form, given its implications.
  The motion deals with the so-called Modernisation Committee, which is a Select Committee of the House. I have never concealed my views on modernisation. The so-called modernisation process has been a wicked and evil development that has systematically diminished the power of the House of Commons effectively to hold the Government to account. That is my view of what has come to be called modernisation. Debates and votes have been eliminated and the ridiculous deferred Division system has been introduced. Worst of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out in the previous debate, the systematic, routine and vicious timetabling of Bills in Standing Committees has led to most legislation not being properly scrutinised by the House.
  The Committee has radically changed the relationship between the House and the Government over the past six years or so; anyone returning to the House after an absence would find it unrecognisable. All the proposals emanating from the so-called Modernisation Committee have been to the detriment of the House of Commons as a legislature. Therefore, we are entitled carefully to consider proposals, such as the one before us, that change the membership of the Committee.
  The first issue that arises, self-evidently, is that, following the departure of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who had been its Chairman and President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, we now rightly confront the anomaly of the phenomenon of a Select Committee being chaired by a senior member of the Government. In other words, a member of the Executive is chairing a Committee that is supposed to decide what the relationship should be between the Executive and the House.
  It is arguably wrong not only for a senior member of the Government to chair a Select Committee, but for the Modernisation Committee, of all Committees, given the role it has played in altering the relationship between the House and the Government, to be chaired by a member of the Government in whose interests it could be to diminish the role of the House and enhance that of the Executive. The House has taken that for granted all too readily during the five or six years in which the revolting Committee has been in existence.

  377
  The apparently innocuous motion provides us with the opportunity to examine directly whether the House is satisfied with the fact that having just got rid of the previous President of the Council as the Chairman of the Committee—although he got rid of himself, strictly speaking—it is invited to appoint a new one. I shall address the chairmanship in a moment, although only in passing because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me that even an attempt to explore that issue is not strictly relevant, which I accept. The motion invites us to add the new President of the Council, who is a senior member of the Executive, to the membership of the Committee. That is why the House should pause and decide whether it should endorse the motion.
  I wondered whether my colleagues and I should table amendments to the motion to change the membership of the Committee. I hesitated and decided against that for a proper reason: until now, we have always honoured the undertaking that neither side of the House interferes with the right of the other to nominate Committee members. I want to honour that proper relationship. However, we could reject the motion and compel the Government to suggest different names. If the House did that, it would have decided that it was entirely inappropriate for the President of the Council to be a member of the Modernisation Committee for the reasons that I have outlined.
  The situation is worse that that. The motion proposes that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) should take the place of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) on the Committee. What is the significance of that? The significance is where the hon. Member for Don Valley is sitting, because she is sitting loyally and supportively behind the President of the Council, and I understand that she has the honour to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  That poses a further dilemma, because we are invited to commit not only the folly of adding the President of the Council to the Committee but the double folly of allowing his Parliamentary Private Secretary to serve on it with him. How can we be sure of the impartiality and integrity of the Committee if members and pseudo-members of the Government serve on it? How can we expect the Committee to examine the relationship between the House and the Government in a proper, impartial and balanced way if at least two of its members are members—albeit one of them marginally—of the Government? [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) wish to intervene? I shall give him the chance to say something; I invite him to put something on the record.
  Mr. David Hanson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman declines my offer, which is a great pity because I am in a generous mood. If he wishes to speak, he has only to catch my eye and I shall oblige him.
  So we have identified the issue that emanates directly from the role of the Committee both in the past and as it will be under the guidance of the President of the Council if he is made not only a member of the Committee but, as was his predecessor, its Chairman. I
  378
  consulted "Erskine May", as one always does if one is wise, to make sure of my facts, and on page 637, under the heading "Proceedings in select committees", it says:
  "Election of chairman. The chairman of a select committee is chosen by the committee itself except in rare cases when the House otherwise orders."
  We do not have the power or opportunity to order that today, whether we would want to or not, but I am happy that "Erskine May" confirms that when the Committee's composition is decided—whether we agree to the motion today or subsequently—it will be free to elect its Chairman.
  I hope that the Committee will consider our proceedings today. I hope it might even consider my modest contribution and—who knows?—the contribution of others, and ask itself a serious question: lumbered as it may be by the House with the presence of the President of the Council and his faithful and loyal Parliamentary Private Secretary, does it really want that same President of the Council to be its Chairman, or would it not rather have a more independent spirit?
  We have with us today the living embodiment of an alternative approach, in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I did not tip him off about that, which is why he looks pleasurably surprised. He, as a distinguished and senior member of—for the time being—the Opposition, chairs another key Committee that is involved with matters pertaining to the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is now acknowledged—I pay tribute to the Government for this—that a senior member of the Opposition should properly chair that Committee.
  Following that precedent—I would go further, and I think my right hon. Friend would endorse what I say—his Committee recently accepted the proposal that no Parliamentary Private Secretary should serve on his Committee, because the fact that Members are Parliamentary Private Secretaries can sometimes raise a scintilla of doubt about their impartiality in dealing with the House or, in the case of my right hon. Friend's Committee, in dealing with Members.
  The precedent exists. What I am suggesting does not come out of the blue. It is not strange, new or different. A Committee of the House has already determined that it is proper and appropriate for a Committee dealing with House matters to be chaired by a member of the Opposition, rather than a member of the Government, yet the motion, with the names that it proposes, represents the denial of that proposition.
  It looks as though the Leader of the House intends to make a contribution to the debate. I hope he will. He is Looking pregnant, so perhaps he will honour us with his thoughts, once others have caught Madam Deputy Speaker's eye. I hope that we might hear the reflections of the Leader of the House on how, if we agree the motion, he would see his role as a member of the Committee, and whether he has any aspirations to chair the Committee and to submit his name in the proper way.
  If the right hon. Gentleman confirms that, and before we vote on the motion, the House would welcome his views on how he sees his role as a member, if not the Chairman, of the Committee and, more importantly, how he would square his vital role as President of the

  379
  Council and Leader of the House with his role as a member, if not the Chairman, of the Modernisation Committee, given the direct bearing that its recommendations have on the relationship between the House as the legislature and the Executive.
  I welcome the opportunity provided by the motion to explore these issues, to satisfy ourselves as a House that this is indeed the appropriate and proper way forward, and, even better, to hear from the prospective member and—who knows?—even the prospective Chairman, if the Committee were so to decide, how he sees that role and how he would see it developing, were he to be honoured with membership of the Committee and even more honoured by the chairmanship of it.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House deserves and requires an exposition from the Leader of the House and from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) of where they stand on modernisation? There are shades of opinion across the House as to the enthusiasm with which the process is received.
  Mr. Forth: I an grateful to my hon. Friend, as I sometimes have the suspicion that, on the Government side, enthusiasts for what has come to be known as modernisation—pathetic souls who want the House to do as little as possible and who want to see the Government triumphant on every occasion—are over-represented on the Committee. I hope that the hon. Lady might honour us with a brief exposition of how she would see her role on the Committee, in order that we can judge her suitability for it. The Committee could benefit from a dose of scepticism. That may or may not be forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady.
  This is an important parliamentary occasion. It is an opportunity for the House to give the matter some thought. I shall hold fire until I hear the debate, and perhaps what the Lord President has to say, before I decide how I shall vote on the motion.
  5.20 pm
  Sir George Young: I preface my remarks by saying that personally I have nothing against the Leader of the House. He is a man for whom I have deep respect and affection, and when after the next election my party is returned with a modest majority I hope that we will continue to pair as we used to in previous Parliaments.
  I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for the restraint with which he spoke. He referred to a convention that when there is a vacancy on a Select Committee for one party, another party does not intervene. I think that I recollect that in the previous Parliament a motion proposing that my right hon. Friend be a member of the Commission was opposed. I am not even sure that it was not defeated in a vote. Therefore, he spoke with tremendous restraint this afternoon, against the background of the discourtesy that was extended to him when he was a candidate for the Commission—a post for which he has now assumed responsibility.
  Two issues arise, one of which concerns the role of Select Committees. As my right hon. Friend said, Select Committees are the vehicle by which the House of
  380
  Commons holds the Executive to account. There is a precedent for a Minister sitting on a Select Committee. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an ex officio member of the Public Accounts Committee, but he never returns. As I recall when I held the position, I turned up for one meeting and thereafter I played no part in its proceedings. It is crucial to the role of Select Committees that the Executive are not represented on them. The strength of the Select Committee system is that independent Back Benchers chair the Committees.
  The Leader of the House is one of the few members of the Cabinet who is not shadowed by a Select Committee. I suppose the other is the Prime Minister, but that deficiency has now been put right by the Liaison Committee interrogating the Prime Minister twice a year.
  One could argue that we should have a Select Committee that holds the Leader of the House to account, but what is proposed here—this is the second point that I want to make—is the clearest conflict of interest. The Leader of the House is a member of the Cabinet and it is his responsibility to deliver the Government's legislative programme. He plans the business of the House. If there is a problem with the passage of a Bill, he is answerable to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister for what has gone wrong. He is in the Cabinet to deliver the Government's programme. There could not be a clearer conflict of interest than that same person chairing the Modernisation Committee, which decides the rules that the House will exercise in dealing with that same legislative programme. There could not be a clearer example of short-circuiting the system than the manager of the Government's legislative programme chairing the Select Committee that decides the rules by which that legislative programme will go through the House.
  We have an answer to the dilemma: the previous Leader of the House, who is now on the Back Benches, would be an excellent member of the Modernisation Committee. It would then be a matter for the Modernisation Committee to decide whether he should continue to be its Chairman. As a previous holder of that position, I happen to agree with many of the things that the former Leader of the House did. I do not agree with all the strictures of my right hon. Friend about the Modernisation Committee. I happen to believe that Westminster Hall was a sensible innovation.
  The answer to the dilemma that confronts the House is for the new Leader of the House to withdraw the motion and allow the Modernisation Committee to decide who of the existing members should be the Chairman. They may choose the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) or someone else. If one could do that this evening, one would answer the criticisms that have been made by my right hon. Friend and the House could adjourn at an early hour.
  5.24 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the House had before it a proposition that judges should also be foremen of the jury, it would be laughed out of court, but, in effect, that is what we are debating, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) elegantly made that point.

  381
  Like my right hon. Friend, I have absolutely nothing against the Leader of the House—quite the contrary. I think that he is an admirable man in every way. He has shown resourcefulness and political courage and he has performed—
  Mr. Forth: As my hon. Friend's pair.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, not as my pair as well. I am just putting in a bid. I can think of very few Committees that would not be adorned by his presence and, indeed, by that of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but not while one is a member of Her Majesty's Government and the other is a bag carrier. That is wrong.
  I am one of those who has almost unreserved scepticism about the activities of the Modernisation Committee. When it was formed, I served on it briefly and referred to it at that time as potentially an emasculation Committee. That is what it has done to the House; it has taken away much of the power of the House of Commons and delivered to the Executive a control over the legislature that is inimical to the spirit of a free Parliament. I believe that it has done untold harm to this institution.
  I would like the Modernisation Committee to be swept away, bag and baggage, and replaced by a proper business Select Committee of the House to which the Leader of the House would indeed be answerable. Such a Committee would monitor his activities and he would be called before it. I had the honour to serve on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, when the Foreign Secretary came before us. I believe that the Chancellor has today appeared before the Select Committee on the Treasury. That is the right relationship. Select Committees work pretty well in this place and, by and large, do not divide along party lines. I think that I am right in saying that all the reports that the Foreign Affairs Committee has produced during this Parliament have been unanimous. Of course, we have a Chairman who has been drawn from the Labour party, and that is perfectly proper, but we try to consider issues on their merits. That is how any Select Committee of this House should perform.
  What we need is not a Modernisation Committee driven by that spurious buzzword, but a Committee that truly monitors the performance of this Chamber and the various other Committees of Parliament and tries to see how best we should hold the Executive to account. That Committee should regularly examine and interrogate the Leader of the House, who should appear before it, and it should produce reports to the House on the way in which he discharges his functions.
  The Modernisation Committee has not served Parliament or the House of Commons well. I do not wish to see the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) remain on it because he has his own agenda and has made that very plain. If we are to have a Chairman drawn from the Executive, I would very much rather that it was indeed the Leader of the House than the right hon. Member for Livingston, because I think that he has less grandiose ambitions in the direction of
  382
  modernisation, and I hope that we will have bit of consolidation with him if we persist with this ridiculous Committee.
  I would also like to see some reversal, because one of the recent innovations of the Modernisation Committee, the changing of the hours of this House, has met a great deal of opposition even from many who supported the recommendations when they were placed before the House. Frankly, those recommendations were driven through by the then Leader of the House, who spoke in such a partisan manner. That was quite wrong.
  I urge the Leader of the House, whom I genuinely welcome to his new responsibilities and for whom I have a high regard, to take the motion away—
  David Davis: Can he speak against it?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend says, it would be very good if the right hon. Gentleman spoke against the motion. That would be marvellous; if he did so, he would earn a lot of brownie points.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take the motion away and to give serious thought to my suggestions regarding an entirely different Select Committee to monitor the affairs of the Chamber and the Committees of this House, and to which he would be answerable. If he cannot do that, I hope that, at the very least, he will offer us a self-denying ordinance whereby he will not seek the chair of the Modernisation Committee; that the Committee will genuinely, in a properly free and unfettered manner, choose its Chairman; and that neither he nor his charming Parliamentary Private Secretary will take part in any vote on that issue in the Committee. That is the very least that we can expect.
  I hope that when the Leader of the House responds he will acknowledge the force of at least some of the arguments that were advanced with the typically modest, self-effacing gentility of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the delightful verbal elegance of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, and my own bluff common sense.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I had not intended to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) jogged my memory when he mentioned the unfortunate precedent of one party's seeking to interfere with another's nomination in respect of the nomination to the House of Commons Commission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I recollect that that took the form of a motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown—a Government motion—that was voted down by a large number of Labour Members, including 14 Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was among them; I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong.
  I am surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no Labour Member is trying to catch your eye—not least the hon. Member for Don Valley, because the House is owed an

  383
  explanation of her position on the spectrum of modernisation. We are, after all, being asked to substitute her for the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons). As the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) was reluctant to put on the record his sedentary intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who invited him to do so, I shall do it for him. He was shouting to my right hon. Friend that as the hon. Member for Rochdale, the PPS of the former Leader of the House, had sat on the Committee, it was entirely logical that the PPS of the new Leader of the House should do likewise.
  I do not follow that logic. Even if we accept it, however, we are still being asked to support a motion that will substitute two members of the Committee for two others. We are owed an explanation of the position of those members in relation to a subject that is highly controversial on both sides of the House. If they are to be believed, recent reports in the press give us some idea of the position of the Leader of the House on modernisation, which I find mildly encouraging, given my position on such matters. However, I want to hear the hon. Member for Don Valley give an exposition of her views about modernisation. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will do so; he certainly appears to be making notes. We can look forward to that, but our deliberations will be sadly lacking, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Lady does not seek to catch your eye.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has not yet sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I want to express my concern at the prospect of a Parliamentary Private Secretary taking up a valuable place on a high-powered, active Committee. By convention, Parliamentary Private Secretaries do not speak when they serve on Committees. That means that a place will be taken by a person who will say nothing. I am sure that the Leader of the House does not need someone to carry his bags into and out of the Committee. The hon. Member for Don Valley would be a bit part player on the Committee. Perhaps the best outcome would be for the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to take the two places. An open contest could ensue on who should become the Chairman.
  Mr. Forth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in some ways it would be a blessing if Parliamentary Private Secretaries on such a Committee said nothing, given that they are likely to speak only on matters that favour the Government rather than the House?
  Mr. Chope: I accept my right hon. Friend's comments, namely, that whatever a Parliamentary Private Secretary said would merely echo the views of Front-Bench Members and the Government position.
  Positions on the Committee are scarce. In a bidding process, I am sure that many bids would be made for a place. The current Leader of the House aspires to serve on the Committee, and the former Leader of the House would like to continue to serve on it. It would therefore be sensible for both to be members and for the Committee to determine the chairmanship.
  384
  There is an unhealthy development in the House whereby the Executive determines the chairmanship of Select Committees. That is inherent in the motion. I was first elected in 1983 with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others—I believe that the intake included more than 100 new Members. Shortly after arriving, places became available on Select Committees. I did not serve on one, but a colleague believed that I did and invited me for a drink in Annie's Bar. He lobbied me strongly to vote for him as Chairman of that Select Committee. When I said that I did not believe that people who were not members had a vote for the Chairman, he admitted that he had mistaken me for another hon. Member. He abandoned his drinks immediately—it is fortunate that he had already paid the bill—and went off to try to lobby more effectively.
  That happened in an era when the Government, despite having a large majority, tried to keep their nose out of Select Committee's affairs. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to re-establish the convention that Select Committees should be run by hon. Members who are not part of the Executive and that the two should be kept separate.
  5.37 pm
  The President of the Council (Dr. John Reid): As ever, I came to the House this evening with great humility and reluctant to say anything. I regarded my addition to the Committee as a fairly minor matter and I was well aware that any contribution that I could make would be humble and restricted, especially compared with the auspicious contributions of the hon. Members who are present. I am fortified and a little flattered by the attention of so many prominent Members, especially from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, to my possible addition to the Committee.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will be gratified and reassured to know that I have reflected carefully on the matter. Ever since I entered the great ideological struggle in the forum of politics at the age of 16 or 17, my burning ambition was to be a member of the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons. The thought of participating in debates at the highest echelons of the parliamentary process ranked with our other priorities such as full employment and modernising the welfare state. However, it was not always the top the priority. I therefore reflected on the matter over the past few days with some misgivings and an understanding of my limited capacity to deal with such matters.
  Indeed, I consulted fairly widely on this issue and found a broad range of views. I discussed it with Labour MPs from all walks of life before I finally made the decision, and I am glad that we have had a balanced contribution tonight from the other side of the House. It is a pity that the Liberals are not here to add their contributions and to explain why we should have another penny on income tax, and matters of that nature. I understand that they are away, no doubt adding to their election effort and looking after their own interests rather than the interests of the nation. Despite the motivation to get involved in politics, members of the other parties here have had regard to their duties as Members of Parliament and not just as campaigners.

  385
  I can assure Members who were worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) displays on all occasions the independence of mind that we have come to expect from Labour MPs in here. Some would say that such independence has been displayed far too often in the Chamber in recent times, but it is nevertheless part of our thriving democracy in the House and inside our party. My hon. Friend knows well that she will be free to speak her mind if the motion is passed tonight.
  I therefore believe that this is, in the last instance, a reasonably straightforward motion. It proposes to replace two members of the Modernisation Committee with two others. I would claim no greater status for it than that. Moreover, it proposes to replace two members who no longer think it appropriate to serve on the Committee. Several hon. Members have indicated that they wished it were otherwise, but the former Leader of the House has said that, for reasons well known to the House, he no longer wishes to serve on it. Indeed, I think that he might even have said that to the Committee, long before this matter came before the House.
  Mr. Forth: The Leader of the House says that this is a simple, straightforward matter. Would he, however, grace us with a brief discourse on how he can reconcile his role as a senior member of the Executive with the role of the Modernisation Committee as a Committee of the House, and one that should enhance the role of the House vis-à-vis the Executive? How will he be able to do justice to those apparently conflicting roles?
  Dr. Reid: Whether it will be brief, or a contribution meriting the description of "discourse", I do not know, but I am going to turn to that issue because it is meritorious in terms of requiring a response, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman, who is so learned in these matters, raised it earlier, as did one or two of his colleagues. The point that I was making was not that this was a straightforward motion but that I came to the House thinking that it would be. However, in passing, we should note that the Leader of the House has served on the Modernisation Committee since its inception in 1997. Those who are listening to this debate in the House or outside it could be mistaken for thinking that some great radical unprecedented step had been taken this evening. In fact, I am the fourth—and probably the least worthy of those four—to have deigned even to step over the threshold of the Committee.
  I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by my predecessors— particularly that of my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston—as Chairmen of the Modernisation Committee. I shall come back to the question of Chairmen, as opposed to membership, in a second. It can truthfully be said that my right hon. Friend put great energy and commitment into modernising the House and its procedures. Considerable progress was made—not always in a direction that everyone entirely agreed with, but anyone would accept that progress was made on rationalisation and modernisation.
  386
  I know of the caricatures attributed to me on the issue, but let me say that whatever reservations I had about certain aspects of it are as of nothing compared with the almost complete and blank refusal of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to enter the same century, far less the same intellectual framework, regarding modernisation. As he spoke, I had visions, as we sometimes do, of an airline stewardess making an announcement as the plane lands, "Welcome to the Conservative party. Please put your watches back 200 years." The robustness with which he opposed any change genuinely merits the name "Conservative" and he typifies in every way why the Conservative party is utterly incapable of governing in modern Britain, although I am the first to admit that it contains some of the great minds of the 18th century. However, it lacks a capacity to deal with some modern problems here in the House as well as outside. Even my predecessor would acknowledge that much remains to be done.
  Mr. Forth: Oh no.
  Dr. Reid: Much remains to be done, but not all of it inside the House and involving its procedures. A great deal needs to be done in relating the House collectively to our constituents and to the population outside, and we have much to do individually as Members of Parliament.
  David Winnick: I broadly support the reforms and there is undoubtedly a majority for them in the House, but will my right hon. Friend consider this point? If he is to be on the Modernisation Committee—I do not suppose that there is any doubt about that—will he consider with his colleagues the matter of Tuesdays? There is a strong argument for Tuesdays to have the same hours as Mondays. Also, if we are concerned about modernisation, we must consider the fact that letters to constituents cannot reach them until the following day unless they are posted before 6 o'clock. Surely that is quite disgraceful.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was drawing his remarks to a close. We are discussing the membership of the Modernisation Committee.
  Dr. Reid: I do not want in any way to display the complacency and arrogance involved in assuming that the motion will be passed either tonight or in the future, or that I will be elevated within the Committee. My hon. Friend, having made his point, will understand why I do not immediately address it. It would require an assumption of arrogance so to do.
  However the objections were presented, certain points were worthy of being raised and considered, although in a more balanced way than that used by my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Such balance was shown by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and, of course, by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Incidentally, I find it rather intriguing that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, having raised the spectre of a conspiracy to pack the Modernisation Committee not only with hacks such as me—I am not sure whether he

  387
  used that word, although I think he did—but with loyal friends such as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, immediately went on to say that the man who should really be on the Committee is the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who has been my pair here for 15 years. He would be regarded with even greater suspicion, no doubt, had that been known when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made his comments. I am afraid that if there is a conspiracy to pack the Committee with my friends and intimates, the right hon. Gentleman was this evening part of it, although perhaps inadvertently.
  Let me deal with the two questions that Members have raised. The first is whether I have tabled a motion that would make me a member of the Committee and whether that Committee would be free to choose its own Chair. The answer to both questions is yes.
  I have no great ambition. I am not driven by any agenda. I shall become a member of the Committee if the House so wishes, but like any other MP I shall be at the service of the House and its Committees should they decide to elevate me to the chairmanship. I am content to await the decision of my colleagues.
  The second question was this: is it not wrong for a Select Committee, particularly one established to consider how best to modernise the procedures of the House, to be chaired by a Minister?
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has used a very unfortunate phrase, namely "to modernise the procedures of the House". I believe that that responsibility lies with the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour to chair. May I ask whether, if the House appoints the right hon. Gentleman to the Modernisation Committee and if he ends up as Chairman because of the Labour majority on it, he will seek to work closely with the Procedure Committee, and will not try to take to the Modernisation Committee responsibilities and duties which—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is going on rather long, and is perhaps a little wide of the motion.
  Dr. Reid: Having cunningly caught the hon. Gentleman's eye by using the word "procedures", I can assure him that I would indeed seek to do that. I have no doubt that he would seek to reinforce his own view that procedures should be a matter for the Procedure Committee, and that other matters should be dealt with by the Modernisation Committee. I am sure that that will provide substance for many discussions in future. I would not dream for a moment of going beyond usurping control of the Modernisation Committee—of which I already stand accused—to usurp the hon. Gentleman's role and try to dominate the Procedure Committee. That unfortunate implication arose from the way in which I described the Modernisation Committee.
  I was dealing with the second question—whether it was contrary to any reasonable way of approaching the chairmanship, or indeed membership, of the Committee
  388
  to give either to a Minister. On the contrary, I do not think such action would constitute a sign of any diminution of the Committee's importance in the eyes of the Government, or of their commitment to its work. If anything, the decision to allow the Leader of the House to become a member and subsequently Chairman—which was, in fact, incorporated in the Labour party manifesto when we came to power—was a public and practical indication of the importance that we attributed to that work. The membership of someone in the Cabinet would show how seriously the Government took its deliberations.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly pointed out that the Leader of the House—myself, for the time being—is a member of the Executive, and of course there is tension between the Executive and Parliament. He must also recognise, however, that the role of the Leader of the House is rather unusual. An obligation is placed on him not just to represent the Government in the House but, in a way, to carry the House's sense of responsibility into Government. The tension that that produces is epitomised in some respects by the tension between Executive and legislature. That does not mean to say that, despite those tensions, there is an incompatibility between the two arenas that does not benefit, on occasion, from a dovetailing or cross-representation. I hope that, as Leader of the House, I can do that in general, and specifically as a member of the Modernisation Committee. If asked honestly whether I will have regard to the burden of work on Ministers, I can answer yes, just as I will have regard to Ministers' obligation to be accountable to this House. I do not deny that there is a tension in that, too, but in principle or in absolute terms, it is not necessarily incompatible to combine both; nor does doing so constitute a precedent in itself.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is addressing these matters in a very sensible manner. However, will he give serious thought to the desirability of replacing this Committee with one of the sort that I mentioned, to which he, as Leader of the House, would be answerable, in the same way as his Cabinet colleagues are answerable to the other Select Committees?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that despite their desire to widen this debate, it is about the membership of the Committee.
  Dr. Reid: I respect your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. In any case, if ideas exist about modernising the relationship between the Executive and Parliament in such a fashion, the very body that would consider them would be the Modernisation Committee. Were I to be a member of it, I would of course be obliged to give consideration to them, and I would do so with as open and objective a mind as possible, recognising the prejudices that are forced on me because of my position. There is no one in this House who does not pre-judge—we all bring preconceptions to any consideration that we give—but the most dangerous people are those who do not know that they bring prejudices and preconceptions. I hope that that is in some way reassuring to all Members present.

  389
  The point was also made, with which I completely disagree, that all of this would be more properly dealt with if we were debating the establishment of a Committee. The real objection here is to the type of Committee that I will be on, if the House so wills, not to my being on it. That may well be a legitimate view, but that issue has already been agreed on and, as I understand it, it is not for discussion this evening.
  The question of other Select Committees approaching decisions with unanimity, consensus and collectivity was also mentioned. Despite what is sometimes said, that would be my style and wish. That was certainly my approach on the other Committees on which I served—not least the Committee dealing with armed forces legislation, on which I served for several years. I think that I am correct in saying that, under the previous Leader of the House, the decisions taken and the proposals made were unanimous—so I do not think that there is such a great distinction between the deliberations of the Modernisation Committee and of other ones.
  I pointed out that a balance of duty is incumbent on the Leader of the House. The views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are sincerely and passionately held and within the framework of his ideological preconceptions, commitments and passions. Everything he has said this evening is utterly consistent with the view that we expect from him, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not entirely share it. Nor do I think that his views on the Modernisation Committee will be widely shared in the House. There will be a constituency for them, consisting of the arch-traditionalist viewpoint, and there is nothing wrong with that. I recognise that a sense of security, comfort and stability derives from that viewpoint, but perhaps it is tinged by the extremist element of traditionalist view. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, who sees himself as a fairly radical reformer of conservatism, obviously does not agree, but he will not expect me to accept that his is the widely held view in the House.
  Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House concede that, in the context of the modernisation of the House, change is not necessarily synonymous with progress or improvement?
  Dr. Reid: Change is not synonymous with improvement and it is never easy. It was once said that nothing is more painful than the birth of a new idea, and that applies in the House and outside it. It is often difficult, particularly for people of more mature years, to accept change. I remember Bob Hughes, when he was the Member for Aberdeen, North, telling me a story about changing from the simple method of finance that we used to have. There were thrupenny bits, sixpences, 12 pennies in a pound—sorry, I mean 12 pennies in a shilling; I have got it right even though I am not a Minister in the Treasury—and 240 pence in the pound. We moved on to the dreadfully complex system of metrification with 100 pence to the pound. Bob Hughes was on an Aberdeen bus at that time—this is a true story—listening to two old ladies bemoaning the change that had been forced on them under the European system of metrification, as they put it. At the end of a
  390
  long critique of all the ills that had been imposed on them, one of the old ladies summed up the situation with a sigh by saying, "You would think that they'd wait at least until all the old folk had died out before bringing the new system in."
  I fully realise that change is never easy and that it does not necessarily mean that things will improve, but that does not mean that nothing can be improved upon, or that everything should be conserved as it has been for centuries. That, if I may say so, is the essence of conservatism, and it explains why Conservatives, by definition, find it difficult to live in today's world because it is different from yesterday's world. It also explains the astounding support over the past few years for the progressive party that sits on this side of the House.
  Precedent does exist for my proposal. There is precedent under the previous Conservative Administration for Ministers chairing important Committees of this House—although not the Modernisation Committee, of course. Although the questioning of the wisdom and rectitude of having a Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary on to the Modernisation Committee has been sincere, I hope that I have reassured some colleagues and that they will find it possible to support my proposal. I am pleased to have such unanimous support on the Government Benches, which has not been so evident recently, so I am particularly gratified about that this evening. I hope that hon. Members will find it acceptable for my membership to proceed, as incorporated in the resolution.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I permitted to speak? I understand that the debate can continue until 7 pm.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly unusual, and the hon. Member knows that it is not customary to speak after the Minister's winding-up speech. If he wishes to make a contribution, however, he may do so. I merely point out what is customary.
  6.3 pm
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reprimand, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the House for not being present earlier. I was attending to other important duties outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Further to that point of order Madam Deputy Speaker, is it not a breach of procedure for a Member to enter the debate after the winding-up speech?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I was raising the question whether it was a breach of procedure—I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is keen to uphold procedure—to come into the debate after the Minister's winding-up speech.
  Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the House sits on Fridays, as colleagues who assiduously attend will know, is it not

  391
  perfectly normal for the Minister to decide at which stage of the debate he or she will intervene; and is it not even more normal for other hon. Members to speak after the Minister? I am not aware of any rule of the House that says that once the Minister has spoken, no one else may speak, particularly if an hour of parliamentary time is left unexpired.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the shadow Leader of the House that I did not say that it was inappropriate or procedurally wrong—merely that it was not the custom to speak after the Minister has wound up the debate. By all means, if he wishes to speak, I am happy to call Sir Nicholas Winterton.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I repeat that I accept your modest reprimand regarding the fact that I was not here for the beginning of the debate and that I wanted to speak after the Leader of the House. However, I want to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am a pragmatist. I believe fervently in the integrity of the House of Commons, and that the House's integrity and independence in dealing with the Executive needs to be improved. Because I am a pragmatist, I shall not oppose the motion. In fact, I proposed his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee at the beginning of this Parliament.
  I realise that the Government have a substantial majority in the House. In the end, members of the Government decide what should happen in this place and, for that matter, who should chair Committees. I listened to the response given by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House. Certainly, we will look to the Leader of the House—in his anticipated capacity as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—to best represent the interests of the House of Commons in dealing with the Executive.
  I am Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which sits on the same day of the week as the Modernisation Committee. I shall not oppose the appointment of the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. His predecessor adjusted the Modernisation Committee's starting time to 3.45 pm on a Wednesday, to assist me in continuing to play a part as a member of that Committee. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his assurance that he will honour the position, tradition, duties and responsibilities of the Procedure Committee, of which I am Chairman, in his capacity as a member—and, I believe, in due course, as Chairman—of the Modernisation Committee.
  Mr. Swayne: That sounds like a job application.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I shall go further, here on the Floor of the House. I have not indicated as much to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr.
  392
  Swayne), but if it is thought appropriate by the Committee, I should be happy to propose the Leader of the House as Chairman—
  Mr. Swayne: Quisling!
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: It may annoy my hon. Friend, but the Committee exists to represent the best interests of hon. Members in dealing with the Government of the day. At some stage in the future, the Government will be a Conservative and Unionist Government.
  David Winnick: When?
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Shortly.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have enormous affection and regard for him, but it is a great pity that he should be making this speech without having listened to the powerful arguments from his colleagues among Conservative Members as to precisely why what he advocates should not happen.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I repeat that I am a pragmatist. I am well aware that the present Government will do what they perceive to be right, as long as they have the co-operation of Labour Members. I believe that they are likely to achieve that co-operation. It would seem to be rather stupid and naïve of Conservative Members to tell the Leader of the House that we oppose his appointment to the Modernisation Committee, as we know full well that he will be so appointed. Further, it would be infantile, irresponsible and stupid—and a total waste of time—to have a major debate in the Modernisation Committee next Wednesday to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Chairman of that Committee.
  I merely look to the right hon. Gentleman and hope that he recognises my commitment to the House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I am a Back Bencher. Apart from a short period he has been a Back Bencher for the overwhelming majority of his time in the House. I have been a Back Bencher for all the time that I have spent in the House; and for one reason—
  Mr. Bill Tynan: We know why.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that compliment. As I have said once or twice in this place, I was born with a mouth and I have been prepared to use it according to my judgment and experience.
  Although I have mixed views about a member of the Cabinet actually chairing the Committee, I am realistic enough to know that, in a few minutes' time, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill will be appointed to the Committee and that next Wednesday he will be appointed its Chairman. I want to work closely with him and his party colleagues on the Committee in the best interests of—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Another PPS for you, John
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever the merits of the possible Chair of the Committee, we should concentrate on its membership at this point.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker; but in order for the right hon. Member for

  393
  Hamilton, North and Bellshill to be Chairman, he has to be appointed to the Committee, which is what the debate is about. I look to the right hon. Gentleman to give the same commitment to the Modernisation Committee as his predecessor, and I hope that he will be prepared to work with the other members of the Committee in the best interests of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr Robin Cook and Lorna Fitzsimons be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be added.

  PETITION

    Community Pharmacies
    6.11 pm
    Mr. George Stevenson: I wish to present a petition signed by about 8,000 of my constituents. It states that the proposals by the Office of Fair Trading for unrestricted opening of pharmacies for the dispensation of national health service prescriptions will have a serious and detrimental effect on those pharmacies and the communities they serve. The petition requests the House of Commons to urge the Government to reject those very damaging proposals at the earliest possible opportunity.
    The petition declares:
    That the proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading allowing the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental impact on local pharmacies and their continued services to local communities.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposals made by the OFT for unrestricted opening of pharmacies.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Rail Links (Dover and the CTRL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise Dover's concerns about its rail links and about the channel tunnel rail link.
  Way back in 1987, during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill, I had the privilege of working as parliamentary agent on behalf of more than 10,000 people in east Kent who provided evidence or appeared before the Special Select Committee of both Houses to seek a fair deal for Dover and east Kent.
  I represented seafarers, whose jobs were threatened; port workers, whose futures were put in doubt; and other employees and employers in east Kent who were concerned about the impact of the channel tunnel on the local economy. Most of our deliberations were concerned with the provision of a high-speed rail link through Kent, which was the subject of later legislation. Even in 1987, however, we recognised that the building of a new railway would impose additional disruption, and would have an impact on local communities and give rise to years of blight.
  In the Select Committee, people from east Kent argued that the tunnel would destroy jobs on the ferries and that it would have other detrimental effects—and it did. However, we were assured that in the long run we would benefit from faster and better rail services, and that places such as Dover would enjoy vastly improved domestic services to the capital by virtue of the channel tunnel rail link.
  Sixteen years on, we are still seeking assurances that the channel tunnel rail link will properly benefit east Kent and, in particular, we are still pressing for the new high-speed rail link to reach Dover.
  During this once-in-a-lifetime chance to link one of the world's busiest capitals to the world's busiest ferry port, we are urging the Strategic Rail Authority and the Minister to ensure that Dover gets a fair deal.
  The special needs of Dover, Thanet and east Kent are now well known to Ministers and the House. Gone are the days when every constituency in Kent was represented by a Conservative MP and the scandal of east Kent's large patches of poverty and social deprivation were all swept under the carpet. Great strides have been made in recent years to improve the local economy. In my constituency, unemployment has been halved since 1997, and youth unemployment has been slashed by 93 per cent., but my hon. Friend the Minister will know that my part of Kent still has some of the most deprived wards in the country.
  The Government's regeneration funding, coupled with help for the former east Kent coalfields, has certainly made a positive difference and improved our prospects. Objective 2 and assisted area status have helped us to gain inward investment, but east Kent still looks forward to the time when it can rely on itself to pay its own way and to regenerate its own economy. It can do that only when its transport infrastructure is improved and when the present run-down, slow and inadequate rail services are radically improved.

  395
  Before being elected to the House, I chaired Dover district council's economic development committee, and whenever we managed to entice a would-be inward investor to reach out from London and visit our council, the word would go out to check how the visitor intended to travel and, if there were any risk of his coming by train, we would ensure that a car was provided. Those who did come by rail had to put up with slow, stop-and-start, slam-door trains, which were cold and dirty and took nearly two hours to rattle the 70 miles from London to Dover. Needless to say, those angry entrepreneurs had made their investment decisions long before they trundled into Priory station in Dover.
  Dover suffers from being a peripheral area. We are at the very edge of the United Kingdom, but we are at the very heart of the north-west economic corridor. We have become the gateway to mainland Europe, not just for Britain, but for the wider world. We are only 20 miles from Calais and 70 miles from London, but people can still cross the channel by ferry faster than they can travel to London in a train.
  The east Kent triangle strategic partnership, which is made up of local authorities and major employers in east Kent, such as the port of Dover and Pfizer, strongly supports the need to upgrade the transport links to east Kent and has responded positively to the SRA's consultation exercise. Those in the triangle strongly support the SRA's option 6, which would allow channel tunnel rail link trains to reach Canterbury, West on the north Kent line and Folkestone on the east Kent route. They also support the principle of extending those services to Ramsgate and Dover respectively.
  I am also pleased to support option 6, with extension to Ramsgate, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—who cannot be with us now—has shown himself more than capable of pressing that case, so I want to concentrate my remarks on the need to provide links to Dover, which Dover district council and its hard-working leader, Pete Wells, have been promoting so effectively.
  The SRA has been remitted by the Government
  "to achieve train services that will create a strong intercontinental link to increase trade and tourism in Britain."
  The Government's primary objectives for transport are stated as
  "contributing to the efficient economy and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations".
  Among the so-called over-arching objectives is the phrase:
  "to promote the integration of all forms of transport and land-use planning leading to a better, more efficient transport system."
  With those clear parameters agreed and put in place by Her Majesty's Government, how can the SRA or Ministers contemplate terminating the high-speed train link at Folkestone—six miles short of Dover, six miles short of the busiest ferry port in the world and six miles short of east Kent's two expanding cruise liner terminals? I have nothing against Folkestone, but it is well known as the last rail stop before Dover, it no longer has a working port, and only last week the owners put the whole harbour complex on the market.
  Our poor rail links are matched in part by our inadequate road connections. For more than 25 years, we have suffered the infamous truncated A2 dual
  396
  carriageway, one of the main routes to the port, which still stops nine miles short of Dover and narrows to a single track before reaching Dover's eastern docks. Will the Government really contemplate commissioning a high-speed rail service that also stops miles short of Dover? The question therefore is: why does the SRA not see the sense of running the CTRL to its natural terminus at Dover? In fairness, I think that it does: in my talks with it, it has been very helpful; it has made me aware of the cost constraints, of its wider responsibilities and of the huge expense of building the new high-speed trains. I believe, however, that it is close to accepting the economic and social case for running those trains to Dover, and close to being persuaded that there is a business case.
  We have made the SRA aware of the potential for passenger growth that would be provided by a direct high-speed rail service between London and Dover. For instance, Dover harbour board estimates that the 250,000 passengers per annum who currently use the train to connect to the ferries will nearly double by 2007, and that a further 160,000 cruise liner passengers a year would be expected to switch to rail were the service up to par. At present, the cruise liner companies bring their passengers to Dover from London using luxury coaches or fleets of executive cars—anything to avoid subjecting their customers to the negative experience of travelling with Connex South East in Kent.
  What therefore stands in the way of linking the CTRL to Dover? The main barrier to tapping into all these economic opportunities—I accept that it is a problem—is the space constraint at Shakespeare tunnel between Folkestone and Dover. It has long been known that that single-bore tunnel is not wide enough to allow safe evacuation of passengers through the normal side doors. The conventional trains now in service meet the safety requirements by having front and rear doors but, as yet, we have not persuaded the SRA to fit emergency front and rear doors to the new fleet of high-speed tunnel trains. I welcome its confirmation that it is actively investigating the feasibility of fitting front and rear doors, and that it is looking at other remedies such as partially widening the tunnel or providing an emergency shunting vehicle to aid evacuation in cases of emergency.
  The remit of extending the new high-speed rail units to domestic destinations in Kent includes the provisos that the system should be flexible, adaptable and future-proof, and that it should be sustainable for at least 40 years. Clearly, a high-speed train unit that cannot safely go through the Shakespeare tunnel, and a high-speed rail service that stops six miles short of Dover, is neither flexible, adaptable nor future-proof, and would seem to fall short of all the Government's aspirations for providing a fast, efficient, integrated transport system.
  To conclude, my plea to the Minister tonight is that he demonstrate to the SRA that the political will exists to find a remedy to the restrictions of Shakespeare tunnel and that he will not allow a relatively small engineering problem to stand in the way of large strategic gains for Dover, all of east Kent, and, indeed, all of the United Kingdom.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful that, owing to the Adjournment debate's early start and the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), I have the opportunity to say a few words.
  I want to support my hon. Friend in his efforts and his quest to achieve better rail links with Dover. I do so because this is not just a problem for Dover: the rail links to east and south-east Kent, and all along the coast, are simply abysmal. The links to London, as he said, take far too long. Indeed, I understand that it takes longer for the ordinary train to travel from London to Dover or from London to Hastings, in which I am more interested, than it does to travel to Bristol—a journey that is twice as long. Clearly, the links are inadequate.
  I want to add to my hon. Friend's argument the fact that it is not just the links from Dover and east Kent to London that are deficient. The important links along the south coast are also inadequate. There is no adequate provision from Dover and east Kent to any other part of the south of England. In particular, the line from Hastings to Ashford is single track that is operated by 40-year-old diesel trains. That journey takes far too long. That disadvantages the economy of my hon. Friend's constituency and the south coast in two ways: journeys take too long and people find the services inadequate. Although the diesels are soon to be renewed, the lines also need to be improved.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will have on his desk or on the desk of the Secretary of State a report from the south coast multi-modal study that shows how important it is to upgrade the lines in this area, particularly the south coast link, so as to provide a more adequate service. The dualling of the line is important to the well-being of south coast towns, including Dover and Hastings.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully the report of the south coast multi-modal study. It will not only assist my hon. Friend the Member for Dover to find better links along the south coast for his constituency, but will help my constituency and others so that we can have a true south coast express line that will have the important added benefit of taking the clutter out of London. If people from Dover want to travel to any part of the south coast, they must go into London and back out. That is nonsense, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure not only me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but others who want improvements to the rail service in this part of the world.
  6.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on securing the debate and on providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail links to Dover and the channel tunnel rail link. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has presented his case in the usual considered and powerful manner that he uses to speak on behalf of his constituents. I certainly recognise some of the difficulties of peripherality that he has mentioned. Some not too far from my constituency would reflect similar views to his.
  398
  Before I respond to the main issues raised by my hon. Friend, it might be helpful if I provide the House with background to the CTRL and where we are with the project. The CTRL is the first major new railway to be built in the UK in more than a century. As one of the most important infrastructure projects currently being taken forward as part of the Government's public-private partnership programme, with a projected cost of £5.2 billion, the line will provide 109 km, or 68 miles, of high-speed link between the channel tunnel at Cheriton in Kent and London St. Pancras. It will contribute towards meeting the growing demand for railway capacity in the south-east, reduce international and some domestic journey times to and from London, and contribute to the important economic regeneration in the Thames gateway to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Section one of the CTRL, stretching from the channel tunnel to Fawkham junction in north Kent, is now 94 per cent. complete, on budget and set to open as planned in September this year. The major civil engineering works for section two, extending from Southfleet in north Kent to St. Pancras in London began in July 2001 and are now 42 per cent. complete. The entire CTRL will be completed in 2007.
  Many destinations have been considered in the course of developing train service options. The aim in doing so has been to identify those destinations that can be served without major expenditure on infrastructure and where the improvements in journey time combine with optimum revenue gains. In that way, the rail network will benefit as a whole.
  As my hon. Friend will know, the Strategic Rail Authority published a consultation document in February 2003. The document set out six generic service options: the core route that has the principal destinations of St. Pancras, Gravesend, Ashford, Canterbury West and Folkestone Central; and five other service options that build incrementally on that. The authority is currently working with Network Rail and Medway council on the implications of providing additional CTRL domestic services to the Medway towns and beyond, which will be presented as further potential service options.
  The formal consultation period concluded on 15 April. As part of the consultation process, the Strategic Rail Authority held meetings in Ashford and London, met Members of Parliament individually and in groups, and received numerous written representations. It is deliberating on all the representations received before it presents its proposition to the Secretary of State in early June so that he may make a decision. The proposition will be based on an operationally feasible service solution and considerations of value for money and affordability, while recognising the contribution that the services will make to wider regeneration objectives.
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced on 11 December 2002 that agreement had been reached on terminating Connex's south-eastern franchise in 2006, which was five years early. The agreement facilitates the continuation of Connex's efforts to improve punctuality, ensures delivery of the programme to replace slam-door trains, and opens the door for the introduction of an integrated Kent franchise from 2007. The new franchise will operate both high-speed

  399
  domestic services on the CTRL and services on the south-eastern network based on Connex's existing portfolio of services. The competitive process to let the new franchise is expected to commence early next year. The franchise will be let following open competition in which companies, including Connex, will be able to bid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover, as always, made an eloquent case for CTRL services to be extended to Dover. He is pragmatic, sensible and realistic and his speech recognised some of the considerable problems that must be overcome. We cannot underestimate those difficulties in any way.
  Two routes have been considered: via Canterbury and via Folkestone West. Provision of an additional platform at Dover for trains of 240 m in length would be required for either route. Dover station's location between two tunnels also imposes severe constraints. The appraisal shows that operating services to Dover using either route will offer less value for money and be less affordable than the core service option. The route via Canterbury would require the route mileage to be extended by approximately 53 miles beyond Gravesend, which would thus increase overall journey times. Operational costs would also increase, such as track access charges and costs for train crew and rolling stock maintenance. Signalling and traction power enhancements to the route would be necessary between Faversham and Dover, although some of that work might be done as part of the mark 1 traction power upgrade and Kent re-signalling projects.
  Extending services to Dover from Folkestone would result in an additional route mileage of approximately 7 miles and marginally increased operational costs. However, as my hon. Friend said, the primary issue is evacuation from the new rolling stock required for CTRL domestic services in the event of an emergency in the Shakespeare tunnels. Either the rolling stock or the tunnels will require modification to allow safe operation.
  My hon. Friend will know that the Shakespeare tunnels are single bore and, although only 1 mile in length, they are extremely narrow and prevent people getting out of the side doors in the event of an emergency. Existing rolling stock that uses the tunnels allows passengers to pass through the length of the trains and exit from either end. That will not be possible with the new rolling stock because it requires aerodynamic nose cones to operate at high speed, which will prevent the inclusion of interconnecting gangways between units. Even if escape hatches could be designed in the ends of the new trains, they would not allow people to move from one unit to another as quickly or easily as they can on existing rolling stock. Her Majesty's rail inspectorate said that that situation would be unacceptable, but it may accept side access in an emergency provided that a safe method of working can be identified.
  The Strategic Rail Authority's project team continues to explore ways of resolving that problem. If a satisfactory solution can be identified, direct services to Dover could be considered. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend depend on the appraisal of that matter. If it is not feasible to serve Dover directly by the channel tunnel rail link domestic services, the provision of an effective interchange at Folkestone Central will be examined as part of the timetable development process.
  400
  The objective of that would be to operate services from Dover that interchange with the high-speed line at Folkestone Central.
  All south-eastern services in Kent and East Sussex are to be reviewed as part of the timetable development process for the new integrated Kent franchise. That will ensure that the optimal service pattern is achieved for the region as a whole and that opportunities for connections from the existing network to the channel tunnel rail link domestic services are maximised. The process will also ensure that any capacity released on the classic rail network is fully exploited. Optimisation of the timetable in Kent in that way will result in some significant journey time improvements elsewhere on the network.
  Existing trains will be unable to work on the channel tunnel rail link because of the different power supply, speed requirements and signalling systems. So the train fleet needs to be specially designed and built. Service extensions would further add to the cost without producing a corresponding increase in benefit. The trains will need to be much more powerful than current Kent commuter trains, which travel at speeds of 100 mph or less. They will need to accelerate rapidly and maintain a top speed of at least 125 mph. The rolling stock procurement process started in January and is necessary if we are to ensure that sufficient units are available to commence services from 2007.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned the links to his constituency. He, too, has been an assiduous voice on behalf of his constituency and has raised many matters with us, including electrification to Hastings. The costs of that are extremely high and probably prohibitively expensive. However, GoVia, which runs the Hastings-Ashford franchise, is considering how to provide better services, such as improving connections and services to Ashford so that they join the channel tunnel rail link. I shall be happy for my hon. Friend to drop me a line if he wants to discuss that further. I appreciate that it is important for his constituency and I know that inward investment and modernisation are on his agenda and on the agenda locally.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friends' representations. The consultation process, which generated a constructive and positive response, has finished and the responses are being evaluated. We must wait and see what the Strategic Rail Authority proposes in order for the Secretary of State to make his direction. We must remember that the priorities for the south-east are to provide a safe, reliable railway and to meet the growing demand for rail transport while reducing the levels of London overcrowding. Safety and regulatory requirements take precedence. These issues are being tackled immediately, while the channel tunnel rail link domestic services are developed, and they include completion of the installation programme for the train protection warning system, the replacement of the large fleet of Mark 1 slam-door trains that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover described so graphically, and the power supply upgrade.
  Whatever the outcome of the consultation process, the intention is to include mechanisms within the contractual arrangements for the integrated Kent

  401
  franchise that will allow possible future development of the channel tunnel rail link domestic services in Kent, as demand and opportunities develop.
  This has been a useful debate, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who I know speaks powerfully for his constituents not just on transport, as
  402
  he did this evening, but on many other issues. If there are matters that have not been covered in the debate and which he wants to pursue with me, I shall be pleased to do so through correspondence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Seven o'clock.