Commons Sitting of 11 February 2004

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]. (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question.
    That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
    That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
    That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Question again proposed.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Wednesday 25 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Political Parties (Funding)
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: If he will make a statement on the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. [153155]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): We began a review last year of the rules governing funding arrangements of parties in Northern Ireland. I shall make a statement to the House shortly on its outcome. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are aware of the concerns being voiced about funding arrangements for political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of continuing revelations about the scale and
    1396
    extent of paramilitary and criminal activities carried out by the republican movement in support, in particular, of Sinn Fein, the Minister will be aware of the great need to reassure the public, to prevent further corruption of the political process and to ensure that all political parties in Northern Ireland operate by the same democratic methods. Can he assure us that his review will be conducted speedily and proposals brought forward as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the concerns he has just expressed were also expressed at the last Northern Ireland questions from all parts of the House, including the Front Bench. I will make my statement shortly, and we shall then receive representations from all political parties. I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. Gentleman's party and others. We recognise that there is widespread public concern, and we will engage in dialogue on it.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the Minister accept that if Sinn Fein's protestations about party funding are to be accepted, the answer lies in that party subjecting itself to the same rules on donations and on the disclosure of donations that apply to the Minister's party and to mine? Will the Government acknowledge, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a mistake to exempt political parties in Northern Ireland from the rules that apply to political parties in Great Britain? Will the Government look sympathetically at rescinding those exemptions so that political parties in Northern Ireland have to comply with the same rules as every other political party in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Spellar: I do not expect to receive representations only from Northern Ireland parties when I announce the review. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps note that there were major considerations regarding whether Northern Ireland should have legislation similar to that of the rest of the United Kingdom, not least the question of potential intimidation of donors and whether that would lead to disorder or discourage people from funding the political process. I accept that things have changed since then, both in the number of concerns expressed about funding in Northern Ireland and because of changes to legislation in the Republic of Ireland, which we will have to take into account. We will consider all the factors and I shall make a statement shortly. We will then receive representations and will go on to announce the outcome of the review. I shall take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others in the House have raised.

    Belfast Agreement
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: If he will make a statement on the review of the Belfast agreement. [153156]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The review of the operation of the agreement formally began, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Belfast last Tuesday, and it has continued this week. It involves all parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as the British and Irish Governments. Several parties, including the hon. Gentleman's own, have put

    1397
    forward interesting proposals, which we welcome. We have proposed an indicative calendar for intensive discussion between now and Easter across the range of issues that parties wish to raise.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it will be absolutely essential at the conclusion of the negotiations that each section of the community in Northern Ireland has confidence that its rights, culture, identity and future employment prospects are safeguarded, bearing in mind the Unionist community's concerns about the 1998 model?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that, clearly, the agreement and its review must achieve confidence in all parts of the community. That includes nationalists, republicans, loyalists and Unionists, and, indeed, those who do not describe themselves as anything. The fundamental purpose of the Good Friday agreement was to ensure parity of esteem between people in Northern Ireland, from different communities and with different ways, who felt aggrieved over the years about what had happened to them in their communities. Clearly, it is important to give the confidence for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I believe that the discussions in Belfast over the next few weeks will need to concentrate heavily on building confidence across the board.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Will the Secretary of State reaffirm the Government's attitude and policy that the review is about the workings of the agreement, and not about the fundamental principles established and agreed to not only by the parties that participated in it, but by referendums, north and south, in Ireland? Will he confirm that it will be essential for a successful conclusion that all parties participating and agreeing will eventually participate in all strands—strands 1, 2, and 3? Documentation from the party of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) deals only with strand 1. Will the Secretary of State say what is happening at the moment to the functioning of strand 2, which deals with north-south relationships?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, the Government still take the view that the Good Friday agreement is the basis on which progress can be made. We know that the agreement covers fundamental matters such as the principle of consent, power sharing between parties, parity of esteem, which I have mentioned, and proper arrangements both north and south on the island of Ireland. All those things must be discussed and agreed in, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, a review of the operation of the agreement. There are inevitably differing views on the fundamentals of the agreement, but I believe that I have covered them. There are certainly differing views on the details of the operation of the agreement, and the discussions, reviews and negotiations are about trying to agree a compromise between nationalists and Unionists.
    Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State will recall that the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in October 2002. At that time, the Government said that the Assembly would not resume until republicans had clearly completed the transition from paramilitarism to exclusively peaceful
    1398
    means. Is that still their position, and if it is, what steps are they taking to pressure republicans to complete that transition or are they addressing that issue, as others, in a purely passive way?
    Mr. Murphy: No. The right hon. Gentleman is of course right that the Assembly was suspended in 2002 because of the collapse of confidence among politicians in Northern Ireland. He rightly emphasises the fact that paramilitary activity, as defined in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, was the reason why confidence collapsed. Both Governments take the view that we must resolve the issue, which is an important function of the review. Not only Governments but parties too must play their part in ensuring that paramilitary activity and violence are both things of the past.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about the need for confidence, but part of that is confidence in the good will of Her Majesty's Government. It is more than four months since the Government received the Cory report, and the Republic of Ireland Government have issued their two statements. There is a general feeling that the security forces are attempting to sanitise the report by Judge Cory and that they will deal with it in the same way as they tried to protract matters before the Saville inquiry. Can he give an undertaking to the House that the Government will publish the reports before the projected judicial review takes place? The courts have said that the Government have a case to answer in the Finucane family's case for not publishing them.
    Mr. Murphy: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of trying to suppress the Cory report, which we hope to publish fairly soon. He knows that there are difficulties regarding the protection of individuals who might be named in those four reports, which is obviously a matter of safety and privacy, but there are other legal reasons that we must examine carefully. However, he may rest assured that the Government intend to publish the report.
    Mr. David Lidington: May I press the Secretary of State on the fundamentals of the agreement, and in particular the extent to which he sees power sharing as fundamental? If the Independent Monitoring Commission reports to him later this year that one or more parties in Northern Ireland have failed to comply with their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and failed to break their links with paramilitarism, would the Government be prepared to take the necessary action to exclude such a party from participation in government in the way in which the Taoiseach has said that it would be his policy south of the border?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Act that set up the Independent Monitoring Commission is clear about the process that must be followed. If the Assembly were up and running—I hope that it will be—it would have a role to play in the process, too. If the Assembly failed to agree on a method to deal with that situation, it would come before me. I cannot comment on what has not yet been reported, but the mechanisms for doing so are clear.

    Maghaberry Prison
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received on the separation of paramilitary prisoners from other prisoners at Maghaberry prison. [153157]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The closing date for responses to the consultation on separation was set as 22 January. By the end of the consultation exercise, 21 submissions had been received from a variety of sources. We are currently considering those representations and will publish our conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today sees the publication of the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the separation of paramilitary prisoners from ordinary prisoners in Maghaberry prison. It says that it was a dangerous decision for the public servants that had to implement it; that it was made for political reasons, following a campaign by dissidents; and that the trail seems to go back to 10 Downing street, where the decision may have been made by officials. May we have a guarantee that the line will now be drawn and we will not end up with the situation at Maghaberry that we used to have at the Maze, with the paramilitaries running their own areas?
    Jane Kennedy: We will obviously study the report carefully and respond at the appropriate time. It is important to understand that the Steele review was of the safety of staff and prisoners at Maghaberry. On that basis, it was welcomed and endorsed by church leaders and political parties in Northern Ireland. Decisions were taken on that basis by Northern Ireland Ministers. I welcome the detail of the report, which shows how complex and dangerous it is to manage and run prisons in Northern Ireland. In accepting John Steele's recommendations, we have made it clear that there will be no return to Maze-style conditions. We are determined that prison staff must remain in control, and the physical security measures, together with the prisoner compact, are designed to achieve that.
    Mr. Michael Mates: When was the last time that the Secretary of State and his team took a decision contrary to all the advice received from every responsible agency in the Province, as happened over the prison issue?
    Jane Kennedy: I can answer only for the decision that we took on this occasion. When we commissioned the Steele review, the terms of reference were clear: they were to examine options for improving conditions at Maghaberry prison, especially as they related to safety, for all prisoners and staff. Included in the terms of reference was the need to bear in mind the lessons of the past. I hope that that will reassure members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: The disturbances in summer 2003 were not instigated by paramilitaries, but by integrated prisoners—the ordinary, decent criminals, or ODCs as they are affectionately known. Since those disturbances, the best
    1400
    accommodation at Maghaberry has been put aside for separated paramilitary prisoners and integrated prisoners have had to double up. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that the facilities for the ordinary, decent criminal population will improve, thus preventing further disturbances this summer?
    Jane Kennedy: I accept that there has been some reduction in the regime on offer to all prisoners in Maghaberry while we have been developing the arrangements for the separated prisoners. However, it is our intention that following establishment of the regime and the moving of the prisoners into their new accommodation, which we anticipate will take place at the end of this month, we will begin to put resources into the integrated regime that will continue to be offered in the rest of the prison.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the recent attacks on prison officers and their homes, which are linked to the whole issue of separation. Recently, the Secretary of State reached an agreement with the Prison Officers Association to appoint an independent person to assess the need for security measures at home for individual cases. Can the Minister assure me that resources will not be an issue and that if prison officers need protection in their homes it will be made available? Will she confirm that it will not be a case of a window here or there, but that she will comply with the security recommendations?
    Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [153158]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Dissident republicans remain a threat to the peace process, as evidenced by the recent device at Shackleton barracks in Ballykelly. For the most part their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by intelligence-led policing operations. Loyalist and republican paramilitaries continue to carry out attacks and acts of intimidation against their own communities. Apart from a few isolated incidents, however, interface areas have been quiet for the past 18 months.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that illegal shipments of arms from Libya to the IRA played a vital role in prolonging the terrorist campaign? Now that we are reopening diplomatic and other relations with Libya, and Libya is giving information about its weapons of mass destruction, surely Colonel Gaddafi owes it to us to give us details about those illegal shipments. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that would help the decommissioning process?
    Jane Kennedy: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would expect that the subject of arms supplied by Libya to the IRA in the past would be part of the

    1401
    Government's wide-ranging discussions with Libya. The hon. Gentleman is right; such information would be of great benefit.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that in recent years Northern Ireland Office Ministers have found difficult, if not impossible, to decide when ceasefires had been broken. Can she give us some idea about how the international Independent Monitoring Commission will receive evidence that points to the breaking of ceasefires? Can she inform the House whether that evidence will come from police and security sources who could not give such assurances to previous Ministers?
    Jane Kennedy: I am not quite sure about the point that my hon. Friend made in his last sentence, but I can assure him that the Independent Monitoring Commission will receive reports from all the areas that he identified and that it will present its reports to the two Governments.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister comment on the extent of the intimidation directed both at Catholic members of district policing partnerships and at Catholics who apply to join the police? What steps are the Government taking to help the police to tackle that issue—for example, by commencing an active dialogue on it with Sinn Fein?
    Jane Kennedy: The attacks upon members of the district policing partnerships are being undertaken by dissident republican groups. Obviously, we are interested in speaking to whoever might have influence to bring about an end to intimidation in Northern Ireland. However, the specific attacks to which the hon. Gentleman refers are being diverted and disrupted by intelligence-led policing operations, and the police are to be commended for the work that they are undertaking. Such attacks are deplorable and the people who carry them out have no place in a democratic society.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the security situation for minority ethnic communities in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the Chinese community, which has suffered appalling violence and intimidation at the hands of racist thugs? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what is being done to protect the Chinese community in Northern Ireland, and will she meet the all-party Chinese in Britain group to discuss what we can do to try to help?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. New legislation is being developed that will enable the police to have more powers to deal with such attacks and will allow the courts to deal with them more rigorously. The police continue to do all that they can to divert such activity and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking into the matter to see what more can be done on that front.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a feeling of dread in Northern Ireland—given the kind of remarks that have
    1402
    been made in the Chamber today about the increasing likelihood of no-warning bomb attacks from the Real IRA, the race attacks that have been taking place and general issues of criminality—at the prospect of losing 1,600 members of the security forces with the removal of the police reserve? Will she ensure that no political pressure is applied to the Chief Constable that would lead to such a decision?
    Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As he knows, the Chief Constable will review the security situation later this summer, and following that review final decisions will be taken.
    Lady Hermon: Given the lack of confidence in the security situation at present, and particularly in prior acts of decommissioning, has any thought been given to replacing de Chastelain at the head of the independent weapons decommissioning monitoring body?
    Jane Kennedy: As I hope to have the opportunity to say later today, I commend the work of General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. No thought has been given to the matter that the hon. Lady asked about. We are grateful for the commitment that the general has shown to the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to working with him in the future—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.
    Mr. David Lidington: A recent written answer that the Minister of State gave me showed that the full-time reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland accounts for roughly a quarter of all officers attached to district command units, and in the case of some local command units the proportion is much larger. In view of that, can the Government state categorically that the full-time reserve will not be sacrificed or disbanded for political reasons, and that it will be maintained for as long as its presence on the ground in Northern Ireland is necessary for the maintenance of effective local policing?
    Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a decision that the Policing Board has in hand. Its decision will be very much informed by the advice of the Chief Constable once he has completed his review of security later this summer.

    Arts (Promotion)
    Jim Knight: What discussions he has had with interested parties in Northern Ireland about the promotion of the arts. [153159]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I have had discussions about the promotion of the arts with a range of interested parties, including political representatives and those working in the statutory, community and voluntary sectors.

    1403
    The Arts Council of Northern Ireland is the statutory body responsible for the promotion of the arts. Both my Department and the Arts Council engage on a regular basis with a wide range of stakeholders from the arts sector.
    Jim Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I know first hand from my work as a professional arts promoter the potential of the arts to heal, to educate and to strengthen communities. What use is my hon. Friend making of the arts in those capacities in Northern Ireland?
    Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in the issue. The arts do indeed have the capacity to bring communities together. The work that I have seen of, for example, the Lyric theatre and the Community Circus school in Belfast and the Nerve centre and the Verbal Arts centre in the city of Derry shows that they can promote a far greater understanding and acceptance of different cultures and traditions.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: We are all aware of the growing culture of mural art in Northern Ireland. This is to be found in both communities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question.
    Mr. Beggs: In fact, that mural art is a tourist attraction. Is the Minister aware of just how many properties in public ownership carry sectarian and political murals? Will she provide funding and harness the talent that exists in Northern Ireland to provide more attractive and more acceptable murals and give encouragement to that art?
    Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Murals can be divisive or unifying. As he knows, the Ulster-Scots Agency has looked at bringing in new murals and over-painting those that are sectarian. I will give further consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Schools (Christianity)
    Mr. Graham Allen: Whether the religious education core syllabus for grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland seeks to ensure that children understand both Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity; and if he will make a statement. [153160]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The current core syllabus for religious education was developed jointly by the four main churches. It accounts for around half of teaching time in this subject. Schools can augment the core syllabus in accordance with their own ethos. The syllabus is currently being reviewed by a working party, whose advice I expect to receive shortly.
    Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to undermine the religious bigotry that exists in
    1404
    schools in Northern Ireland, and give young people the broadest possible understanding of both religious and secular value systems, so that the inter-generational problems that we see in Northern Ireland can begin to be tackled where it really counts—at home and in the early years at school?
    Jane Kennedy: I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. It is already open to schools to provide opportunities for pupils to look at the beliefs of other Christian denominations and at other world religions, and I encourage them to do so.
    David Burnside: The Minister could help with this problem a great deal. If I were a young man applying to become a police officer in Northern Ireland, I would be referred to as a non-Catholic, not a Protestant, so could the Minister give a commitment that all future legislation in Northern Ireland will refer to Protestants who are members of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that all those who are not Protestants will be referred to correctly as Roman Catholics?
    Jane Kennedy: No, I am not prepared to give any such assurance.

    The Prime Minister was asked—

    Engagements
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.
    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. Carmichael: Next week, I shall visit Kenny Richey—a British citizen who has been held on death row in Ohio for the past 17 years. Amnesty International describes his case as
    "one of the most compelling cases of innocence"
    that it has ever seen. Will the Prime Minister undertake to make direct and personal representations to the Governor of Ohio at the appropriate time to prevent the killing of that innocent man?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of that question. I can give him the following information: I understand that Mr. Richey is awaiting the decision on an appeal for his retrial, and that decision is expected soon. We are continuing to monitor the case closely and will see what the result of Mr. Richey's appeal is before deciding what further representations we need to make. The Foreign Office is in touch directly with Mr. Richey's lawyers, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, and with Ohio state officials, so we will continue to

    1405
    monitor this closely, and, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall obviously make inquiries about it myself.
    Geraldine Smith: Nineteen young people drowned in Morecambe bay last Thursday—the victims not only of the sea but of greed and exploitation. Does the Prime Minister agree that the slave-labour practices of some gangmasters put a stain on the character of Britain throughout the world? Does he also agree that it is an affront to every decent person in Britain? Can he therefore tell me whether the Government are willing to support and give time to the private Member's Bill that is being proposed to license the operation of gangmasters? Can he also tell me what regulations will be put in place for the operation of public fisheries such as Morecambe bay?
    The Prime Minister: First, I think that the whole House would want to express its sorrow at what happened in that terrible tragedy and our deep sympathy for the victims and their families. As my hon. Friend will realise, a criminal investigation is under way, and it would be inappropriate therefore to comment at this stage, but there is no doubt that a number of issues arise out of this, and I can tell her that we certainly support the objectives set out in the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan). The detail must be got right, and we are working with him and Departments to ensure that it is.
    The current asylum Bill will make it a criminal offence to traffic people in or out of the UK for the purposes of exploitation. The cockle fishing industry is regulated by sea fisheries committees, and they are actively looking at what further steps they can take, but I want to stress one point that she makes: there are firms that operate in a reputable way, but where people are operating for the purposes of greed or exploitation, it is absolutely right that we take action—if necessary, legal action, by changing the law. That is why I can assure the House that we will examine what the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend says, and if we can find the right way to meet its objectives, we will do so.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing my sympathy to the families of the victims of the tragedy at Morecambe bay?
    Last week, the Prime Minister said that the Government were looking at imposing transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries of eastern Europe, as other member states have done. The Home Secretary says that they are not. Who speaks for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: What I said—and what we are doing—is that before the regulations that will grant the concession of free movement of workers are laid before Parliament, we have to make sure that any potential basis for the exploitation of any loopholes in the rules is closed off. That is what we are looking at now, and that includes looking in particular at the benefits regime.
    Mr. Howard: No, no. The Prime Minister was not referring last week only to the benefits regime. I put it to
    1406
    him last Wednesday that most other European Union countries had imposed transitional controls, and he replied:
    "It is precisely for that reason that we are examining doing that now."
    The Prime Minister repeated that several times. He also said that "eligibility for benefits" was an additional issue at which the Government were looking, and said:
    "That is why we are looking at both issues."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 753.]
    Is he now changing his mind?
    The Prime Minister: I am not changing my mind. The free movement of people is guaranteed throughout the European Union after accession. The free—[Interruption.] Yes, the free movement of people is guaranteed; the free movement of workers, however, is not. In respect of that, we are looking at both the benefits system and whatever other measures are necessary to make sure that if that concession is granted—and we have not yet laid the regulations that will grant it—that is done in a way that prevents it from being exploited. We are not against people coming here to work properly; we will not, however, allow our system to be exploited or abused.
    Mr. Howard: We are hearing one thing from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box and completely different things from others in his own Government. The Prime Minister said one thing last Wednesday, and was contradicted that very afternoon by his own official spokesman. He was contradicted at the weekend by the Home Secretary, contradicted again by another official spokesman, then contradicted again by the Home Secretary on Monday. Last week, we saw a bold statement on Wednesday, good headlines on Thursday, a climbdown on Friday and total confusion by the weekend—a familiar pattern from this Prime Minister. Will he now give us a clear answer? Will the Government do what other countries are doing, and what the Prime Minister said he was looking at? Will he impose transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries or not?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out his last question without paying any attention to the answers that he had already been given. The position, as I have set it out, is quite simply this. There will be free movement of people after 1 May this year. Free movement of workers, however, is a concession that we are prepared to grant, but not in circumstances in which it can be abused. We are therefore looking at the benefits system and considering any other measures necessary to ensure that that concession is not abused. I do not see what is so complicated about that.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I understand that Ministers will shortly be deciding on the central rail project for roll-on/roll-off trains to transport lorries from north to south, which will halve the north-south traffic on the M1. That is not only supported by people in Broxtowe because of the potential for jobs; it is the only project in human history that has support from

    1407
    employers, unions, green groups and the Freight Transport Association—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend give it a warm welcome?
    The Prime Minister: I think, as was fairly obvious just then, that that proposal is not without controversy in certain quarters. All that I can say to my hon. Friend on the project is this. It clearly has the potential to offer significant environmental and congestion benefits, and we are therefore considering it carefully, but we will want to make sure that the claimed environmental and congestion benefits are real. In addition, the issue of the financing of the proposal is very important. However, we will look at it with an open mind.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister clarify the current state of negotiations between the British Government and the American Administration over the British citizens who are being held captive at Guantanamo bay?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can. We are continuing to negotiate over whether those people should be tried by the US commission, or whether they should be returned. There is an option, in the end, over which of those courses is pursued. I am sorry—I have to say this—that the process is taking time, but it is taking time, as I hope the House understands, for very good reasons. We want to make sure that if people are brought back here—I say this without any disrespect to those people—that does not in any shape or form endanger the security of this country.
    Mr. Kennedy: On that very important latter point, given the recent comments of the Home Secretary about lowering the burden of proof in terrorist cases, will the Prime Minister give the House an absolute assurance that we will not undermine the fundamental principles of British justice if these people are brought back to these shores and are then made to stand trial? Has he set a deadline with the American Government for this issue to be resolved once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: No, there is not a deadline for that, and in a sense, it is for us ultimately to decide, if we cannot reach agreement, that we bring them back here. In relation to civil liberties and issues to do with legislation, we shall not do anything—indeed, I do not believe that we have done anything—to undermine essential civil liberties in this country. But there are real issues and dangers to do with terrorism. That is why we took exceptional measures, which were passed through the House, to allow us to detain people who were not British nationals in circumstances in which they would not be convicted in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. We took those powers in respect of people who are not British nationals because of the danger that terrorism poses to this country. We will continue to keep the law under review, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was saying, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the dangers of terrorism are real. There are groups of people in this country and right round the world at the moment who would have no compunction at all in killing large numbers of innocent people; we saw that happen in Moscow last week. I know that, while this type of
    1408
    legislation is before the House, people worry about civil liberties. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that if some terrible terrorist event occurred, their worry would be about security.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the Prime Minister's welcome talks with Mr. Shalgam yesterday, what was said about the prisoner in Barlinnie jail in Glasgow, Mr. Megrahi? Was that matter discussed?
    The Prime Minister: That particular individual was not discussed at all, but the issue to do with Libyan and British relations arising out of Lockerbie obviously was. But, no, that particular individual was not mentioned in the conversation.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: What steps are being taken to persuade Israel to give up her weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: I would like to see the whole of the middle east free from the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the particular worries that Israel has about security, given that it is surrounded by many countries, some of whose stated objective is still to get rid of the state of Israel altogether. I have my criticisms of Israeli policy, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is a democracy, whose Governments are elected by its people. At the same time as we try to strive for a region free of weapons of mass destruction, in whatever country, we must recognise that it is important to respect the security of Israel.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that there was a tragic fire in Padiham in my constituency at the weekend in which three young children died, despite the heroic efforts of their mother and of the emergency services. He will also know that a review of building regulations is currently taking place. The chief fire officer of Lancashire, Peter Holland, and the News of the World are campaigning for sprinklers to be included in the new building regulations, starting with those affecting new build properties for vulnerable people. Will the Government support those moves, recognising that sprinklers can save lives?
    The Prime Minister: Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the three young victims of that horrific tragedy in Padiham in Lancashire. At the moment, investigations into that fire, and into whether it could have been avoided if the home had been fitted with a sprinkler, are still continuing. We have, however, been actively investigating the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. The results of that work, which is being undertaken on our behalf by the Building Research Establishment, are to be published this week. They will be fed into the review of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations that is currently under way. We are going to have a look at this issue; we can take forward any lessons, and any indications that we receive from local people in the fire service as to what they think. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of this issue, which is that there may well be a case for altering the provisions in respect of

    1409
    properties where particularly vulnerable people are housed. Whether that means that we extend the provisions even further is a more difficult question, but I understand the point that he has raised.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plan to give £10 million of taxpayer's money to the trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: Somewhere in the region of £5 million to £10 million will be given to trade unions over—
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Higher, higher.
    The Prime Minister: Only around £5 million to £10 million will be given to trade unions over the next few years, to encourage the process of modernisation in the trade union movement. [Interruption.] Unlike the Opposition, we think that good industrial relations between employers and trade unions are good for British business, and for Britain.
    Mr. Howard: I have here the relevant Government new clause to the Employment Relations Bill, and it is very widely drawn. It states:
    "The Secretary of State may provide money to a trade union…to improve the carrying out of any of its functions"
    or
    "to carry out any new functions."
    That could have been written by Bob Crow. The trade unions gave more than £6 million to the Labour party last year. Why can they not use that money for modernisation?
    The Prime Minister: I doubt very much whether Mr. Bob Crow is in favour of the money being used for the modernisation of trade unions. I totally disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: it is right to spend the money because it is right to help trade unions modernise. However, I can give another example that involves the Government spending rather more than £5 million to £10 million extra—the Short money that we have given to the Conservative party. I have to say, though, that the signs of modernisation there do not yet show that we are getting value for money
    Mr. Howard: The deal that the Prime Minister is offering to the unions is that the Labour party gets £6 million from the trade unions, and the unions get £10 million from taxpayers in return. That is not a bad deal. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the trade unions would get "fairness but no favours" from a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude to trade unions has changed not one whit. After all, when in government, he opposed the minimum wage, the social chapter and the right of people to join a trade union, even when they wanted to. I am sorry that he is still stuck in the same old groove. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. Skinner. I heard booing in the Chamber. I will not tolerate that, even if it means suspending the House during Prime Minister's Question Time.

    Social Behaviour
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss social behaviour.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so, but I remember well my last visit to my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Prime Minister accept that the House and the Government have attacked antisocial behaviour very effectively? That is certainly the case in my constituency, but does he agree that there is another side to that coin—that as well as attacking antisocial behaviour we should promote social behaviour in our youngsters? Will he consider the possibility of including social behaviour as a core activity in the national curriculum, so that we can prepare youngsters to take best advantage of the schooling that is on offer? In that way, we could do for social behaviour what we have done so effectively for literacy and numeracy.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Citizenship education became a statutory part of the national curriculum in September 2002. That framework gives us our best chance to teach young people about responsibility, but he is also right to draw attention to our measures on antisocial behaviour. One thing that we know is that the more we invest in young people at the earliest possible age, the better chance we have of making sure that they become responsible adults—hence the importance of programmes such as Sure Start. That is why it is important that, as well as acting to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, we should continue to invest in the education of our young people. That education, of which citizenship is a part, is the best way to ensure a more secure society in the future.
    Peter Bottomley: Will the Prime Minister thank the Foreign Office for its continuing interest in the case of Krishna Maharaj in Florida, and could he suggest—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be on social behaviour.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Chaytor: The Government have rightly attached great importance to the question of fair access to universities through their proposal for the Office for Fair Access, but given that 43 per cent. of young people go to universities yet 100 per cent. go to secondary school, and considering the importance of secondary education in the prospects of young people of continuing to university, is there not an even more powerful case for an office for fair access to secondary schools?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point is partly met by the independent schools adjudicators, who oversee complaints and disputes about admission arrangements. I think the other thing I would say to him is that the more we can encourage, especially in the

    1411
    poorest parts of our country, the development of really good quality secondary schools—the specialist schools—and the city academies are an attempt to do this, and excellence in cities is another—the best chance our young people will have in those schools of getting good quality education, irrespective of their wealth. It is certainly important that we keep under review how we develop that programme to ensure that access is indeed fair.
    David Burnside: May I ask the Prime Minister what is in the best interest of the United Kingdom: the re-election of pro-war President Bush, or the election of anti-war Senator Kerry?
    The Prime Minister: Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have learned enough in my six or seven years as Prime Minister not to interfere in the American presidential election? That decision is, and should be, for the American people alone.
    Mr. Wayne David: The Prime Minister will be aware that the International Monetary Fund has recently revised its growth predictions for the British economy in 2004. Instead of a growth figure of 2.4 per cent., it now estimates growth of 3.1 per cent. Does he agree that that is eloquent testimony to the success of the British economy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. It comes on a day when unemployment has yet again fallen. We now have more than 1.5 million more jobs in the economy than in 1997, when some people said that we would lose 1 million jobs in the British economy. We have actually got record levels of employment, and unemployment is now at its lowest level for well over 25 years and almost 30 years. That is a result of the stable economic policies pursued by the Chancellor, the new deal and the measures that we have taken to ensure that opportunity is not the privilege of a few, but open to the many.
    Matthew Taylor: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the fact that because the council tax is unrelated to ability to pay, he pays the same council tax, earning £175,000 a year, as the security guards who provide security in the House of Commons and are paid less than £17,000?
    The Prime Minister: There is a debate about how local government is best financed, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that when one actually looks at the different systems of local government finance, the first starting point on which everyone should agree is that there is no perfect system. One can point to anomalies in respect of any system, but I do not myself think—although of course we look at this with an open mind—that local people would like to have their income tax decided by local authorities. If that is the Liberal Democrats' policy, I think that they would be as well to conceal it pretty carefully.
    Ms Karen Buck: The Government have been extremely successful, especially in introducing programmes that are targeted at young people who are at risk of
    1412
    offending. Does the Prime Minister therefore understand the disappointment of a number of projects in my constituency that at this late stage of the year are facing significant reductions in their funding under the children's fund? Will he agree, at least, to go back and look again at the children's fund because although investment is important, consistency is important too? The programme has not been running for long and it is important that we give such programmes the benefit of the doubt.
    Hon. Members: Spot on.
    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members say, "Spot on," but as I recall, they opposed the financing. The point that my hon. Friend makes is important. There is a danger for some of the programmes that are not financed on a recurrent basis that funding comes to an end. I will look into the situation in her constituency. Obviously, there is always a limit on the amount of money that can be spent, and we are investing a considerable amount in the children's fund, neighbourhood renewal projects, and so forth. There is a particular issue of what happens when those projects are up and running and doing well and funding is suddenly cut short. That is precisely what we are looking at now, which will obviously form part not just of deliberations on the Budget but of the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The events in Morecombe bay were both tragic and unpardonable, but further to the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), does he recognise that also at the heart of the matter is the pool of illegal immigrants in this country who fall easy prey to the despicable activities of illegal gangmasters? In the light of that tragedy, what action will the Prime Minister take to remove those people from this country?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we do remove illegal immigrants from this country—actually, thousands and thousands a year. That problem faces this Government as it did the previous Government and Governments right around the western world. This goes far wider than the particular tragedy and is not in a sense to be connected with that, but the debate that we have been having on the subject of identity cards is a very relevant question for the future because we will not be able to control the problem with the old methods.
    Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend referred to a decrease once again in unemployment, but there is still growing concern about the number of people on disability benefits who are not getting the opportunities and choices that others receive. What more can the Government do to give people on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance the opportunity to take part in constructive society?
    The Prime Minister: There are two measures in place: there is a tax credit that is available for disabled people to ensure that work pays for them; and there is also, of course, the new deal, which specifically targets some of

    1413
    those who are disabled or on incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right; there are still far too many people on incapacity benefit who could be brought off benefit and into work. One thing that we must do is ensure that they understand the opportunities that are now available and the support through the tax credit system, which will in many instances give them the opportunity to work and make them considerably better off.
    Ann Winterton: With the inclusion of the 10 new countries in the European Union, the United Kingdom is set to lose £3 billion of European regional funding for 2007 to 2013. Do the Government intend to supplement that shortfall to present levels, and will they do so by taxing the hard-pressed British taxpayer even more?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot entirely work out what angle the hon. Lady is coming from. Is she asking us to support the programmes or to ditch them? I thought that it was a matter of common cause across the House that we supported the accession countries entering the European Union. Obviously, as that happens, unless we increase dramatically the overall amount of the EU budget, there will be less for those countries that are already in the EU and are wealthier. Of course we look at specific programmes and whether we need to bridge the funding for them, but it is important to recognise that the alternative is either not having those countries in the EU—that would be a huge mistake for Europe—or pushing up the European budget, which we have made clear, as the Chancellor did again yesterday, we do not favour.
    Chris Bryant: Last year, one in four deaths in England and Wales led to an autopsy, as opposed to one in eight in Scotland and to one in 12 in Northern Ireland. Does the Prime Minister agree that many of those 121,000 autopsies caused unnecessary distress and delay to already grieving families? Is it not time that the coroner service was urgently reformed to ensure consistency across the UK—not least in the reporting of drugs-related deaths?
    The Prime Minister: I understand from my right hon. Friend that proposals on the reform of the coroner service will be published shortly. It may be as well to wait for the outcome of that.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: After months of trying, my constituents, Mr. and Mrs.
    1414
    Keys, secured a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence last week to receive a briefing about the current state of the investigation by the special investigation branch into the death of their son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys and five other military policemen last June. In that meeting, not a word was said about the military policemen having to return ammunition rounds before going on duty or, indeed, losing essential medical supplies, apparently for audit purposes. The Ministry of Defence liaison officer rang late on Friday evening to tell them about that, because it was being broken in the press on Sunday. Mr. and Mrs. Keys, through me, are asking the Prime Minister when they can ever expect to learn the truth about the death of their son.
    The Prime Minister: First, I express once again my condolences and sympathy to the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. May I tell them, through him, that I understand their anxiety, and that it is the reason why there is an inquiry? Once it has completed its work, and we know exactly what happened to those six members of the Royal Military Police, we will obviously be in a better position to communicate with the families on the basis of precise details. However, those six people died in the course of their duty in circumstances in which they demonstrated enormous courage and bravery—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked about medals, but it has already been made clear that we will look at that later when the inquiry is complete.
    May I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that those people died with immense bravery, trying to make Iraq better? No matter what is going on in Iraq at the moment—these terrible terrorist attacks were almost certainly instigated by people outside Iraq and are directed against Iraqi people—it is crucial to the security of the region and the world that Iraq is helped to achieve stability, prosperity and democracy in the long term. That is precisely what those people, including the hon. Gentleman's constituent, were doing, which is why the House, while it should answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman has quite properly asked, should thank that person and all those who have died in the service of their country doing something very important for the future of the world.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statements.

Parliament and the EU
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's plans for enhancing the role of Parliament in European Union matters and in respect of other developments in the European Union. This is set to be an important year for the EU. Ten new members join on I May, and the elections for a new European Parliament take place in June. We also have the initial proposals on the financing of the European Union after 2006, the continuing efforts to reform the European economy so that it can better deliver jobs and prosperity, and the outstanding matter of the intergovernmental conference. By the end of this year, we hope to conclude accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria, and make a decision on whether to launch such negotiations with Turkey. Meanwhile, discussions began yesterday in New York on the scope for a reunited Cyprus joining the EU in May.
Those and other EU developments are of profound importance to Britain and British interests. It is therefore vital that the House, and Parliament as a whole, have an integral role in debating, influencing and agreeing the policies of the British Government. Together with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues, I was concerned to ensure that there was regular and rigorous parliamentary discussion of the intergovernmental conference following the publication of the draft constitutional treaty last summer. We therefore laid a White Paper on the draft treaty before the House last September. Ministers and officials attended a total of 13 sessions with Committees in this House and the Lords on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the IGC, and responded to 16 Select Committee reports. From last May onwards, when the successive parts of the Convention text of the draft treaty were published, we had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floors of both Houses and three sittings of the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference.
That parliamentary engagement in the IGC process helped to develop a better understanding of the issues at stake, and strengthened our negotiating position at the EU table. On energy, to take just one example, the strength of opinion in Parliament helped us to secure an acceptable amendment from the Italian EU presidency. This level of scrutiny and debate on the IGC should, in my view, become the norm for providing Parliament with the opportunity to oversee the work of the European Union and the British Government's role in it. Indeed, given the range of issues that the EU now covers—from trade to the environment, from cross-border crime to consumer protection—it is vital that we enhance national democratic scrutiny in this way.
I greatly applaud the diligent and valuable work of the scrutiny Committees in both Houses. However, I am sure that they would agree that we need a broader and earlier focus, across Parliament as a whole, on the forthcoming plans of the Commission and the European Council, sufficiently in advance that all Members of the House and of the other place have an opportunity to raise concerns and to influence policy before it is set in stone.
1416
First, therefore, starting in April this year, then each January thereafter, the Government will lay before Parliament a White Paper looking at the year ahead for the EU's legislative and other activities. The paper will set out the Government's priorities in the light of the European Commission's legislative and work programme for the year ahead, as well as the operational programme for the forthcoming EU presidencies agreed each December by the European Council. At the same time, subject to your agreement, Mr. Speaker, I plan to make an oral statement to the House summarising the White Paper's main themes. In addition, each July we will publish as a Command Paper an interim report to take stock of progress and to look ahead to the second six-month presidency of the year. Those papers will subsume our existing retrospective reviews of developments in the European Union.
Secondly, to build on the Standing Committee that was set up to look at the Convention, then at the IGC, the Government favour creating a successor Committee whose remit would be extended to cover the whole of the EU's work. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes shortly to present proposals to the Modernisation Committee for its consideration. Our aim is that the new Committee would be open to Members of both Houses, and that Ministers involved in EU work, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other Departments, would give statements, respond to questions and participate in debates. I hope that the House might also consider whether ways might be found to allow European Commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for UK Members of the European Parliament to attend. I look forward to the Modernisation Committee's findings, and hope that it might include in its inquiry the operation of the European Standing Committees A, B and C, which, if I may express a purely personal view, seem never to have worked fully as intended.
Decisions on any new Committees are of course a matter for the House, with the other place. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have discussed the idea informally with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee; indeed, it reflects much of the thinking contained in that Committee's report of 22 May 2002, "European Scrutiny in the Commons". I have also raised the idea with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and discussed it informally with the Chairman of the European Union Committee in the Lords.
Let me turn to a number of other proposals. The first is a more strategic approach to EU business in the form of the three-year strategic programme that was adopted by the European Council last December, which we have made available to the Chairmen of the scrutiny Committees of both Houses. That is designed to overcome the inherent difficulties posed by the existing system of six-month EU presidencies by setting out agreed objectives and priorities for the EU, and time frames for their implementation.
Planning for the British EU presidency in the second half of next year is already well under way. That will give us a valuable chance to keep the EU agenda focused on delivering economic reform, jobs and growth. As he announced in the House on 10 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is

1417
already working with his Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg colleagues, as those countries have the next presidencies, to achieve better regulation in the EU. For Europe to remain competitive, we must make faster progress on deregulation and more flexible labour, capital and product markets. According to the International Monetary Fund. an improved EU regulatory framework could deliver as much as a 7 per cent. increase in the EU's gross domestic product and a 3 per cent. increase in productivity in the longer term.
Transposition of EU legislation into national law also needs attention. The risk of gold-plating the original texts, thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those that their competitors in other member states face, is real. With that in mind, 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer, Robin Bellis, to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation and I published it on 24 November last year. In December I held a seminar to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across Government, the House, the EU institutions and the Confederation of British Industry. I have asked the relevant Departments to report back to me in six months on the steps that they have taken to implement the recommendations. Of course, I also welcome the views of the House.
Britain's national interests are best served by an active engagement with our partners in the European Union. However, just as issues such as trade, the environment and organised crime require effective cross-border action throughout the EU, it is imperative that national democratic bodies are fully engaged on those issues. I therefore hope that the proposals that I have set out today will go some way towards ensuring that the House and Parliament can be more effective in doing that.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advanced sight of it. I, too, welcome the discussions in New York on the reunification of Cyprus, and we wish them every success.
We welcome the concept of enhancing the role of Parliament in European Union matters. However, overall, the Foreign Secretary's statement is gravely disappointing, not so much for what it says but for what it fails to say. The context is not new. The backdrop is the constantly increasing flood of directives and regulations from Brussels, with which Parliament is increasingly unable to cope.
In 2002–03, the European Scrutiny Committee considered 1,327 documents, of which only 3.5 per cent. were referred to the European Standing Committees that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, and only five were debated on the Floor of the House. The test of today's statement is therefore twofold. First, will the measures do anything to stem the tide of European regulations and directives that are imposed on the United Kingdom? Secondly, will they do anything to increase our national Parliament's powers to stop or change them? I fear that, as is so often the case with the Government, despite the fine language, the answer to both questions is no.
We welcome the promise of an annual White Paper. I hope that it will keep Parliament more fully informed of the Government's and the Commission's intentions.
1418
However, will it give Parliament any more influence? Will it in any way echo the Danish principle of seeking Parliament's approval before decisions are made in the Council? Again, the answer appears to be no.
We welcome, as far as it goes, the proposed new Standing Committee, which, from reading between the lines, appears to be some sort of Grand Committee, rather in the old style. Of course increased debating and questioning is desirable, but will the Committee have the power to alter or stop anything? Once again, the answer appears to be no. We all want an end to gold-plating. Although I appreciate the need to take account of our laws, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is taking so long to end an unfair and unsatisfactory practice. Why should action take another six months?
The genuine significance of the statement is the dogs that have not barked. Why did it not include a response to the conclusions of last June's European Scrutiny Committee's report? They are relevant to the subject of the statement, which is greater parliamentary involvement in EU work. Why did the Foreign Secretary say nothing about the need to tighten up the scrutiny reserve procedure against the abuses that continue to undermine Parliament's authority? Why was there no mention of strengthening Parliament's rights, not only to seek a review of EU legislation that offends against the principles of subsidiarity—the so-called yellow card—but to block such legislation under a red card procedure, which the Foreign Secretary has previously said that he favours?
Why is there no move to ensure that major European issues are dealt with on the Floor of the House? Should not at least the European Court of Auditors report and all budgetary matters be dealt with in this way? Why does the Foreign Secretary not address the serious undermining of the authority of Parliament through what is known as the comitology process?
There is a serious and growing democratic deficit in relation to the flood of European legislation. The European Parliament alone cannot fill that deficit. This statement does far too little to enable this national Parliament to do so better. It is an opportunity regrettably missed—even more regrettably in the light of the threat of the constitution, which will make the deficit worse.
The Foreign Secretary's statement is a finger in the dyke when the floodwaters are rising. I cannot help wondering whether its timing has anything to do with the fact that the Prime Minister is about to embark, with France and Germany, on another round of old-fashioned integrationist planning. I am reminded of the saying, "The more they talk of their honour, the more we count the spoons," and I advise my hon. Friends to regard the statement in that light.
Mr. Straw: The statement was about what it said it was about: strengthening the role of Parliament in the European Union. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that at any stage between 1979 and 1997, he and his colleagues in the then Government could have introduced changes of this kind. They wholly failed to do so. I also point out that as a result of a lack of proper engagement in the European Union when his party was in power, we have ended up with some really serious difficulties with the drafting of directives and regulations.

1419
For example, the problems with the Data Protection Act 1998, with which I had to deal in relation to implementation, were caused by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues in government had signed up to lock, stock and barrel between 1990 and 1997, and we are still facing those problems. The same applies to the inadequate drafting and consideration of aspects of the working time directive. The Conservative Government could and should have dealt with those matters, and they failed to do so. I therefore greatly regret the grudging and churlish tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about proposals that are designed to increase the role and effectiveness of this House and the other place in dealing with EU business.
Let me deal with some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's specific questions. He asked whether Parliament should have a greater role than it does now. I very much hope so, and we are open to proposals to strengthen the role of Parliament further. It is for Ministers to propose, and for Parliament to dispose. I referred to the problems with European Standing Committees A, B and C, which were introduced with all-party support in the early 1990s. The idea was that they should better scrutinise European regulations, and I attended them when I was in opposition. The truth, however, is that they are not working, and they do not get proper attendance. We therefore need to look at ways in which the scrutiny of such documents can be enhanced.
I have no fear whatever about Parliament being involved much earlier, not just in the scrutiny of documents but in establishing policy in advance. It strengthens our hand when we go to Brussels or Luxembourg if we know what Parliament wants and what it does not want. That was our experience in respect of both the Convention and, above all, the IGC. I mention just one example of that among many: energy policy. The express strength of sentiment on both sides of the House about the inadequacy of the articles relating to energy in the draft Convention enabled me simply to say to my colleagues in the European Union that we could not tolerate those proposals and that we must have something different, and we ended up with something different. That is the approach that I want for the future.
One of the key proposals that I am announcing today is to extend back in time the point at which Parliament gets involved in the development of EU policy. The European Scrutiny Committees play an important role, but that happens when draft legislation is brought forward. Often, by that stage, issues are set in stone. In relation to the White Paper, the reason why I want a long prospective look to be taken at the European Union equivalent of the Queen's Speech is so that Parliament as a whole can better help us get a grip on issues. We can therefore intervene when policy decisions can properly be influenced, rather than after they have been taken.
Sir Menzies Campbell: I should have thought that no one could do other than endorse, in principle, proposals for better parliamentary scrutiny of European affairs, and a more strategic approach on the part of the United Kingdom Government. The Modernisation Committee will no
1420
doubt seek representations from political parties in the House, and we shall of course respond in detail in due course.
The statement made no express mention of the Prime Minister. Is it expected that he will be an active participant in the procedures outlined by the Foreign Secretary? On Cyprus and Turkey, the Foreign Secretary enjoys my support and that of my colleagues. Turkey's accession will of course have to be subject to its fulfilling all the necessary criteria, including the Copenhagen criteria, but that seems to us to be an effort well worth making.
The Foreign Secretary's proposals doubtless allow for better scrutiny of constitutional change in Europe. I thought he was uncharacteristically coy in saying nothing about the progress of the constitution. Perhaps he could say what discussions he has had recently with the Irish Government, and what progress, if any, he anticipates.
I hope the proposals also allow for greater scrutiny of the European Union's budget, but there was no particular reference to that in the statement. We are at one with the Government in believing that there should be no increase in the central budget, and that Britain's rebate should be maintained; but does the Foreign Secretary agree that the fundamental issue—the issue at the heart of financial considerations of the European Union—remains the unreformed common agricultural policy? Until that is dealt with properly, discussions of the kind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been having over the last two or three days are likely to continue.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. He asked whether it was expected that the Prime Minister would attend the Grand Committee; the answer is no.
Sir Menzies Campbell: Why?
Mr. Straw: I was about to explain. The Prime Minister—this is unusual for Ministers involved in EU business—routinely makes an oral statement to the House the day after, or two days after, every European Council; I refer to the key European Union sessions. He attends those, unlike other members of the Cabinet, who go back and forth to and from Brussels and Luxembourg much more regularly.
The negotiations on Cyprus and Turkey began in New York yesterday. They are likely to prove difficult because the issue is difficult. but I am grateful for the support that has been given by Members throughout the House. We have actively supported Turkey and the start of its negotiations. It should be recognised that Turkey has made significant strides towards ensuring that it can meet the Copenhagen criteria. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the EU 15, and subsequently the 25, towards a date for the start of the negotiations being set by the European Council at the end of this year. I happen to think that that is very important.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that I had been coy about the IGC, and I plead guilty. The reason is that it is impossible to say whether the IGC negotiations will or will not be reopened. I have had many discussions with my Irish counterpart, as the

1421
Prime Minister has with the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and with many other colleagues across Europe. The Irish Presidency is collecting voices on the issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Collecting voices, that is what they say they are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "A big conversation?"] No, I think it is a series of small conversations. Having collected these voices and digested them, they intend then to come forward, with either a sense that the IGC' can be reopened or a sense that it cannot. All I can say to any Members on either side of the House who are of this tendency is that I would not put any money on either result. That is why I was being coy. I hope that that explanation helps.
As for the budget, I am glad to have the Liberal Democrats' support for the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is right about the state of the common agricultural policy, apart from the fact that some important changes in principle have been made to detach subsidy from production. Over time, they will make a difference. However, there is also the issue of the distribution of the cohesion and structural funds, which is bound to have to be considered if we are going to keep the budget down to 1 per cent. of EU GDP, as I believe we should.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I say that I hope that there will be a satisfactory conclusion to the Cyprus problem, which is a blot on our country too, because we were one of the guaranteeing powers for the first Republic of Cyprus? With regard to my right hon. Friend's statements about control for the House, I strongly welcome his decision to have a new strong Standing Committee. Too often, Back Benchers have complained that decisions have been made without their being able to influence policy. The fact that programmes are going to be brought before us that we will be able to discuss, and, we hope, to amend—we hope to change the Government's position on that—is important for our role in Parliament, and strengthens our position particularly. It will also be an opportunity for people to discuss events in Europe properly, so that we will not see the hysteria that we have seen in the past few weeks about entrants from new countries, particularly the vicious and nasty statements in the tabloid press about our fellow European citizens, the Roma.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, and I am grateful for his support. As he will not mind me saying, he is an assiduous attender of all the Committees of which he is a member. We have our responsibilities to involve Parliament better, but Parliament has its responsibilities too. It is a matter for regret that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have failed to attend relevant Standing Committees, even when the business that they were dealing with has been important. I want to make it clear that we regard the role of the House, including this Chamber, and its Committees in EU business as extremely important but I hope that as we get this going, that is reciprocated by better attendance at such Committees.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the reasons why the
1422
European Standing Committees have not received the enthusiastic support that was originally anticipated is that when votes are taken and a Standing Committee decision goes against what the Government want, it is reversed on the Floor of the House? That has been the regular pattern. Does he accept that in the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, which he and I attended regularly, there were no votes? Can he therefore, in the context of what he has just announced, assure us that decisions can be taken and votes will be cast in respect of decisions that come before the new Committee? Will he reaffirm what the Minister for Europe said to me on 15 December in a written answer—that Parliament is guaranteed its supremacy, so we can and will continue to reject proposals from the European Union in this Parliament, and to amend or to repeal European legislation, because that is the prerogative of this House?
Mr. Straw: It is almost an oxymoron—sorry, I mean that it is an obvious point—to say that Parliament is sovereign. Of course that is true. Parliament can pass any legislation that it wants, but that legislation may have consequences; we have had that discussion before. On the issue of votes, the procedure is a matter for the Modernisation Committee, not for me—I am making proposals—but if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, I do not think that he would propose that what happens in Standing Committees should be the last word on votes. It would be very odd if Governments of any party were not able to reverse the vote in a Standing Committee on the Floor of the House. The Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference and the Standing Committee on the Convention worked, not least because there were no votes. However, there was an expression of sentiment, which we took away and dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman said that he and I were assiduous attenders of that Committee. He is right. It is a matter of regret that as far as I recall, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, never turned up to one of the sittings of the Standing Committee on the Convention or the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, notwithstanding his rather grandiloquent remarks earlier.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to ignore the churlish remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary? Not only did he do nothing when he was in office, but he did not even call for the statement. I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. As so much now, right across the board, is decided in Europe, it is important that we have accountability. However, if this Committee is to have the importance that it deserves, it is imperative that Members can attend it and attend this Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend therefore draw the issue to the attention of the Leader of the House, in the light of the possible revision of the House's sitting hours? If we go on as we are, trying to pack everything into the mornings and afternoons, the Committee will not enjoy the attendance that it deserves.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, but, of course, this is a House matter, and in that regard I speak for myself, not the Government.
Mr. McNamara: Do not spoil it, Jack.
Mr. Straw: I think that my views are well known.
This matter will come before the House, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows my opinion and those of many other Members. It is a matter of record that the decision to sit on Tuesday between 11.30 am and 7 pm was passed by only seven votes, and I know of at least eight Members who have changed their minds since then.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As a new member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am horrified at the volume of EU proposals pouring through it each week. A fraction of them are examined, and they cannot be amended in any respect. Since the problem of over-regulation and excessive legislation exists higher up the food chain—in the EU itself—why are the Government arguing in the constitution for more powers for the EU and for more majority voting, which would increase the volume of legislation that the House has to deal with? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the extra powers of the Committee that he is setting up? Otherwise, we shall simply debate again proposals that we cannot block or amend in any respect. What additional powers is he Foreign Secretary proposing for the Committee to reject proposals that the House does not want?
Mr. Straw: I am concerned about the volume of EU proposals and so is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is why, in the pre-Budget report of 10 December, he announced an important initiative, taken with the other forthcoming presidencies, through which we will try to get a grip on the volume of regulations coming out of Brussels. I should point out that the Commission is becoming increasingly aware of this issue, and it is one of the reasons why support for the EU is diminishing across Europe. We must also deal with gold-plating and drafting. Conservatives may want to excise the memory of this, but I should repeat for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit that, when they were in government for 18 years, they did nothing at all about the volume of legislation. However, we are trying to deal with it.
The European Scrutiny Committee does a very good job, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken the trouble to attend its meetings and give evidence; indeed, I am told that I am the first Foreign Secretary to do so. However, the Committee is—to use his analogy—too far down the food chain. We want proposals to be discussed when they are in draft form. Because such proposals are, by definition, simply draft proposals, they are unlikely to be subject to a vote. However, if Parliament is alerted to them, it is possible to call for debates on them in Government or Opposition time. In any event, my ministerial colleagues and I see our role in Europe as representing not just the British Government, but the British Parliament and the
1424
British people. If we get early warning of the fact that the British Parliament and the British people are not going to stand for something, we can go in and deal with it at an early stage.
Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the excellent proposals that the Foreign Secretary has introduced today. They are a response to what Members on both sides of the House have been calling for, and they refocus the Government's European policy on the reform agenda. As he has attended many summits, he will know that it is not just a question of going to the summit and getting the conclusions; what matters is how they are implemented. What is the current status of the proposed second chamber for the European Parliament that the Prime Minister raised the possibility of in a speech in Warsaw three years ago? Does that still form part of the discussion, or is it no longer on the agenda?
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful last question. The proposals for a second chamber were overtaken by those in the Convention.
Angus Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving us advance notice of his statement, and I declare an interest, like others, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I warmly welcome measures that will improve scrutiny and accountability. However, why has no commitment been made to ending the secrecy of relations between the UK Government and devolved Administrations, as outlined in the concordats? That would surely be a good first step towards assisting scrutiny in the House, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, in due time, the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In the absence of complete details about the workings of the planned Committee, will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that the plans are not a cover to diminish the attendance of Ministers at detailed evidence sessions of the European Scrutiny Committee? Does he agree that the Conservatives, who were quick to criticise much of his statement, would have more credibility on the issue if they had a better attendance record at the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference?
Mr. Straw: On the last point, I entirely agree. The attendance record of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen at the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference was lamentable, showing that they were not interested in securing significant change and were simply trying to score points.
On the effectiveness of the body, I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) that I very much hope to be able to make arrangements for EU Commissioners to attend and to make statements of the kind that I am making today. While speaking informally with commissioners about the body, I have made the point that they have a job to do simply in explaining to the British Parliament and people what their job is. If there is a great deal more communication, some of the things that come out of Brussels that cause us concern may be less likely to do so.

1425
On the point about relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, it is a matter not quite of secrecy but of maintaining confidences in our relationships. That is important, and is similar to, if not quite the same as, the way in which we maintain confidences with other nation states. I chair a Cabinet Committee that includes members of the devolved Administrations. It is important that they should be fully involved in the decisions that we make on their behalf as well as on our own, and that requires confidence. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) will know from my work with the European Scrutiny Committee that we are trying to be as open as possible about the work of the British Government, and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament are trying to do the same.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, which should improve the depth, quality and effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny on European issues. The fact that the possible significance of the energy chapter of the proposed European constitution was fully recognised only as a result of the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and others is an example of why such improved scrutiny is desirable.
Mr. Straw: I agree, and I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). One effect of increasing Parliament's role in the process will be to ensure that the level at which EU matters are dealt with inside Government is also raised. Anyone who has been a Minister will know that the fact of having to give evidence to a Select Committee or any other body of the House, or having to taking part in a debate, raises the level and quality of consideration by their Departments. That will be an important side effect.
Mr. David Trimble: The Foreign Secretary referred with approval to how energy was handled at the recent IGC. He said that the views expressed in Parliament greatly strengthened his hand. Would not his hand be immeasurably stronger if there were a clear arrangement, similar to that in Denmark, whereby the Government did not, in the Council of Ministers, commit the UK to any position without the prior approval of Parliament? We have a structural problem in handling these matters. It is welcome to see changes in committees, but we will not change our experience unless the structural problem is dealt with. That problem is that this Parliament is not involved in the decision-making process. Until that is changed, we will not change our experience.
Mr. Straw: I am genuinely open to proposals on that matter. I have seen how the Danish and Finnish systems operate, and Ministers from those countries have a clearer idea of what their Parliaments are, or are not, willing to accept. At the same time, those Ministers must have a degree of discretion because they actively participate in negotiations in the room in the same way as us. I repeat that the more that Parliament is involved,
1426
and the more that we can work out how it can endorse in advance the broad positions to be taken by the Government while still allowing sufficient negotiating room, the happier I will be.
Mr. Tony McWalter: In welcoming these excellent proposals, and following the question from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), is there scope in the new arrangements for European policy to be initiated here? I am thinking of issues such as animal welfare. There is a wide perception in the House that our standards on, for example, pig welfare are much higher than those in the rest of Europe. It would be welcome if the new arrangements allowed us to initiate processes to obtain wider European agreement on such matters.
Mr. Straw: Yes, there is. The earlier there are proposals, the earlier we can get them into draft programmes—for example, into the conclusions of sectoral councils and then into the European Council, and then that can form part of the work programme.
On animal welfare, my hon. Friend may like to know that, with our encouragement, the reference to animal welfare in the draft convention has been significantly upgraded. I was trying to find the exact text and failed to do so, but I will ensure that it is sent to him.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that every Member of this House receives a copy of a draft of every regulation, directive or other legislative instrument that will ultimately come into force and bear on our constituents? Although we can do nothing about such regulations, that would allow us to know their scale and nature. Will he confirm that it is currently impossible to obtain those documents, although I receive a copy of every statutory instrument issued by the Government? Indeed, even the European Scrutiny Committee must consider such regulations in private. If I am wrong, will he tell me how to obtain copies of the regulations? If I am right, will he confirm that that reflects the fundamentally undemocratic nature of our supranational masters?
Mr. Straw: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that such regulations should routinely be sent to all hon. Members.
Mr. Lilley: Yes I do. We should know what we have given away.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's party invited the House to join the European Union, and the basic legislative system under which we joined is still there today. Unless there is a good reason for regulations to be confidential, they should be available to all hon. Members in the same way as other draft regulations, and I shall examine his point.
Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the proposals to the House. Europe will be a very different place after EU enlargement, and we must ensure that we match such changes with changes in our parliamentary proceedings. What specific talks has he had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural

1427
Affairs about factoring in sustainability and the environment in the same way as we factor in human rights issues? How will the new Committee deal with those issues?
Mr. Straw: I have not had specific discussions on that point, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to try to follow through on those proposals.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement as an important step forward, although we believe that scrutiny by and accountability to Parliament must be further strengthened and deepened. May I press him on the membership of the new Standing Committee? How will members be appointed? Can he assure the House that there will be adequate representation for smaller parties to allow them proper input in this important area?
Mr. Straw: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. The proposal—this is a matter for the House and the other place—is that there should be a Standing Grand Committee on Europe. It will be open to any hon. Member to attend and take part in proceedings, so minority parties will be fully represented if they want to be.
Mr. Wayne David: I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. He has been a long-standing and consistent advocate of the greater involvement of this House in the affairs of the European Union. In particular, I welcome the proposed Grand Committee, and I am pleased that he has mentioned the possible involvement of Members of the European Parliament. Will he consider whether Members of the devolved institutions could also be involved? That point is important because much European legislation is implemented by the devolved Administrations.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. The argument for Members of the European Parliament attending the Standing Grand Committee is stronger than that for Members of the devolved Administrations, but the matter is one for the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, not for me.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I put a specific suggestion to the Foreign Secretary with regard to gold-plating? I think that he would agree that one of the problems with gold-plating is that it is very difficult for Ministers to spot the degree to which the officials are proposing implementation in
1428
the UK that goes beyond what is proposed in Europe. I therefore suggest to him what I put into practice when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, namely that every set of proposals for regulations coming to Ministers should carry with regard to each of the counterpart proposals a statement made by the officials as to the extent to which what we are proposing in the UK differs from the main proposals from within Europe, so that Ministers can pick up the discrepancy and judge whether the difference is worth having.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation is accurate; it is impossible for a busy Minister to check on such matters. I commend the report to him if he has not seen it: one of the issues that Robin Bellis examined was the practice in some other countries of "copying out". That practice would involve simply copying out the directives, and if there were an argument it would be resolved by the interpretation of the British courts and the European Court of Justice. His idea is good and, with his permission, I will take the details of how he operated it when he was a Minister and do my best to take it forward.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Prime Minister said on 18 June 1997 that the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the Amsterdam treaty had real teeth and that nearly six years later the Foreign Secretary told the House on 21 May last year that the protocol had in fact not proved satisfactory and that the proposal on the subject in the draft European constitution was pitifully weak, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary intend to do to ensure that in the future subsidiarity is a safeguard of national self-government and not a thin cover for the continuing legislative imperialism of the European Union?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he made that statement on 18 June 1997 about the proposals having real teeth. The only problem—this is not his responsibility—is that the jaw attached to the teeth has not closed sufficiently often. Although the proposals on subsidiarity in the draft convention are not perfect, they would go some way to assisting in the matter. Meanwhile, we have a responsibility as a key member state in Europe—my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer share this view—to get to grips with deregulation in Europe. Obviously, some regulations are very important, but British people and British business would welcome lighter touch regulation to try to turn round not malign forces in Brussels but the engine that produces unnecessary regulation without looking more imaginatively at how the particular task in hand could better be achieved.

Special Educational Needs
1.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Today the Government will publish "Removing Barriers to Achievement". This is our long-term strategy to give children with special educational needs the opportunity to succeed. The strategy, which I promised to the House last September in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", sets out the Government's proposals for working together with local authorities, schools, early years settings, the health service and the voluntary and private sectors to enable children and young people with special educational needs to achieve their potential.
The strategy builds on the current statutory framework for SEN. We propose no changes to that legal framework, but our strategy sets out the ways in which we will give real effect to it. I believe that in recent years we have made good progress in improving provision for children with special educational needs. However, there is much further to go. The Audit Commission's report, "Special Educational Needs—a mainstream issue", which was published in 2002, highlighted a number of real concerns. That report stated that too many children wait for too long to have their needs met; children who should be able to be taught in mainstream settings are sometimes turned away and too many staff feel ill equipped to meet the wide range of pupil needs; many special schools feel uncertain of their future role; and that there are unacceptable variations in the level of support available to families from their school, local authority or local health service. Our strategy seeks to address those legitimate concerns.
We have discussed the matters with a wide range of practitioners and policy makers, as well as with children and young people themselves. We have listened to what they say and I believe that our strategy provides clear national leadership, supported by an ambitious programme of sustained action, nationally and locally, in four key areas.
The first key area is early intervention. We want to ensure that children with learning difficulties receive the help that they need as soon as possible and that parents of children with special educational needs have access to suitable child care. Our strategy therefore seeks to embed in practice nationally the principles of the early support pilot programme; to implement a new strategy for child care for children with SEN; to work with voluntary organisations to establish a national early intervention centre of excellence to raise quality; to encourage delegation of funds to schools; and to cut bureaucracy in SEN provision.
The second key area is the removal of barriers to learning. We recognise that a child's learning difficulties often arise because the learning environment is not suitable. Our aim is to develop inclusive practices to meet the needs of every child so that they have the chance to succeed. Special schools are and will be an important part of our specialist programme and we will encourage them to become part of local communities of schools and to play a key role as centres of excellence and expertise. We seek to remove barriers to learning by, for example, creating a new inclusion development
1430
programme to bring together education, health, social care and the voluntary sector to develop effective approaches to provision for children with SEN.
Initially, the programme will focus on autistic spectrum disorder; behavioural, emotional and social difficulties; speech, language and communication difficulties; and moderate learning difficulties. We will develop practical tools and materials for schools and local authorities, working with the Disability Rights Commission and voluntary sector partners. We will make proposals to improve the quality of education for children with more severe behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. We will improve regional planning of provision and provide practical guidance on reducing reliance on high-cost placements. We will also establish minimum standards for SEN advisory and support services.
The third key area is the raising of expectations and achievement. We will develop teachers' skills to meet the needs of children with SEN and help them to move successfully into adult life. Our strategy puts children with SEN at the heart of personalised learning; delivers practical teaching and learning resources to raise the achievement of all children with SEN; works with the Teacher Training Agency and teacher training providers to deliver initial and continuous professional development, which provides a good grounding in the knowledge of SEN; will measure the progress made by those pupils working below level 1 and collect data nationally from 2005; and will work across Government to improve the quality of transition planning for young people with SEN and expand their opportunities for education, training and work.
The fourth and final key area is delivering improvements in partnership. We intend to build partnership working between education, health, social care and the voluntary sector. We will develop the common assessment framework, multi-disciplinary teams and children's trusts, to deliver joined-up services for children and families. We will align the SEN strategy with the national service framework for children. Above all, we want parents to be confident that their child will get the education they need, wherever they live. There is great variation in the provision made by local authorities for children with SEN, and so we think that there is a need for greater consistency across the country. We will promote that through our network of SEN regional partnerships.
All children should enjoy education that enables them to fulfil their talents and provides a firm foundation for adult life. "Removing Barriers to Achievement" reaffirms our commitment to working in partnership to unlock the potential of the many children who may have difficulty learning but whose life chances depend upon high-quality education. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in providing an advance copy. I welcome both his statement on this important topic and many of the specifics of what he has announced today. What he said about the priority that we should all give to children with special educational needs will unite all hon. Members on both sides of the House.

1431
I wish to press the Secretary of State on a few of the specific proposals. I am sure that those who have campaigned long and hard for the interests of parents of children with SEN will welcome what he said about the need to iron out the sometimes large differences between local education authorities. Given that the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice has made it clear that local education authorities of all political colours—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat—have, at times, not been sufficiently generous or speedy in responding to SEN requests, does he agree that any action that he can take to level up, rather than level down, will be much welcomed?
Does the Secretary of State stand by the letter that the head of his Department's SEN division sent in July last year to all LEAs, warning them not to apply blanket policies of never quantifying special education provision in children's statements? Does he anticipate that the national guidance that he seeks will be consistent with the judgment made by Lady Justice Hale in the Court of Appeal some time ago, which is regarded by many parents as an important legal statement on the issue?
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State had warm words to say about special schools. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that many children with SEN are most appropriately looked after in mainstream schools, but that some would benefit enormously from special schools. Does he share our regret that 79 special schools have closed since 1997, and would it be consistent with the approach that he set out today to consider the case for a moratorium on further closures? My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has been calling for such a moratorium for some time.
Will the Secretary of State also consider the case that many parents have made that greater co-ordination between the various responsibilities of different authorities would be welcome if it provided a one-stop shop for parents? There are merits and advantages in those authorities co-operating in greater partnership, as he specified, but a one-stop shop for parents would be very welcome. In that context, I also wish to press him on an issue raised in the other place by Baroness Warnock—I am sure that he recalls that she was largely responsible for setting up the statementing process—that it is now time for a comprehensive review of the process, because it is too combative. He will know that many parents say that they have to fight for the interests of their children. There must be a better approach. If the Secretary of State can clarify those points, I am sure that his overall approach will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate the general welcome given by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and I confirm his view that the subject is not a matter of party political difference, whether at local government level or across the Chamber. As far as I am aware, politicians and people from all parties are committed to broadly the same approach.
On the three specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I agree that the process of improving services must be a question of levelling up, not down. That has to be the right approach. I focus on quality because we must improve professional practice, so that people can see what good practice consists of and how they may
1432
apply it in particular areas. The regional networks to which I referred will help us to do that in a variety of ways.
I stand by the letter from my Department last July, which stated that there should be no blanket policies. A critical point—I emphasise it—is the importance of judgment. To go down to the position where everybody either is or is not in a special school is a hopeless way of going about things. We talk too much in terms of categories when we are talking about people with special educational needs. The point behind the philosophy that every child matters is that each individual, with their particular special need, is a special person who needs to be taken into account. Obviously, that is difficult to achieve—the task is massive in respect of resources and in other terms—but that must be the right approach, rather than saying that everybody in one category should be treated in way X and everybody in another should be treated in way Y. The point I want to stress is that such an approach requires high-quality judgment in each locality, which is why we wrote the letter about no blanket policies.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point about a coordinating one-stop shop, it is critical that that judgment is made in co-ordination with the health and education professionals concerned, voluntary organisations and parents, too. Sometimes, parents feel isolated from the process that involves their child. That is not best practice, but it happens. I am sure that we have all experienced situations in which both individual parents, concerned about their child, and groups of parents, concerned, for example, about the closure of a special school, are passionately engaged but are left outside a decision-making process from which they feel alienated. The answer is to ensure that there is coordination and judgment.
That is why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked in his second question, that we would have a moratorium on all closures of special schools. We should not adopt that type of blanket position, but should say that in every locality people must look at the particular circumstances and decide what to do. The great shift in the document that we published today is that we talk about special schools as part of a local network of collaboration, through liaison both with the specialist schools' programmes and as centres of excellence working with local schools. The more that we see a special school not simply as serving the children within it but as part of the local educational provision, the better the basis for taking the decisions that have to be taken.
Mr. Phil Willis: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement? Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), we are at one with the right hon. Gentleman in trying to improve special educational needs. Both the previous Government and the present Government have good records on tackling some of the key issues.
I am a little disappointed that there will be no changes to the legal framework, because although the Education Act 1981, pioneered by Baroness Warnock, which introduced the idea of statements, was a major step forward, it is now a hurdle that many schools, and many parents, find it difficult to get over, so I hope that the Secretary of State will revisit that issue.

1433
May I put on record my praise for teachers, in both mainstream and special schools, who work with some of the most difficult youngsters in some of the most difficult circumstances? They do a brilliant job and no one doing such work should regard the statement as suggesting that they do other than an excellent job.
We all found the Audit Commission's 2002 report an incredibly chilling document. Questions must be asked about why Ofsted did not pick up some of the major concerns earlier—I hope that the Secretary of State can respond. What role will Ofsted play to ensure that in future we do not have the Audit Commission reporting that things are difficult?
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not tackled some of the obvious barriers. He referred to the specialist school movement and to church schools. Will he examine how many such schools have children with special educational needs? How many of the children attending those schools receive free school meals and how many of them are in care? Many special needs children throughout the education system come under those three categories and are disappearing from the specialist schools. That is a challenge. These comments are not party political, but we must address the issue.
On early identification, there is no doubt that the first six months are crucial. Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Health to expand birth-to-six screening, especially for cognitive and sensory development? Will he commission research, which could probably be undertaken by the research council being set up under the Higher Education Bill—[Interruption.] You never know. Will the Secretary of State commission research into low birthweight and families at risk? There is a correlation between low birthweight and later special needs problems, and adequate research has not been carried out.
On funding, will the right hon. Gentleman consider following the Dutch model in which children are funded from six months onwards according to their need? That would avoid a bureaucratic process later on and children could get support where and when they need it.
On the inclusion development programme, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a key worker for any child who is diagnosed at six months with a cognitive, sensory or physical impairment, so that there is a one-stop shop for the parents as well as for the professionals working with the child? Will he consider taking appropriate regulatory action to ensure that adults in non-regulated early-years settings also have a duty of care for children with special educational needs? At present, they are excluded from that requirement.
Will the Secretary of State consider guaranteeing that when children enter school—be it at five or at any other key stage—teachers and classroom assistants have appropriate training? Far too often, children with special needs are dealt with by classroom assistants who have no specific training. We would not do that with A-level students and we should not do it with children with special needs.
Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the issue of children with behavioural difficulties? There is a growing incidence in our schools of children with attention deficit disorders, dyspraxia and autism, which
1434
causes major problems in terms of the inclusion programme, not only for the children themselves but for other children at the school. We have not given sufficient attention to that aspect of the programme, yet it is one of the greatest barriers and threats to inclusion. The Government should play a special role in dealing with that problem.
I agree that special schools have a specialist role, but I urge the Secretary of State to look at the American model, whereby special schools are linked to research departments in higher education institutes. Research excellence is thus developed locally and practice can spread to other schools, especially in mainstream settings.
Respite care is a massive issue for parents of children with dyspraxia, autism and some of the behavioural disorders, but there is a postcode lottery for its provision. Will the Secretary of State pay special attention to resolving that problem?
We very much support the statement, but in the end resources will make a huge difference in ensuring that children who are born with cognitive or other difficulties receive the best that we can give them. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that, in the new comprehensive spending review, this programme, together with higher education, receives special attention.
Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether that was another claim on the Lib Dem 50 per cent. tax rate, but I shall generously assume that it was not.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of points. First, we thought carefully about changing the legal framework. To be blunt, we came to the view that we cannot take that route until we have really developed the approach set out in the strategy, especially early intervention, in a way that gives parents confidence in the robustness of the current system. The existing statementing process is seen by many parents as a means to give them some assurance about the future of their child. To remove that process, or to fiddle with it, would not be appropriate until we have gone a considerable way down the line in implementing the approach that we have taken. That is the reason for our decision.
On the inspection regime, there is a new inspection framework. We have of course looked at the Audit Commission report in the context of Ofsted's comments, and we shall take it further. There is much dialogue about those matters.
On specialist schools, there is one point on which the hon. Gentleman is not right. Many of the specialist school bids that I have seen include a partnership with a special school in the locality. For example, I remember going to a languages specialist school that had a class from a local special school in the language lab, going through the process. We are seeing much more engagement between specialist schools and special schools, in a variety of different ways, which is a very positive thing.
I come on to the hon. Gentleman's point about EBD—emotional and behavioural difficulties—and attention deficit syndromes of various descriptions. It is important to build a better relationship between special schools and mainstream schooling with professional staff and so on.

1435
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about birth-to-six screening, birth weight and the need for research. My view is that we have had a problem with joined-up government, which we are trying to put right. There are three main players: the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the voluntary organisations dealing with the particular area concerned, many of which raise large amounts of money for research. We must get effective co-ordination. We can say that we have been doing that over the past two or three years, but there is still a long way to go. I am in constant dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about precisely that.
I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's point about funding in relation to the child.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the key worker is very important. We shall give that priority.
With regard to adults' duty of care more generally and the question of training, I have to concede that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is a massive issue involving both initial training for teachers and those in other professions, and in-service training and continuous professional development. We highlight this in the document. There is a great deal of work to be done, and we must make steady progress to raise standards across the whole range.
I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's interesting idea of a link with university research departments. There is much to be said for it, and I am grateful to him for the suggestion.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about respite care, too. We are developing a programme with foster respite carers, if I may put it like that, to be able to do work in that field, which will relieve some of the pressures that the hon. Gentleman rightly described.
Resources are always an issue—there are never enough. It is important, first, to secure the best use of resources, which is one of the reasons why the partnership between the different agencies is very important, and, secondly, to intervene as early as possible, because the more we can sort out problems early, the fewer the resource implications further down the line. It is worth investing early in a child's life to make a difference later on, quite apart from the social benefit.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the general support that he has given to the document.
Ms Joan Walley: May I give a warm welcome to the proposals that have been outlined to the House? We need to take action to end the postcode lottery and make sure that there is proper provision across the board.
In terms of awareness, I suggest that when my right hon. Friend makes his forthcoming visit to north Staffordshire with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, he should discuss the statement in further detail with the local voluntary sector in order that it may be properly understood.
What account does today's statement take of people with dyslexia? Is that factored into the statement? Is it part of the proposal?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, dyslexia is taken into account. I have discussed this with the two national organizations
1436
dealing with these issues and dyslexia. Serious investment in training and in information and communication technology can make a difference to special needs education, and I have seen some exciting projects in schools funded by voluntary organisations.
Of course, I shall be delighted to discuss these issues with my hon. Friend's colleagues when I visit Stoke and north Staffordshire.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and any measures that can be introduced to help the group of parents and children concerned, who evoke sympathy across the House.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my experience most parents seem to feel that, in addition to the inherent problems of bringing up children with severe special educational needs, they seem to have to fight battles the whole time to get the help that in theory is available, and certainly should be available, to them? Will he respond a little more fully to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the sense that one is having to fight a battle to get a child statement, because behind it lie limited resources, which those who dish out the statements are effectively rationing? Is that a correct perception? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to change the nature of the process or increase the resources available?
Mr. Clarke: I think that there is a great deal of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's perception. The truth is that, as medicine advances, parents, who are desperately keen to do right by their child, see what is being done elsewhere—in America or wherever—and ask "Can we have that for our child?", and they look to the state to pay for it. There are substantial issues here, as the right hon. Gentleman, with his financial experience, will know. It is not an easy matter to resolve.
Nevertheless, I have two points to make on this matter. First, we must engage parents right at the outset with top-quality professional advice and the best possible experience, working as a team. I emphasise the teamwork aspect. Many of the feelings described by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) come from people thinking that they have been messed about early on, with people taking Gradgrind decisions purely on grounds of money, without looking at the welfare of their child. That may or may not be true, but it is the perception. In my opinion, it can be dealt with only by honest and open discussion at the outset and good advice—and, to be quite honest, also by enabling people to make genuine assessments of the position of their child and the possibilities for the child in the real world. That is very hard.
The second way of addressing the problem that the right hon. Gentleman raises is early intervention. I come back to it again and again, for the simple reason that the earlier one can obtain clarity about this matter, the better one can resolve the problem. People understandably feel terribly upset about the situation that their child is in, quite apart from the genuine pressures. They feel that it is their obligation to fight for their child, and they do it as best they can. Our

1437
obligation is to respect that and try to work with the parents as best we can. That is the only way through that I can see.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the thrust of his proposals, and on his very prompt response to the Audit Commission's findings of roughly two years ago. But I wish to draw attention to the very complex needs of a very small handful of children for whom no proper planning mechanism exists to provide services. In that respect, I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the difficulties of Northern Counties school, an independent special school in my constituency, which has not a single fee-paid child attending, with 80 children drawn from Scotland, Wales and the south of England. They are children with very special and difficult needs, such as cerebral palsy and all its related conditions. Because of the lack of any kind of planning mechanism to guarantee provision of the services for those children, and finance for those services, the school is now faced with closure. In his statement my right hon. Friend mentioned strengthening regional planning mechanisms, but far more needs to be done in that direction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am trying to call as many hon. Members as possible. Shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers from the Secretary of State, would be a great help.
Mr. Clarke: I shall try to be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
First, I shall look into the school that my hon. Friend mentioned. Secondly, I agree with him about planning, at both the regional and the national level. The way to tackle the issue, as I said earlier, is through the joint work of the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the voluntary organisations concerned with the particular type of special need, to establish what needs to be done right across the country.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I broadly welcome the statement, and I am delighted that for the first time there will be a focus on the special needs of all our children.
Will the Secretary of State consider training more specialist teachers, in addition to raising the skills of the very committed band in our special schools at present? May we have an assurance that this strategy will be applied to Northern Ireland as soon as possible? Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to further provision for those children with special needs who are no longer in the group requiring compulsory education?
Mr. Clarke: We have thought about the last point. It is a very difficult problem, which is why we refer throughout the document to the need for proper transition planning. The fact is that many people of school age have a reasonable degree of support, which suddenly goes away when they exceed that age. I take that point completely, and we focus on it in the document.
1438
Secondly, I am ready to discuss with colleagues from Northern Ireland how to establish the principles in the document for Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about training specialists, but I would make one point in qualification. I have seen much evidence that for many special needs a substantial way to attack the problem is to achieve a much wider range of understanding about how to deal with them, both in teachers and non-teaching staff in schools. That is a question not just of the specialist, important though it is; it is a question of getting some level of general understanding of the issue among everyone who works with children with special needs.
Clive Efford: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that it will only have an effect if it not only involves parents but informs them about their children's rights, thereby empowering them? Many teachers throughout the country are coping with children with mild forms of educational disability, with few resources at their disposal. By directing resources to those areas, especially to early intervention, the bigger problems that can develop, which can be more costly and more time-consuming to deal with later on, can be alleviated or completely avoided. Not only should we put resources into the classroom to assist those teachers, but we should address the skills shortage. Many people with language and learning disability skills are much needed in those schools to help the teachers to address those problems at an early stage.
Mr. Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about three things: first, the parent relationship is crucial—it requires more work all the time, which is what we have to establish; secondly, the partnership between the professions is crucial—for example, between speech therapists, teachers and so on; and, thirdly, a general higher level of skills across the whole work force is very important.
By the way, I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in praising the work done by those who work in this area, but they would be the first to say that the more support they can have, the better they can fulfil their responsibilities.
Andrew Selous: May I ask the Secretary of State to share with the House the views and experience of his Department about the appropriateness of caring for children with special educational needs in very small schools? I speak particularly of primary and lower schools. Is it his view or experience that there is sometimes a critical mass of numbers of children in a school whereby children with special educational needs receive more appropriate care?
Mr. Clarke: I do not think that I do agree. I have seen some very small schools that have done very well for children with special educational needs, and one cannot generalise about this issue. I certainly accept that some needs might be so difficult for a school to deal with that one has to look at them differently. So I come back to my remarks to the hon. Member for Westmorland and

1439
Lonsdale in saying that there is a question of local judgment about what is available and how to deal with it, but I would not seek to be prescriptive in any way, by saying that certain types of school cannot handle it or that a certain type of school has to do things in a certain way. Local judgment, based on real professionalism, has to be used.
Roger Casale: I welcome the statement and my right hon. Friend's determination to root out inconsistency in service provision between different local authorities. Will he confirm that one of the services that he will look at is the provision of safe transportation between home and school for children with special educational needs? I have drawn attention to such shortcomings in my area that may be widespread. Will he also ensure that effective remedial action will be taken where his own Department's guidelines or standards that he lays down are not being met, and that he will have powers to ensure that services improve, so that safe transportation can be provided in the future?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has worked very hard on that issue, and I pay respect to him. The fact is that a very high proportion—sometimes as high as two thirds—of a local authority school transport budget goes on transport for children with special educational needs, so very big issues need to be addressed. I agree that we need efficiency in that area. I hope that the draft Bill that we are talking about will enable people to consider more carefully how to get high-quality transport, but I take the point.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State mentioned early intervention and involvement with voluntary organisations. Is he aware of West Norfolk Dyspraxia, which is doing an excellent job, especially with early intervention? However, because of recent cuts in Norfolk Children's Fund, it will either have to close completely or greatly reduce the help that it can give to those children. What advice can he give to West Norfolk Dyspraxia and the many other groups that are helping with autistic, dyspraxic and Aspergic children, who will be hit very hard by those cuts?
Mr. Clarke: I am familiar with that organisation; it has written to me directly as another Norfolk Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and I are looking very closely at children's fund issues because we acknowledge that they are of a type that the hon. Gentleman describes, and I hope that we will be able shortly to say things that will be of assistance.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I join in the general welcome for the statement and particularly in the congratulations given to all the teachers and assistants involved in that world? I have the good fortune to have a particularly fine school in my constituency: Northcote—a beacon school for training and teaching children. However, one of the things that has come out in all the exchanges is parents' sense that they are coming up against a brick wall. They feel that they are not told the truth by officials, who are curbed by
1440
financial constraints that they are not prepared to talk about and they therefore find excuses. Very often, parents arrange private consultations with psychiatrists and psychologists, putting them to a great deal of expense, but that affects only those who can afford to do so. A lot of people simply do not understand, and there is a real need for some sort of independent advice outside the administration of special educational needs, so that parents can feel that they are properly considered and that time is being given. Some parents see their children only getting an hour of speech therapy, when they feel that they need far more than that, as well as better training and so on.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right in the concerns that he expresses. He is also right that the people who have the resources to do so will pursue whatever avenue they can to get the advice that sets up what they feel is the right course of action. I also agree that an independent source of advice is needed, although the tribunal system offers that to an extent at the moment. That is perhaps a last resort, but I will consider how we might improve things. I come back to my earlier answers: the relationships with parents must involve candour at the beginning and early intervention as quickly as possible to deal with the issues. That is the best way forward in my view.
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the Secretary of State's desire to raise expectations and achievement because, for far too long, we have been faced with the attitude of local education authorities saying "This will do", rather than "How can we do the best for our children?" Does he share my concern that the biggest barrier locally to pupils achieving is the lack of speech therapists and occupational therapists? What is he doing and what conversations is he having with his colleagues in the Department of Health to address that problem?
Mr. Clarke: As I said in my statement, the position across the country both on the professions, such as the therapists whom the hon. Lady describes, and on other things is very variable and patchy. So we are seeking, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with whom we are talking about the issue, to analyse precisely where the shortages are, what needs to be done and how to develop programmes to move in that direction, and we will continue to do that jointly.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I, too, warmly welcome today's statement. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that when a mother gives birth to a child with a handicap, it is crucial that the first professional person to advise that mother gives the correct advice? At the time of birth, the degree of the handicap is not known. There have been examples throughout the country where professional advice has been given to a mother when the degree of handicap is not known and the mother has been guided to send the child to mainstream education, although at the end of the day a special school is the only answer to meet that child's need.
Mr. Clarke: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the document that we published today

1441
focuses on the need to raise standards of professionalism at all levels. The quality of the advice that mothers and fathers get in such circumstances is critical. Of course, a lot is unknown at any given point, but what is needed is the best advice on the basis of what is known. We must work to improve the quality of that advice. Again, that is a question of the joined-up approach that I am describing between health and education. We need to ensure also that parents receive consistent advice from different sources that is genuinely high quality throughout. That is exactly what the document is designed to encourage.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I greatly welcome the Secretary of State's good intentions this afternoon, particularly his recognition of the importance of early intervention. Given that recognition, will he take steps to ensure that teacher-training colleges give at least basic minimum training in special needs to every teacher? Often, it is in the early years at primary school that problems are identified, and if a primary school teacher does not have that ability, the problem is left too late, whereas it could be dealt with much earlier. The Secretary of State recognises Baroness Warnock's criticism of the system that she helped to set up many years ago. Will he also undertake to come back and look at this matter in perhaps a year's time, when the system that he talks about today has bedded down, as he wants it to do?
Mr. Clarke: To respond to the hon. Lady's second point first, I will undertake to keep on looking at that matter as necessary, but I do not want to put a time scale on the process. I think that she will acknowledge that establishing the kind of ambitious system that we have outlined will take some time. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) earlier, parental confidence is critical in reviewing the matter to which the hon. Lady referred. We need to be sure that parents feel confident in the system as it is now, before we start to review people's entitlements.
On the hon. Lady's first point, I can confirm, as I said in my statement, that the Teacher Training Agency and teaching providers are considering initial teacher training and continuing professional development to see how we can improve the general quality of the professionalism that teachers have from the outset.
Jeff Ennis: I welcome today's statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of special educational needs co-ordinators is vital in delivering special education provision in every school in this country? How will today's statement assist SENCOs in that key role?
Mr. Clarke: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to say that the role of SENCOs is essential. We plan to assist them in three different ways. First, SENCOs should have better access than exists now to a network of professionals working in different fields, including social services, health, mental health and educational resources. Secondly, SENCOs should be able to access better quality material of various kinds,
1442
as I announced in my statement, so that they can point the teachers in their school to the resources that they need to deal with the issues that they are involved in. Thirdly, as I have described, SENCOs must be able to liaise more effectively with other schools, through the schools' collaboration, to see how progress is being made. On that matter more than any other, everyone will benefit from a strong cross-fertilisation of professionalism and advice. That is precisely what we seek to encourage.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the publication of the strategy, but echo the comments that other hon. Members have made about the lack of therapy support for children with special needs. There can be nothing more frustrating for a parent than to have a statement that suggests the level of therapy support that is required, when that support is not available. Will the Secretary of State co-operate with his colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to develop a national strategy for the recruitment of more occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists, to ensure that those children receive the level of therapy support that they require, and that that is consistent throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Clarke: I have two points on that. First, the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) will be participating in the discussion, and she is committed, as is the Northern Ireland Government, to establishing the kind of coherent approach that the hon. Gentleman has set out. I am sure that she will discuss with political colleagues in Northern Ireland how that can best be done. Secondly, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about therapy, but I want to emphasise one point that I have not emphasised before. Teachers and teaching assistants can play a therapeutic role, even if not to a full professional level, if we can provide them with more training and support. That is precisely what we are doing. We need to improve the skills and increase the amount of support that adults can offer to children in those circumstances, at all levels. That is not a full answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but it should help a little.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Secretary of State's aspirations are laudable and I share them entirely. Does he agree, however, that autistic children, in particular, need continuity of contact with carers and classroom assistants, and that chopping and changing does not do?
In an isolated community such as mine, which has to provide economically from a base of only 130,000 people, many more children have to board to get special educational needs support than in most constituencies. Will he look at the additional costs of that provision for my local authority?
Mr. Clarke: I shall look at that latter point. I am not aware of anything that I can say on it now, but I am prepared to commit to looking at it.

1443
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I agree that consistency is absolutely vital in this matter. I hope that this strategy will enable better consistency, in terms of both a consistent approach among different professions and, as he implied, consistency over time.
Dr. John Pugh: I should like to press the Minister on the part of his statement that mentioned improving the regional planning of provision and reducing reliance on high-cost, often private, placements. There is nothing in the statement about consortiums of local authorities seeking to collaborate to bring down the costs of provision on an area basis. Is that an omission, or is such collaboration implied in the statement?
Mr. Clarke: I am subject to correction on this, but I think that that is in the document. It is certainly implied, and we are in favour of developing the kind of cooperation that the hon. Gentleman describes. That returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) earlier. We need a planned approach, and must look at particular special needs and how we deal with them on a regional and national basis. The framework that we have set out in the document enables us to address such questions.

Special Educational Needs
  BILL PRESENTED
    PENSIONS
    Mr. Secretary Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Malcolm Wicks and Mr. Chris Pond, presented a Bill to make provision relating to pensions and financial planning for retirement and provision relating to entitlement to bereavement payments, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 12 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 57].

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Audits)
2.6 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the audits of regulatory impact assessments.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made an admirable proposal, which was designed to address the problem of the gold-plating of European directives and legislation as they affect small businesses, charities and voluntary organisations in this country. That proposal was to provide those organisations with a right of appeal where legislation goes beyond the requirements of the original directive. This week, I propose to address a different aspect of the same problem, which is widely recognised on both sides of the House: the over-regulation, including burdensome regulation and regulation accumulated over time, that affects not only businesses but charities and voluntary organisations.
My proposal is to provide for regulatory impact assessments to be externally audited to ensure that they are objective, properly prepared and rigorously analysed, and to ensure that, under some circumstances, they can be post-audited once the legislation is in place and operating, to assess whether the original assessment of cost and benefit was accurate. My proposals have the support of the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, many voluntary organisations and many right hon. and hon. Members.
It is generally accepted that there is a problem with the accumulation of regulation in this country. There is not necessarily a problem with each individual piece of regulation; it is very hard to find items of regulation that need to be repealed. However, it is a chronic difficulty of government that we have a machine that produces more and more legislation and an archaeology of decades of legislation that are never removed. As a consequence, the burden on small businesses, organisations and individuals grows and never diminishes. All the efforts of successive better regulation taskforces have failed to do anything other than toothpick away at an effective avalanche of new controls.
The British Chambers of Commerce has estimated, based on calculations using RIAs, that £20 billion of extra cost was placed on organisations in this country between 1998 and 2003. That is not a wild overestimate; it is probably a wild underestimate, because the figure is arrived at by simply adding up the Government's own estimates of cost. Their estimate of the cost is £20 billion, but it is almost universally accepted, including in many quarters of the Government, that on some occasions those costs have been underestimated. It is also true that there may sometimes have been an underestimate of benefits. For example, environmental organisations would claim that many of the benefits of environmental legislation are not properly understood.
They may well have a fair point. However, the point is that regulatory impact assessments are the profit and loss accounts—the budget—for legislation.

1445
Regulatory impact assessments assess, in so far as it is possible to quantify such matters, the cost and the benefit of any legislation. They provide information that should be relied on by Ministers and policy makers in assessing whether the legislation is warranted and what form it should take. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has addressed this problem in a foreword to a glossy pamphlet that I have, in which he says:
"In particular, I want to stress that a regulatory impact assessment is not an add-on to the policy process. It is an integral part of the advice that goes to Ministers."
He is right, but it is also fair to say that it forms an integral part of the advice that comes to the House. Members are entitled to rely on a regulatory impact assessment when assessing the costs and benefits of a Bill, and entitled to believe that it has been rigorously and objectively prepared, without bias and without fear or favour.
The reality, however, is that regulatory impact assessments are notoriously superficial. They are prepared by the same officials who cooked up the legislation in the first place, and the tensions that will arise from that are obvious to anyone. Let us imagine a situation in which a Bill is put forward in the Queen's Speech and a regulatory impact assessment is subsequently prepared—this happens in many cases—that turns out to be unfavourable. It is inconceivable that the assessment would go forward, signed by Ministers, in that form.
There is therefore pressure on everyone to prepare a calculation that ignores many of the costs involved and exaggerates the benefits. That is exactly what will happen under a Government of any complexion. It is the history of these matters. In consequence, regulatory impact assessments lack credibility in the House—it is remarkable how rarely they are referred to in the course of debates—and in the outside world they are regarded with total cynicism. That can be added to the cynicism with which small businesses and voluntary organisations view the whole process of legislation and the activities of the House.
I do not seek to make this a partisan issue, but it is true that the Conservatives probably place greater weight on it than do those on the Labour Benches. However, the Government have made efforts to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. The problem has been recognised on both sides of the House. The Cabinet Office has produced a nice glossy brochure on how to prepare a regulatory impact assessment. It is rather like a DIY manual. I welcome it; it is full of good, sensible advice and nice flow charts showing when to start, and so on. That is entirely reasonable. We have also had seminars on regulatory impact assessments for parliamentarians. It is a perfectly reasonable idea to educate everyone in the House—as though it were somehow our fault—as to what regulatory impact assessments are meant to do and how they are produced. Unfortunately, this has not made any difference.
The Social Market Foundation says exactly that. It states that
"there is little evidence that quality has improved."
1446
It goes on to say something that I think will ring true for both the Government and the Opposition, which is that
"in the UK and Brussels they"—
regulatory impact assessments—
"are regarded as a chore".
I have no doubt that that is the case for both Ministers and officials. It goes on to say that regulatory impact assessments are
"in most cases to be produced grudgingly, once a decision has already been taken, and therefore crafted with as little information as possible and as narrowly as possible."
That rings true every time we scrutinise the way in which a regulatory impact assessment has been prepared and who has been consulted. That is why purported consultees say that they were not properly consulted, and that they do not support the legislation as a result. It is therefore not surprising that we have a chronic problem. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the quantification of costs and benefits is patchy, and that 60 per cent. of respondents to its survey believe that the consultation process operates poorly.
I want to refer to two examples in the brief time available to me. The Care Standards Act 2000 had a regulatory impact assessment of £116 million. However, industry estimates conservatively put the cost at £400 million, because many of the costs involved were not taken into account, including the incremental costs—not least to the health service—of the closure of care homes. It is quite clear that that underestimate involved a quantum leap. The estimate relating to the legislation extending the working time directive for junior doctors was ludicrously set under the regulatory impact assessment at £23 million. The NHS pilot schemes alone have already cost £63 million, according to the Government. The total cost to the NHS will run to hundreds of millions. That estimate was therefore born of total negligence. It is a complete misrepresentation of the effects of the provisions, and that must have been apparent at the time.
That is why we need to introduce a form of external validation of regulatory impact assessments to restore confidence in the process. We need to apply to Government the same standards of rigour as we would expect private organisations to apply when dealing with their shareholders and customers. We need to restore objectivity and ensure that both the benefits and the costs are properly assessed. We also need to ensure that a thorough and fair view is given to Members in the House and to the public at large, regardless of the nature of the legislation and of the time required or the extent of the political pressures involved.
The external audit need not be an onerous requirement. Of course it will cost some money, but it will be a matter of spending millions of pounds that could save hundreds of millions subsequently. Such measures would bring back credibility, honesty and transparency to the system, and restore the faith of small businesses, charities and voluntary organisations in the Government and in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archie Norman, Mr. John Maples, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. Francis Maude, Sir George Young, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. William Hague, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Audits)
  REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (AUDITS) BILL
  Mr. Archie Norman accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the audits of regulatory impact assessments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed [Bill 54].

Northern Ireland
2.17 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
The order appoints 25 February 2005 as the date before which the amnesty period must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme. The amnesty provides immunity from prosecution for the offences that might be committed during the decommissioning process. Most of the offences set out in the 1997 Act relate to possession, but others concern offences which may stem from a person's participation in decommissioning, not necessarily centred on the weapons involved, but on the behaviour which may accompany participation. such as the withholding of information, or making arrangements with terrorists.
Section 2 of the 1997 Act, as amended by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act 2002, requires that a scheme must identify the amnesty period and that it must end before 27 February 2007. The purpose of this order is to extend that period until midnight on 24 February next year. The Government want to see the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons as soon as possible. This order is a vital part of the process of delivering on that.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: We have been sitting here since 1997 waiting for the decommissioning of arms. Will the Minister explain exactly why we now need another year? Is there any evidence of good faith from any terrorist organisation, be it loyalist or republican?
Jane Kennedy: The decommissioning process was established under the hon. Gentleman's Government in 1995. Indeed, General de Chastelain has been committed to working on it all through that time. It is clear that we must continue to encourage decommissioning. If we are serious about paramilitaries giving up their weapons, we need to will the means to make that happen. The order does that.
Since the amnesty provisions were renewed last spring, there has been a further act of decommissioning by the provisional IRA. We debated at length the veracity of that act. On 21 October last year, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported witnessing that third IRA decommissioning event, in which weapons were put beyond use. The commission reported that the arms comprised light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions, and included automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive matériel. It also stated that the quantity of arms involved was larger than what was put beyond use in the previous event. That would not have been possible without these amnesty provisions.
David Burnside: At the time of that act of decommissioning, the Prime Minister appeared to have information about the amount of arms, ammunition and explosives that was handed over. Will the Minister tell the House what that information was?
Jane Kennedy: I dealt with that repeatedly at the time. I shall not go back over old ground—we have had that debate. The fact is that arms were put aside, and General de Chastelain and Andrew Sens made it clear that the weapons that were decommissioned were significant, and that many lives were saved when they were put aside. That is important, and it is something that the House should encourage.
Naturally, the Government regret that it is necessary to continue to have such provisions at all. We understand the concerns that have been raised, but it is absolutely clear that, without them, the process of decommissioning that we all want would not be possible.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention so quickly. Would she accept that no matter how often General de Chastelain tells the community in Northern Ireland how significant an act of decommissioning is, such acts are rendered meaningless for many people by the anonymity and confidentiality clauses? What can she say about ensuring that no confidentiality provision should be invoked for a further act of decommissioning? [Interruption.] I apologise for the interruptions from the sidelines on this Bench.
Jane Kennedy: I acknowledged at the time of the previous decommissioning event that it was not sufficient to sustain confidence that the provisional IRA was committed to entirely peaceful means. In a way, we have almost moved beyond the question of arms decommissioning. We now demand of paramilitary organisations that they must put an end to many other activities. Those activities have been listed many times, and the hon. Lady will be aware of them. Training, the procurement of weapons and the targeting of individuals still go on, as do so-called paramilitary-style beatings and shootings of young men in and around Northern Ireland. People continue to be exiled by paramilitary organisations. All those activities must come to an end, and it is right to say that the debate has moved on and now focuses on them.
As I have said, the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is only one element—although a vital one—in the process of taking violence out of politics in Northern Ireland for good. The Government remain committed to securing genuine acts of completion from all paramilitary organisations, so that we can see the restoration of confidence, and thereby of stable and inclusive Government in Northern Ireland, as soon as possible.
I emphasise that we want decommissioning to be undertaken by all paramilitary groups, both loyalist and republican. We also call on those groups outside the peace process to engage with the decommissioning body
1450
to bring about full decommissioning, because we want to see an end to all paramilitary activity and to stem the rise of the mafia-like culture that threatens to replace it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jane Kennedy: I thought that that might prompt one or two responses. I give way first to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that, at this stage of the process, it might be useful to establish some sort of hierarchy of acts of completion? Would not decommissioning be pretty near the bottom of that hierarchy, compared with the beatings and exiles enforced by paramilitaries?
Jane Kennedy: It would be difficult to draw up a hierarchy such as that, and to tell people targeted by a paramilitary organisation that that was less unacceptable than any other form of paramilitary activity. The fact is that all paramilitary organisations should desist and disband: there is no room for them in a democratic Northern Ireland.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Minister said that paramilitary and terrorist groups should engage with the international decommissioning body. Will she say which paramilitary organisations are engaged with that body at the moment?
Jane Kennedy: I do not want to give the wrong figures on this. The decommissioning body is engaged with some paramilitary organisations, but not all—or enough—of them. However, I shall come back to the question later, as I do not want to get the details wrong.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Decommissioning is one half of the equation, and the other is commissioning. Does the Minister have any evidence that the acquisition of weapons from other countries by paramilitary organisations has ceased totally? Have she or her colleagues had any discussions with the Libyan Government about the traditional link between that country and the IRA?
Jane Kennedy: First, it is clear that paramilitary organisations continue to arm themselves. They do so by a variety of means, and they use the weapons that they procure for a range of activities—for terrorist purposes, for controlling their communities, and for criminal activity. There is therefore evidence that they continue to be well armed.
On the second point raised by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I refer him to the answer that I gave at Northern Ireland questions earlier. I said that I expected that the discussions between the British and Libyan Governments would touch on the supply in the past of weapons to the IRA. I am sure that any information that we were able to obtain from that source would be enormously helpful to all of us.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the commitment, perseverance and integrity of General John de Chastelain and his colleagues at the IICD. It is sobering to note that the general's personal commitment

1451
to the process dates back to 1995, when the original group was established under the previous, Conservative Government. I want to express my thanks to them all for what they have achieved in the process to date.
The decommissioning process has begun. It may not be swift enough, but it has begun. We want it to continue and we want it to be completed, so it is essential that we continue to provide immunity from prosecution for those involved.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I do not expect the Minister to have the answer to my question at her fingertips, but I hope that an answer can be given later in the debate. There is a feeling in the community that the existence of provisions such as this order allows the police to stand back from doing the job of seizing weapons and of having them decommissioned in that way. What amount of weaponry has been seized by the security forces as a result of searches since the Belfast agreement process got under way? How does that figure compare with the amount seized in a similar period before the agreement was reached?
Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that I might not have the relevant information to hand. I shall see what I can produce before the debate ends. However, I strongly refute the notion that the police are holding back from looking for and seizing illegal weapons. I know that they have had success as recently as last week or the week before, when they stopped a vehicle in Belfast that contained a rifle and other ammunition. They are to be commended for the actions that they take, because they are dealing with organised, well resourced and disciplined groups of dangerous people. The police undertake a difficult and dangerous task, and I know that all hon. Members support them in that.
Let me quickly answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). I remind him that I have been talking about the involvement of the Provisional IRA and the decommissioning event that took place on 21 October, so there is engagement with the commission by the Provisional IRA. Indeed, last year, the Loyalist Commission, along with Ulster Defence Association representatives, met the IICD, so there continues to be engagement. It is not as rigorous as we would want, and the process is not as swift as we would want, but there is engagement.
I remind the House that if decommissioning is to take place, we need to provide immunity from prosecution for those involved. We do that through the order, and I thus commend it to the House.
2.29 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I regret the necessity to have the debate and to renew the order because, as the Minister pointed out, that very fact means that the decommissioning process is still far from complete despite all the high hopes on both sides of the House back in 1997 and 1998. I believe, as I shall enlarge upon later, that the Government cannot escape a share of the blame for the failure to complete the work of decommissioning. However, I must accept where we are. In making a judgment about the order, it is better to have a decommissioning system—however imperfect it
1452
is—than for no such system to be available. For that reason, I shall not seek to divide the House at the conclusion of the debate.
We are nearly six years on from a referendum in Northern Ireland during which people believed, and were encouraged to believe, that decommissioning would start in that year and be completed at some stage during 2000. It is nearly four years since the Provisional IRA made a statement on 7 May 2000 in which that terrorist organisation promised to put its weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, and to do so in such a way as to maximise public confidence. The pledge was pretty clear, but it has not been kept. Although I am not uncritical of some decisions that Ministers have taken, I make it clear that the official Opposition's view is that responsibility for the failure to decommission weapons and explosives clearly lies with the terrorist arid paramilitary groups that hold those stocks of weapons and maintain private armies.
I acknowledge the difficulties faced by Ministers and the uncertainty of the information on which they have had to base judgments about their policies in Northern Ireland over the past few years. However, Ministers have at times thrown away some of the strongest cards that they had available to achieve the decommissioning of weapons and to bring about an end to paramilitary activity. The most obvious example was the early release of terrorist prisoners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), the then Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, moved amendments to the Bill that became the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 that would have linked prisoner releases explicitly to the terms of the promises that the Prime Minister made to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign in 1998.
That was perhaps the most egregious example of Government misjudgment, but a further example is the special status given in Westminster to Members from Sinn Fein who refuse to take their seats. We had the proposed amnesty, which at least is now held in abeyance, for terrorists who were on the run. However, where do we go from here?
Lembit Öpik: I know the views that the hon. Gentleman holds and respect his right to differ from my position. However, would he at least entertain the possibility that many of those events were matters of judgment, rather than principle? For example, when it came to giving office space in Parliament, my feeling was that bringing Sinn Fein closely into the peaceful parliamentary process would put increasing pressure on it to ensure that the paramilitaries would stay in line.
Mr. Lidington: I accept that those were matters for judgment, as the hon. Gentleman said. My argument to him and others is that, at the time the decisions were taken, there was considerable debate and a division of opinion in the House over the merits of the judgment that the Government, with the hon. Gentleman's support, made. I would argue with no sense of glee but with deep regret that what has happened has vindicated the judgment of those of us who felt at the time that we were granting concessions to republican militants without any certainty that they would deliver on the

1453
pledges to disarm and to end paramilitary activity that they entered into at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 established a framework for decommissioning before either the democratic parties in Northern Ireland or the paramilitary organisations had agreed to any targets or timetables. Those targets came in later, following the Belfast agreement and the establishment of the two-year time frame. So, first, we need a firm sense from the Government that there will be targets and timetables, and that the Government will exert all the pressure they can on paramilitary organizations—republican and loyalist alike—not just to decommission their weapons within a clear time scale, but to cease all paramilitary activity and to dismantle the organisations of terrorism. If those bodies or their political representatives are being honest with us all in saying that they are now committed to constitutional politics arid to exclusively democratic and peaceful means, they have no need of private armies or stocks of weapons and explosives.
Secondly, we need greater transparency. I do not propose to revisit in detail what happened in October, but it is clear that the absence of transparency has led to very widespread mistrust among the majority community in Northern Ireland of the good faith of the republican organisations. I do not know whether the three acts of decommissioning by the IRA so far have diminished its net stock of weaponry, because we do not know to what extent it has been adding to its armouries at the same time. The requirement for confidentiality is not written into primary legislation. My understanding is that that is part of the subsequent decommissioning scheme—the terms of which were negotiated between the present Government and their counterparts in the Irish Republic. It is time that the terms of that scheme, at least in respect of confidentiality, were reviewed. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has such action in mind, and what her assessment is of the views of the Dublin Government about the prospect of greater transparency in the decommissioning process.
Thirdly and finally, we must explicitly link participation in the government of Northern Ireland with the cessation of paramilitary activity and organisation. The Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, has said trenchantly and repeatedly that political parties that are linked to private armies are not fit to serve in a governing coalition in the Irish Republic. We should adopt the same principle in the United Kingdom as that already followed by our European neighbours. That principle, which is good enough for Dublin, should apply in Belfast as well.
2.39 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: There will be very few in the House—in fact, none—who would not welcome the total decommissioning of weaponry and the disbandment of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the same sentiment would apply to the people of Northern Ireland, except to those who have the weapons. There are two reasons for the political stalemate in Northern Ireland. First, attempts to end paramilitarism, both
1454
loyalist and republican, have failed and, secondly, some parties have failed to commit themselves unambiguously to the democratic power-sharing institutions endorsed by the referendums of 1998.
Decommissioning was negotiated into the Good Friday agreement, and was agreed by the parties and endorsed by the public. It is therefore an essential part of that agreement and is important to those participating under its auspices. It is not an optional extra that democracy or the people can afford to lose. At this stage of our political evolution, decommissioning is a demonstrably significant part of the required commitment to peaceful politics that, in turn, are necessary to secure trust between participating parties and communities so that we can achieve progress and make our institutions and Administration permanent. The problem with decommissioning is that, however we legislate for it, it is voluntary. It cannot be compelled under the terms of the agreement, but the police retain powers to seize illegal arms and weaponry.
In response to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), there is a feeling, without any evidence or proof, that people are going soft on taking weapons and ammunition out of circulation. Either that is the case or there is a severe lack of intelligence—that point must be underscored. None the less, decommissioning is a voluntary exercise, and it is difficult to enforce. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 provided a mechanism to facilitate decommissioning that was independent of Government and had such a standing that it was accepted by the public, who had confidence in it. Reference has been made to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning under the leadership of General de Chastelain and the need for more transparency and less secrecy. The purpose of that body was to secure the trust of Government and the community in an independent international body, as it was known full well that decommissioning was not possible in practice if the people who were decommissioning weapons were exposed to the public eye—decommissioning under those conditions is just an idle wish. My party therefore had every confidence that the commission would act on our behalf and ensure that there was proper and meaningful decommissioning.
The primary responsibility remains, as I have said, with those who hold the weapons, although they have not excelled themselves in the five or six years since the agreement. In fact, their contribution, as we have just heard, has consisted of three acts of decommissioning. although the Minister will assure us that the last one in October was a substantive, meaningful decommissioning of light and heavy armaments. Decommissioning must be conducted in such a way that a report by the international commission can be produced to end the mistrust that has arisen. Such decommissioning can only be done by the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, who have the bombs, guns and weapons, and know where they are. We need meaningful dialogue to make such decommissioning imperative under the terms of the 1997 Act.
It is important that the process to re-establish the institutions in Northern Ireland, whether in the north, south, east or west, takes place as quickly as possible.

1455
That is the only way in which to pressurise the voluntary—much as I hate using that word—act that decommissioning has to be. It must be made imperative, for credibility purposes, that the paramilitaries do it. There is an obscene situation on the island of Ireland, both north and south, whereby two sovereign Governments have in their midst a paramilitary army that is fully equipped and operating within their jurisdictions. That cannot, and never should be, acceptable in any democratic institution. It behoves both Governments to pay a great deal more attention to, and thereby to place pressure on, these paramilitaries to perform to normal civilised democratic standards.
The Minister referred not only to decommissioning, but to the other elements of paramilitary activity—extortion, protection rackets, drugs and all the rest of it. She will need to take into consideration a new element—what are euphemistically called the agencies of restorative justice, which is another name for thugs carrying out kangaroo court action in our communities. It is surprising that elected Assembly Members of other parties are now instructing victims of crime in my community, including old people, not to report them to the police under any circumstances, but instead to address the issue to so-called restorative justice bodies. If that becomes endemic, we will, as I have warned time and again in this House, have fascism exploding in our community. I should like to think that the Minister who is responsible for security and justice would pay more careful attention to what is happening on the ground as regards so-called punishment beatings and so-called restorative justice.
For those reasons, and to support the political process, my party will endorse the continuation of the order.
2.47 pm
Lembit Öpik: On 11 February 2003, the Minister said:
"We cannot now carry on with the IRA being half in and half out of the process towards peaceful and normal society in Northern Ireland. If there is real movement, however, we can move quickly to implement the outstanding parts of the Belfast agreement, including the provisions on normalisation. We can implement the provisions in their entirety—not in stages, but together. If we can do that, it is my fervent hope that I shall not be standing here at the Dispatch Box this time next year speaking to the same motion."—[Official Report, 11 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 832.]
We are here 12 months to the day after she made those remarks. Others, including me, made similar hopeful comments, but sadly we seem to be living in a groundhog day environment where we discuss this same piece of legislation every year.
In the euphoria following the Good Friday agreement, there was clearly an expectation that decommissioning could occur by the latest date set down in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. However, as it has taken almost that long to achieve the beginning of decommissioning, it will take longer to achieve total decommissioning. Logically, therefore, the amnesty must be extended.
It is worth remembering that this process goes all the way back to 27 February 1997, before this Government were even in office. It is not a failure—perhaps that is too strong a word—of a party, but a failing of our
1456
Parliament as a whole that we have not found a way to cause the paramilitaries to feel the need to decommission.
The step of decommissioning weapons was a long time coming, and it is impossible to overestimate the significance of the moves that have already taken place. It has always been recognised that decommissioning is a process—no one ever expected the IRA to decommission all its weapons at once. We had some almost comical debates as we imagined large articulated lorries turning up with massive amounts of munitions all in one go. That was not going to happen, so we always expected the process to be staged. However, the Good Friday agreement mentions the total disarmament of all paramilitary groups, for which we obviously aim.
Although the decommissioning that took place before the elections last year was welcome and significant, as yet we are nowhere near the total decommissioning that we all support. At the time, it felt to me—and, I am sure, to others—that some decommissioning was prompted by political expediency because Sinn Fein felt compromised by other matters around the world and revelations about the IRA, and that it responded to the pressure through acts of decommissioning. Nevertheless, the IRA must recognise that, by holding on to its weapons, it is holding matters up in Northern Ireland and working against the interests of the communities for which it claims to fight. The same must also be said of loyalist paramilitaries. We cannot focus solely on the IRA.
That leads to my first question. Has contact taken place between the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and any of the loyalist paramilitary groups? Incidences of loyalist violence are increasing and we cannot expect genuine dialogue on loyalist decommissioning while such violence continues. However, we are aiming to achieve the total decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons.
Secondly, if the interaction between the IICD and the paramilitary organisations is unsatisfactory, what leverage can the Minister apply to the paramilitary organisations and some of their political representatives to make them understand that they are harming their self-interest by not participating actively or more actively with the commission?
David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the result of the recent Assembly elections sent a clear and unambiguous message from the Unionist community in that only one Unionist representative linked to a terrorist paramilitary organisation was elected? The Unionist community said, "We don't want you on our backs; we don't want terrorism and we don't want paramilitary organisations." Unfortunately, a large section of the republican community voted for Sinn Fein, which still has its private army.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Without going into a detailed analysis of the outcome of the election, support for the Democratic Unionist party suggested some frustration with the process among former Ulster Unionist party voters, some of whom probably switched. The Government's postponement of the elections was

1457
counter-productive if they had hoped to assist one party or another. I do not believe that they had a strategy overtly to help the DUP to increase its numbers in the Assembly, though I stand to be corrected if that view is cynical.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so quickly. Does he accept that the Government threw away their major leverage over the republican movement by granting the elections last October? It is a great shame that his party and its sister party in Northern Ireland accepted that decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is democracy."] With the greatest respect to others who sit on this Bench, could I please finish? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must not have sedentary interventions when an hon. Member is addressing the House.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being rescued.
How does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government can now pressurise or apply any leverage to the republican movement to decommission its weapons? I am sorry that his party supported holding elections last autumn.
Lembit Öpik: One word comes to mind in defence of holding the elections: democracy. However much we may like or dislike an outcome, using the date of an election in Northern Ireland to try to achieve a specific result is an unsatisfactory strategy. I sometimes also find it frustrating that the Prime Minister can choose the date of general elections. We must clarify whether the Government achieved the opposite of what they hoped by postponing the elections. I said just that in this Chamber when the postponement was announced early in 2003.
My second point, which brings me back to what I wanted to say, is that the biggest pressure in favour of decommissioning by the paramilitary organisations is the political opportunity presented to Sinn Fein, republicans and loyalist paramilitaries through their political representatives. It is perfectly obvious that were there a significant resumption of violence, for example, by the IRA, Sinn Fein would pay a heavy price for it, and the same is true on the loyalist paramilitary side.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that since the Democratic Unionist party became the largest party in our democracy on 26 November, no concessions have been given to Sinn Fein-IRA?
Lembit Öpik: I can see where the hon. Lady is going with that comment, and I accuse her of being a little cheeky in trying to take the credit for her party on that basis. I shall leave it to her and her colleagues to explain why they feel that that they have had such a significant influence.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The cupboard was bare.
Lembit Öpik: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. The Government's cupboard
1458
of creativity, however, is almost infinite when they put their mind to it, so there may also be other reasons at play.
I am encouraged by the strategic approach taken by the Democratic Unionist party, because I believe and I certainly hope that the expanded DUP will now live up to the opportunity that it has in a democratic context to participate in the resumed Assembly in Northern Ireland. Although it may find it uncomfortable to consider that it may ultimately need to negotiate some kind of arrangement with Sinn Fein, in the context of today's discussion, that kind of dialogue increases significantly our chances of getting the kind of decommissioning that we want. As has been said previously, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. If people feel that genuine concessions have been made in the past, and they are frustrated by that, I simply point out that to a large extent the fortunes of Northern Ireland lie in the hands of the elected representatives.
Clearly decommissioning is therefore in part a consequence rather than a cause of what goes on in the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. It is therefore all the more frustrating that things are not in place and operational at the moment, not least because I seem to spend half my life in Statutory Instrument Committees. I enjoy the company of Ministers and Northern Ireland Members, but 8.55 in the morning is not my preferred time to sit discussing details of orders and so forth. I would prefer to be in my office preparing for government.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who intervened on me previously, also made an interesting comment on 11 February last year, when he intervened on the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who is sorely missed from the Conservative Front Bench, and asked:
"Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is verification? What does decommissioning or disbandment mean when there is no trust in the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland?"—[Official Report, 11 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 815.]
That will be an ongoing issue. I have flagged this up before, and I shall mention it again: one of the problems is that we will never know when full decommissioning has taken place unless we trust the word of the people who have the weapons. Even within that quotation, the lack of trust is evident. One imponderable for a Government of any colour is the fact that the decommissioning process requires a degree of trust that currently does not exist. That points once again to the need to have an effective political structure in which that trust is enhanced.
To respond briefly to what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said on behalf of the Conservatives, I ask myself the question: what would I do to try to generate trust? In the round, we must recognise that providing Sinn Fein with office space and some of the other changes that have been made were an effort to try to build trust between this place and those who probably exert significant influence on at least some paramilitary groups.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I should say that he agreed with me that whether those changes should be made was a matter of judgment; but as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I would probably have made similar decisions. The good news

1459
for the hon. Gentleman is that when he becomes Secretary of State in, say, 2035, he will not be faced with the same problems, because I will have solved them in the preceding Liberal Democrat Administration.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Surely we are not to be left to trust the paramilitary organisations on what they say their inventory of weapons and explosives may have been. We have intelligence services. The Prime Minister now has a new friend in Colonel Gaddafi, who I am sure will give him a full and frank disclosure of all the weaponry that he handed over to the IRA. Jane's Intelligence Review and a number of our leading quality newspapers have published details of the weaponry that is believed to be available to the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitary groups. We do not have to sit back and take their word for it when it comes to what their stockpile may constitute.
Lembit Öpik: I realise that dossiers on weapons are a sensitive issue for the Government, and the whole Iraq business has shown us that there will always be questions about what weapons are owned; but the hon. Gentleman has made a promising observation. If it transpires that the Democratic Unionist party and others could accept a baseline for what exists now, we may indeed have a better opportunity to determine when all that has gone. The hon. Gentleman may want to comment on that when he makes his own speech.
We do not believe that there is any place for illegally held weapons in a democratic society, and we have always called for full decommissioning by both loyalist and republican paramilitary groups. We have supported the progress made so far, but we always hoped that we would be further down the road to total decommissioning than we are now. We recognise that decommissioning is a process and that no paramilitary group will decommission all at once, but now that we have embarked on that process we cannot give the IRA, in particular, any reason not to decommission its weapons. That is why we will support the order.
3.2 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I speak as an English Member representing an English seat, who has never been subjected to the pressure to which Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House are regularly subjected, both on a personal level and in representing constituents. They have been shot at and had bombs aimed at them; they have lost relatives and loved ones. For that reason I will speak briefly. I will say, however, that I noted that the Liberal Democrats were preparing for government. Given that their contribution today lasted longer than those from the two main Front Benches, I think that should that day ever come theirs would certainly be a policy of jaw-jaw rather than war-war.
Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and address it to the Unionists in the House. We in government are lucky to have the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to present these measures year after year—for they will be presented year after year. She is not only one of our most able Members of Parliament, but one of our bravest. When we had our small problems on Merseyside—
1460
nothing compared with those in Northern Ireland—she was the first on her side of the river to stand up and declare her belief in the ballot box against some of the nasty practices that certain people were trying to inflict on our community in Liverpool and Birkenhead. I must ask this, however: what would happen, and what would change in Northern Ireland, if the paramilitaries—particularly the IRA—did actually agree with this policy and decommission? They have enough financial resources to replenish their arsenals quickly. I suggest that even if they were pushed to the point of being more open about decommissioning, it would make not an iota of difference. I also suggest that they will never do that. They did not do it in the 1920s, and that did not stop a basic form of peace from being established in the Province for more than 50 years.
Therefore, as the Unionist groups are now regrouping in Ulster, I make a plea to them. While it would clearly be enormously difficult to disengage themselves from the obvious agenda of demanding decommissioning, I suggest that another agenda should now take primacy over that. I do that for the reasons that I have just given: supposing the IRA did decommission, it could easily and most ably build up its arsenals, given its financial resources.
What would denote a real change of substance in Northern Ireland—nothing to do with the presentations of guns but the changing of people's hearts and minds—would be to ask those paramilitaries, but particularly the IRA, which is so near government in Northern Ireland, to change their policy on beatings and exclusions. That would be the real test of whether these people were democrats or not. Therefore, the plea I make to the Unionists of both groups is, please do not keep giving the IRA the excuse never to get on to an agenda that would test in the most effective way possible whether it is a changed creature or not.
Lady Hermon: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on the words of the Prime Minister of this country on 21 October last year:
"decommissioning is an important part of the process, because it's not merely that you are putting the actual weapons beyond use, but it has a symbolism, which is that it symbolises the desire to conduct politics only through peaceful means."
Will the right hon. Gentleman either disagree with his Prime Minister or accept that there is a symbolism and that it is hugely important to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Field: I am very fond of the Prime Minister but I would not necessarily go to the stake over all the statements that he has made. Above all, however, I make a plea to my hon. Friends on the other side of the Chamber: when can we expect those on the Unionist Benches to decouple themselves from whatever the Prime Minister wants, wishes, says or signs up to? The plea I am making today is for the brave representatives from Northern Ireland to start making their own agenda and not to have an English agenda foisted on them.
The one way that English voters would see that there was much more than an outward visible change and that that outward visible change had inward meaning would be if the IRA were challenged on its despicable policies of beatings and exclusions. Were it to respond to that

1461
challenge it would mean that it was putting aside the use of terror as a means of controlling many of their voters and many Unionist voters in Northern Ireland. That would suggest that there had been a fundamental change in the attitude of the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. That challenge is not made to them now because both sides, with the help of the Prime Minister, are still working according to the old agenda and rabbiting on that the need is to decommission.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Field: No, I am just finishing.
The paramilitaries will never agree to decommissioning. Why do we not get on to an agenda that is not only relevant to Ulster, but really challenges those paramilitaries effectively?
3.8 pm
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I appreciate the thoughtful contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I know the interest that he has taken in the plight of those who have been excluded from Northern Ireland and subjected to punishment attacks. We on this side of the House appreciate that. Nevertheless, this is about the presence of a private army, or a paramilitary organisation. It is one thing to deal with the symptoms of the problem—that is, exclusions, beatings and so on—but at the heart of the issue is dealing with the actual source of the problem itself. We have said clearly that there can be no place for a private army or a paramilitary organisation in a democratic society. Ultimately, that is the position that we are seeking to achieve.
That we are again in this House debating the extension of this order highlights the failure of the Government's policy. They have singularly failed to make any progress in removing all the illegally held arms from Northern Ireland. The Government would rather trade concession after concession to those who hold illegal weapons in some faint hope or aspiration that they might decommission. But the policy of appeasement has failed, and it is time for a fresh approach.
The Belfast agreement stated that decommissioning was to be completed within two years of its ratification. In 1999, when devolved institutions were established, the Prime Minister stated:
"Within weeks, they must actually decommission. The process is verified by an independent commission, headed by…General John de Chastelain. Decommissioning then continues up until May 2000. It then has to be certified as complete."
It is now February 2004, and we are nowhere near the completion of the decommissioning process. The difficulty with extending the amnesty provisions year after year is that we send the signal to the paramilitaries that we are in no hurry—that we will simply renew this provision annually, in the vain hope that some day, some year, they will deliver. That approach is folly.
1462
The Government have tried with their concessions. There was Weston Park, and then they gave offices in this House to Sinn Fein. They agreed to further concessions on policing, and to scale down the security infrastructure. Worst of all, they granted a commitment to an amnesty for so-called on-the-run terrorists. I am not sure that the Minister fully appreciates the hurt that the proposal has caused. I spoke just last evening to a lady who lost her husband as a result of the Enniskillen bombing. She rang me because she wanted to know what was happening about the amnesty for on-the-run terrorists, and to express her hurt and concern that the person who murdered her loved one and the others who died in that tragic incident might not undergo the full process of justice in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that next week, on 17 February, we mark the 26th anniversary of the IRA bombing of the La Mon House hotel, in my constituency, that the leader of the Belfast brigade at that time was none other than Gerry Adams, and that the victims and families of those who survived have demanded an independent public inquiry? To date, that demand has fallen on deaf ears. Does my hon. Friend agree that the direction that this Government are taking is questionable? A lot of patience and tolerance has been shown towards the terrorist, but there is no recognition of the hurt felt by the victims who demand public inquiries.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention. I commend her work in representing the views of the victims, especially those of the La Mon bombing. The difficulty is that the Government's approach has been to grant inquiries when it is a question of putting the police and the Army in the dock, but to avoid the need for inquiries when it is a question of putting the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association in the dock. Why? It is because their policy is to turn a blind eye to paramilitary violence and excesses.
It is time for that policy to end. It is time for a new approach, and that is what we in the Democratic Unionist party are advocating. We believe that, rather than rewarding the terrorists for making some gesture on decommissioning, what we actually need is a clear mechanism to ensure that they do not access and benefit fully from all the democratic institutions until such time as we have completion—and by that we really do mean completion.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) earlier spelled out the need for completion before there can be any question of Sinn Fein being in an Executive. Yet he was prepared to go back into Government with Sinn Fein last October on the basis of just one more gesture on decommissioning. His only difficulty was that that was not transparent. We do not need lectures from him about making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Time after time after time, he has entered Government on the basis of false promises, false hopes and false expectations.
Mr. David Trimble rose—
Mr. Donaldson: I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman; he will have every opportunity to make

1463
his contribution. He needs to decommission his revisionism. We remember what happened over the past five and a half years, and it was not about acts of completion but accepting futile gestures from the Provisional IRA.
Lady Hermon rose—
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) also mentioned that people had no confidence in what the IRA has done, and she was absolutely right. Yet she supported her party going back into Government with Sinn Fein-IRA on the basis of the acts of decommissioning that it engaged in. We will not take lectures about concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA from her or the right hon. Gentleman.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister, who on 14 May 1998 said:
"Those who have used the twin tactics of the ballot box and the gun must make a clear choice. There can be no fudge between democracy and terror."
A week later, in the Belfast Newsletter, the Prime Minister said:
"Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruiting and all the structures of terrorism".
It is time for the Prime Minister to insist that his own tests are met.
It is time for acts of completion, as the Prime Minister told the House of Commons. He defined an act of completion as
"not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
That is the policy of the Democratic Unionist party, and we endorse the Prime Minister's position. We require acts of completion by the IRA.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that quotation defined acts of completion to do with the cessation of violence, not necessarily the full decommissioning of all the weapons used for violence?
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but this is a matter for political judgment for the political parties in Northern Ireland, and we have made our position clear.
I acknowledge that most of what I have said has been directed towards republican weapons. Let me be clear: illegal weapons are unacceptable, and if they are held by so-called loyalist groups as well as republicans, those groups, too, must decommission their weapons. It is not a one-sided process; decommissioning must take place on the part of all the paramilitary terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) warned the Government in last year's debate that extending the duration of the legislation once again
1464
would be untenable. We reiterate that the Government must impress on the paramilitaries the fact that the time for amnesty has ended and that they will not be given any more concessions for doing what they ought to have done already. It is time to spell it out to paramilitary organisations that, unless they stop all their criminal activities, the full rigour of the law will be meted out to them.
This is not a time for further amnesties and concessions; it is time for the Government to get tough on the paramilitaries if we are ever to be rid of the violence and the exclusions and punishment attacks that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead rightly mentioned. We want Northern Ireland to be liberated from those things, but we do not believe that what the Government propose here or the rest of their current policy will achieve that. For that reason, we will oppose the order.
3.19 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I parenthetically observe that it is a trifle unfortunate that, having made a personal attack on me, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) declined to take an intervention, in the course of which I would have made the point that his comments were not true. I shall not elaborate on that point, and if he repeats the charge, I shall endeavour to intervene again and we shall see whether he displays greater courtesy.
Reference has been made in the course of the debate to what happened in 1998 and 1997, but the issue did not begin then. Indeed, the Downing street declaration was made on 15 September 1993, after which the then Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Dick Spring, said that the next step was to seek the handing in of weapons by the republican movement, so the issue has existed for 10 years.
I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It is a truism that the decommissioning of mindsets is more important than the decommissioning of weapons, which is why so many people in Northern Ireland have focused on whether republicans are prepared to say that the campaign in all its meanings is over. It is a matter of historical record that Governments—plural—decided to focus on that particular measure because there could not be arguments about whether it had happened. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of ending exilings and beatings, but hitherto it has not been easy to attribute responsibility for those matters. We hope that the independent body that has been established to monitor paramilitary activities will bring about much greater transparency on paramilitary activity and consequently greater pressure on paramilitaries.
I want to make a few points, and I shall make them as briefly as I can. My first point is simple and is addressed primarily to the Government: is the achievement of decommissioning still a Government objective? With respect, the Secretary of State was not explicit in his response to me at Northern Ireland questions, so I hope that the Minister can be explicit. Is the Government's attitude passive? Are they merely hoping that decommissioning will happen at some stage and making provisions such as this to facilitate decommissioning if

1465
the paramilitary organisations want it to happen, or are they actually trying to pursue and achieve that objective? That question is crucial, and it addresses the Government's attitude and mental state.
Other parties must also consider whether the achievement of decommissioning is an objective. Those parties that have introduced proposals that would bring an Assembly involving Sinn Fein into existence to exercise power without decommissioning are making a huge concession to republicans. In a speech earlier this week, my fellow Assembly Member, Sir Reg Empey, advised the Sinn Fein leadership to grab the Democratic Unionist party proposals because they offer better terms to republicans than they would get from the previous policy of this Government or from my party.
Mr. Donaldson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble: I shall extend to the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy that he extended to me, but if any of his friends want to intervene, I shall take an intervention. Nobody else wants to come in; that is interesting in itself.
David Burnside: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ulster and the cause of the Union would be better served on decommissioning and all other subjects if we had one united Ulster Unionist party?
Mr. Trimble: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that our position would be better secured if there were single-minded consistency on those matters. Like me, he has been involved in the past in united Unionist approaches and he will remember when, unfortunately, he and I found ourselves excluded from those arrangements—but that is to delve deep into history. I recall that matter fondly and I am sure that he does, too.
Mr. Frank Field: Many of us on the Labour Benches also think that the democratic voice of Northern Ireland would be stronger if there were one Unionist party rather than two. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whoever the democrats facing negotiations in Northern Ireland, their position would be strengthened if they did not face an Irish Prime Minister who has one view about those near to arms being part of the Government in Northern Ireland but has made it plain that he will not have such people as part of the Government in southern Ireland?
Mr. Trimble: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, although I think that it was progress when the Irish Government clarified their position. Until then, there had been a degree of ambiguity about their intentions in that respect, so I am more inclined to build on that clarification as movement forward in the direction that he suggests—that the same principle should apply elsewhere. Of course, his party leader might reflect on whether that principle should also apply in the United Kingdom, so that the message goes not only to us but to his right hon. and hon. Friends, too.
I was questioning whether it was part of the Government's objective to achieve decommissioning and the question that obviously follows is, what are the
1466
Government doing to achieve it? That is crucial. I do not want to go back over our arguments in October and November, but I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said earlier.
We are deeply disappointed at the failure of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. We had great hopes for it at the outset, but although we are so far into the process, the IICD continues to be passive. As I pointed out at some length last November, it was in a position of considerable power and influence, yet declined to exercise it. That failure at that stage has produced a situation in which we consider the commission—regretfully—in slightly different terms from before.
Other pressure points are available, however. In some quarters, it is believed that the reluctance of republicans to decommission, and to do so transparently, largely stems from those elements in the republican movement who are deeply involved in racketeering and want the cover and weapons of the private army to pursue their criminal objectives. If that is the case, and there is every reason to believe that it is, other agencies of the state should be particularly active in the matter—a point that has been made regularly about the Assets Recovery Agency.
I appreciate that the agency was responsible for the recovery of a significant sum of money recently, but that was from loyalists. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). There appears to be reluctance in some quarters and in some Government agencies to act in a way that might cause discomfort to the republican movement. That appears to be the case for the Assets Recovery Agency, too, and it is something that the agency should take energetic steps to dispel. The Government should reflect on that point.
David Burnside: Will my right hon. Friend be more specific? The Northern Ireland Office is not prepared to rock the boat with the army council of the Provisional IRA, led by Slab Murphy sitting alongside Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, because it would rock the peace process.
Mr. Trimble: I am not sure of the full reasons why some agencies, and perhaps even some elements of Government, behave in a way that gives rise to the impression that my hon. Friend describes. I am not sure that they intend that result.
I suspect that in some cases, particularly with regard to agencies, those involved are anxious to do what they think the Government want. They may not have any instruction, advice or hints of that nature, but they are anxious to anticipate what they think the Government would want. I hope that they get that wrong.
Whatever the reason, in my view there is no cause for anyone to be concerned about whether their actions imperil what is called the peace process. As I pointed out elsewhere just the other week, republicans did not call a ceasefire out of the goodness of their hearts or because they had had a conversion. They called it because circumstances left them with little alternative. That should be the basis on which the Government approach the matter. They have approached it as if all the cards, or most of them, were held by other people, rather than

1467
themselves. That is not the case. The Government should and could put on much more pressure on these matters.
This is a technical measure. If there is to be decommissioning, as we hope there will be, the order is needed. But this process has been going on for 10 years. One has to question the extent to which the Government are committed to it. I shall listen carefully to what is said in the reply. While, strictly speaking, we would favour this technical measure because it is needed, the debate gives us an opportunity to display our displeasure. So we shall listen.
3.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: In view of the lack of time, I shall be ultra-brief and very selective.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and regard the order as a monument to a failure of policy. It is just one manifestation of a wider approach to the problems of Northern Ireland that has become so discredited over the last years. Not only has that approach failed to deliver, but many of us predicted that it would fail to deliver.
I find it hard to imagine a more depressing or shameful sequence of events than successive Westminster Governments' abject mishandling of the decommissioning issue and the contributing role played by successive Irish Governments and the Ulster Unionist party. The entire so-called peace process was built on the mistaken and discredited belief that, by granting concessions to them, those who should rightly be marginalised by civil society could be brought centre stage and participate in democratic government.
The Minister would have us agree that we should accept the order because without it there would be no reasonable prospect of further decommissioning and no final act of completion. That is a fallacious argument. It is to continue to slide down the slippery slope of surrender and appeasement.
This is the sixth time we have been asked to renew the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. It has delivered virtually nothing of significance. Quite simply, it is the wrong approach. The provisional republican movement and others have had their opportunities to demonstrate their commitment to exclusively democratic means. They have rejected those opportunities, and they have failed to deliver. The Act should be allowed to lapse. In the event of the provisional republican movement or others indicating a change of heart, its powers could be re-enacted in a few hours if the Government and the House wish.
To accept the order is to send out entirely the wrong signal. It is politically and morally wrong for the Government to perpetuate a position of conciliation, as the order does, when terrorist organisations are persistently and consistently choosing to maintain and practise the option of violence.
3.34 pm
Mr. Gregory Campbell: Over a period of 10 years now, the communities in Northern Ireland have become accustomed to hearing
1468
promises and assurances that the decommissioning of weapons would, first, begin, secondly, continue and, thirdly, conclude—and they have waited and waited. In 1998, the Belfast agreement was signed, and they received further assurances that the decommissioning of illegal weapons from both republicans and loyalists was essential and would be concluded by 2000. That time has come and gone, and still there has been no progress whatever.
I listened intently to what was said by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I hold him in high regard, and I very much appreciate his views on this and other subjects, but I disagree with his belief that there will be no decommissioning. If there is a strictly accurate understanding of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland—whether loyalist or republican—it shows that the republican violence has as its goal a political objective. Loyalist violence, which is equally abhorrent, unacceptable, immoral and unjustifiable, has as a different objective the prevention of a political accommodation coming about with the IRA. However, if those in the IRA receive, as they have done in recent years, concessions towards their political objective, they will move because they see their political objectives being realised. That is the history of the past six years.
The more the present Government accommodate the desires and objectives of the Provisional IRA, the better those in the IRA will respond. Why would they not? If they previously engaged in a campaign of murder, mass murder, intimidation, threats and arson to gain political objectives, gaining some small steps in that regard, and they can gain more concessions by retaining the threat of violence by retaining their armoury intact, while the Government hold out the carrot of the prospect of progress towards their objective via the 1998 agreement, why on earth would they not hold out the prospect of some movement? Whether that prospect is illusory remains to be seen. However, that is what we have seen over the past three or four years.
Those in the IRA make tentative steps and involve themselves in token gestures to pocket more concessions. That has been at the back of the on-the-run saga and the other concessions that the IRA is waiting to pocket yet again. At the moment and for the past 10 years, they have had the best of both worlds; they have given the intent of moving into democracy, while retaining the right to return to violence and to use violence. The community has said, "No, you must disarm. You must engage in acts of completion, and you must disappear." That is what the community now demands in Northern Ireland.
We have to be in a post-IRA era before we can engage in meaningful discussions that will lead to an Executive being formed, with all the main parties involved. If we do not get that, we will obviously have to look at other methods. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) indicate his involvement and explain what he had intended should be the case. Yet many people in Northern Ireland see that, on three occasions, he was prepared to enter into the Government of Northern Ireland with those who represent terror, with nothing more than a promise of possible decommissioning.
Mr. Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he makes a very important point. Not only

1469
have the Government played a major role in the concessions to the IRA, but the IRA could not have achieved what it has without the explicit acts of the Ulster Unionist party under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and the role that he has played will go down in history as one of arch-capitulation to the IRA over the past 10 years.
Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, I am reminded of an interview and a quotation that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann gave in September 1998, when he said that we have to stand "rock solid" and that
"decommissioning must start before an Executive is formed."
I could not agree more with those comments, but the right hon. Gentleman did not stand by them.
Mr. Frank Field: Would not the future of Ulster be better served if its Members did not keep looking backwards and giving such quotations, but accepted the judgment of the ballot box, which makes it quite clear what ordinary voters think, and moved the agenda on?
Mr. Campbell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but we have to remember what the ballot box declared on 26 November. We must move forward, and we believe that the way to do that is, in the case of all the paramilitary groups, not to ask them to give up their weapons, nor for the rest of us simply to hope that they will give up their weapons, but for it to be made clear that there is no alternative but for them to give up their weapons. Then we will all move forward on a basis of some sort of stability and with the hope that we can make progress. Progress must be made.
I do not believe that the current position, which the Minister has described, is likely to lead to that progress being made, because we have been waiting and waiting. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) pointed out that 12 months ago, the Minister said that she hoped not to be back here today; but here we are. Will we be back again in 12 months' time—or in two, three or four years' time—still awaiting the movement that will not come about unless we apply the pressure that will ensure that it does?
3.41 pm
Jane Kennedy: I can tell the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that I do not have to hand the figures that he was seeking earlier, but I shall write to him with the detail and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
This has been a typically thoughtful, challenging and—for the Government—punchy debate, and I have listened to the many points made. I can well recall making the comments that I made last year, and I shall not repeat them this year—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), says from a sedentary position that she hopes that she is not here this time next year.
It is important that we constantly bear in mind the bigger picture and the objectives that we are striving towards, which I know are shared on both sides of the
1470
House. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned the confidentiality that surrounds the acts of decommissioning. It is enshrined in the scheme published back in 1998, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) referred, and it is probably still the case that we would not get acts of decommissioning without the confidentiality arrangements. However, they impact significantly on people's confidence and trust, and on the veracity surrounding the decommissioning process.
We can sometimes, on these occasions, become stuck in a doom-laden debate about the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, but my normally happy disposition leads me to remind the House that matters have improved and that there has been progress in Northern Ireland recently. Economic progress is self-evident: employment is at an all-time high, and Belfast city centre is a joyous place to visit these days, full of life and activity. Young people can go about their business there and visit restaurants, pubs and clubs without the constant fear that they have experienced in the past. It is true to say that a whole generation has grown up in a more peaceful environment.
David Burnside rose—
Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to give way because I have given time during the debate, but I shall do so just once.
David Burnside: I thank the Minister, and I shall be very brief. The majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to agree with her happy, optimistic view of the future, and that is how we should all look forward. However, does she not realise that it is the base of criminality growing in the loyalist and republican communities, which cannot be touched, beaten or destroyed, that has disillusioned people so much with the whole decommissioning and political process called "the peace process"?
Jane Kennedy: I do understand that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of it. It is because I am aware of that matter that I bend so much of my energies to working with the law-enforcement agencies to interrupt and prevent the development of that sort of culture.
In a light moment, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about going back to his office to prepare for government. I pay tribute to his diligence. If I were in his place at five to nine in the morning, I would have gone back to my breakfast. I shall have to read the Hansard account of the debate, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about trusting the paramilitaries, was inviting us to do so.
Lembit Öpik indicated dissent.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. The fact is that we cannot trust the paramilitaries. That is why we have the IICD, and why the role that it plays is so important. I think that that was the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) challenged the Government, quite properly, about what we are doing to maintain pressure on

1471
paramilitary organisations, and especially on the paramilitary organisation that has the greatest responsibility in these matters, given that its political representatives have participated in a power-sharing Government in the past. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government believe that we must maintain the pressure, and that we must therefore continue to provide the means by which decommissioning can be carried out. We are, with the IICD, resolutely determined to continue to complete decommissioning by all paramilitary organisations. One of the ways to achieve that is through dialogue, but there are many other ways. They include using the powers of law enforcement to interrupt, arrest and challenge the activities of the organisations on the ground.
All paramilitary organisations must give up violence completely, in a way that satisfies everyone and enables the people of Northern Ireland to move the democratic process forward. Every party that wants to be in government must abide by the same democratic rules.
I end by reminding the House of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who said that decommissioning was not an optional extra. He is absolutely right. Decommissioning has to happen, and we must continue to work towards making it happen.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
The House divided: Ayes 446, Noes 16.

Division No. 52]

[3:46 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ainger, Nick

Blizzard, Bob

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Blunkett, rh David

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Boateng, rh Paul

Alexander, Douglas

Borrow, David

Allan, Richard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ancram, rh Michael

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Brady, Graham

Darwen)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Breed, Colin

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Brennan, Kevin

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

Bacon, Richard

E)

Bailey, Adrian

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Baird, Vera

Wallsend)

Baker, Norman

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Barker, Gregory

Browne, Desmond

Barnes, Harry

Browning, Mrs Angela

Barrett, John

Bryant, Chris

Barron, rh Kevin

Burden, Richard

Battle, John

Burgon, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Burnett, John

Beard, Nigel

Burnham, Andy

Beckett, rh Margaret

Butterfill, Sir John

Begg, Miss Anne

Cairns, David

Beith, rh A. J.

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cameron, David

Bellingham, Henry

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bennett, Andrew

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Bercow, John

Fife)

Berry, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Best, Harold

Caplin, Ivor

Blackman, Liz

Carmichael, Alistair

1472

Casale, Roger

Flook, Adrian

Cash, William

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Caton, Martin

Foster, rh Derek

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Challen, Colin

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Barnet)

& Rye)

Chaytor, David

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Chope, Christopher

Francois, Mark

Clappison, James

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Gardiner, Barry

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Garnier, Edward

Pentlands)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Chryston)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Gilroy, Linda

Clelland, David

Godsiff, Roger

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Goggins, Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Goodman, Paul

Cohen, Harry

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Coleman, Iain

Grayling, Chris

Collins, Tim

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Colman, Tony

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Connarty, Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Conway, Derek

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cooper, Yvette

Grogan, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Gummer, rh John

Cotter, Brian

Hain, rh Peter

Cousins, Jim

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cranston, Ross

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Cruddas, Jon

Hammond, Philip

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Hancock, Mike

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hanson, David

Cummings, John

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Abingdon)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Curry, rh David

Hawkins, Nick

Dalyell, Tam

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Darling, rh Alistair

Heald, Oliver

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Healey, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

David, Wayne

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Hendrick, Mark

Stamford)

Hendry, Charles

Dawson, Hilton

Heppell, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Heyes, David

Denham, rh John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Dismore, Andrew

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Holmes, Paul

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Dobson, rh Frank

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Hopkins, Kelvin

Doran, Frank

Horam, John (Orpington)

Doughty, Sue

Howard, rh Michael

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Drown, Ms Julia

Sefton E)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Urmston)

Edwards, Huw

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Efford, Clive

Humble, Mrs Joan

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Evans, Nigel

Ingram, rh Adam

Fabricant, Michael

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Jack, rh Michael

Westminster)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jamieson, David

Flight, Howard

Jenkin, Bernard

Flint, Caroline

Jenkins, Brian

1473

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Michael, rh Alun

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Miller, Andrew

Hatfield)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Mole, Chris

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Moore, Michael

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Morley, Elliot

Jowell, rh Tessa

Moss, Malcolm

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Mountford, Kali

Keetch, Paul

Mudie, George

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Mullin, Chris

Kemp, Fraser

Munn, Ms Meg

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Inverness)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Norman, Archie

Kidney, David

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

King, Andy (Rugby)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

O'Hara, Edward

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Öpik, Lembit

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Lamb, Norman

Owen, Albert

Lansley, Andrew

Page, Richard

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Paterson, Owen

Lazarowicz, Mark

Pearson, Ian

Lepper, David

Perham, Linda

Leslie, Christopher

Picking, Anne

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Pickles, Eric

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Pickthall, Colin

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Plaskitt, James

Lidington, David

Pollard, Kerry

Lilley, rh Peter

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Linton, Martin

Portillo, rh Michael

Llwyd, Elfyn

Pound, Stephen

Loughton, Tim

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Love, Andrew

E)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Prescott, rh John

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Prosser, Gwyn

McAvoy, Thomas

Pugh, Dr. John

McCabe, Stephen

Purchase, Ken

McCafferty, Chris

Purnell, James

McDonagh, Siobhain

Quin, rh Joyce

MacDonald, Calum

Quinn, Lawrie

McDonnell, John

Rammell, Bill

MacDougall, John

Randall, John

McFall, John

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

McGrady, Eddie

Raynsford, rh Nick

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Redwood, rh John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McIsaac, Shona

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McKechin, Ann

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

McKenna, Rosemary

Bellshill)

Maclean, rh David

Rendel, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

McNamara, Kevin

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

McNulty, Tony

M-Kent)

MacShane, Denis

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Mactaggart, Fiona

Anniesland)

McWalter, Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Mahmood, Khalid

NW)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mandelson, rh Peter

Rooney, Terry

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Rosindell, Andrew

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Ruddock, Joan

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Atcham)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Salter, Martin

Martlew, Eric

Sanders, Adrian

Mercer, Patrick

Sarwar, Mohammad

Merron, Gillian

Savidge, Malcolm

1474

Sawford, Phil

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Sedgemore, Brian

Tredinnick, David

Selous, Andrew

Trickett, Jon

Shaw, Jonathan

Truswell, Paul

Sheerman, Barry

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Shepherd, Richard

Kemptown)

Sheridan, Jim

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Short, rh Clare

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Simmonds, Mark

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Skinner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Walley, Ms Joan

Lunesdale)

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Waterson, Nigel

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Watkinson, Angela

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Kincardine)

Watts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Soley, Clive

White, Brian

Spellar, rh John

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Steen, Anthony

Whittingdale, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Wiggin, Bill

Lochaber)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Willis, Phil

Streeter, Gary

Wills, Michael

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Winnick, David

Stunell, Andrew

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Sutcliffe, Gerry

C)

Swayne, Desmond

Wishart, Pete

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Woodward, Shaun

Syms, Robert

Woolas, Phil

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Worthington, Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Yarmouth)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Young, rh Sir George

Teather, Sarah

Younger-Ross, Richard

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thurso, John

Charlotte Atkins and

Tipping, Paddy

Vernon Coaker

NOES

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Burnside, David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Trimble, rh David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Hermon, Lady

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Hogg, rh Douglas

(Macclesfield)

Hunter, Andrew

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Tellers for the Noes:

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Nigel Dodds and

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Mrs. Iris Robinson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Regional Assemblies
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to the fifth allotted Opposition day. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the Government's proposals for elected regional assemblies as set out in their White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice grant the proposed assemblies limited powers, many of which are taken from local government; further notes that the Deputy Prime Minister has made statements suggesting that elected regional assemblies may acquire additional powers not reflected in the White Paper and that he intends that elected regional assemblies should open up the debate about the Barnett formula and public spending in the regions; and urges the Government to publish a draft Bill and to clear up this confusion by the end of June so that Parliament can debate the proposals in good time before the summer adjournment.
  The motion sets out a simple proposition—when there is a decision to be made about the way in which we are governed, the debate ought to take place on the basis of a clear indication of what is at stake; the time scale; and the powers of the institution that we are debating. That will enable debate to be clear, above board, transparent and honest. The way to achieve that is to publish legislation as early as possible. In the course of debate in the House, legislation is amended, but those amendments are themselves subject to detailed scrutiny and analysis.
  At the moment, there are proposals for regional assemblies, and there is a great deal of activity in pursuit of the case for or against them. However, we still do not have proposals about what the assemblies will actually do. If the powers of the proposed regional assemblies are to be closely based on the contents of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", it is difficult to see why the legislative propositions cannot be published at an early stage. If the powers are to differ substantially from that outline, the need for legislation is even more urgent, as our debate would be based on a false premise.
  We may have the proposals in July, hard against the summer recess. All Governments are desperate to get their business finished before the recess. There is not exactly a panic, but there is an urgency to getting business done. We come back for some slightly token sittings in September, which tend to be taken up with statements and other matters, before going into the party conference season. The referendums are supposed to take place at the end of October or in November, so there is a genuine danger that those legislative proposals will not receive effective debate in the House before people vote.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in certain circumstances, if he had the right information, he would be minded to support elected regional assemblies?
  Mr. Curry: Until I have the right information it is premature even to ask such a question, because there is
  1476
  no basis on which I can come to a conclusion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's is likely to be no, because I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to concede to any regional assemblies the powers that would make debate worth while.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what powers would need to be devolved to win his support for elected regional assemblies?
  Mr. Curry: No, I am going to tell the hon. Gentleman what the Government need to spell out so that people can have a debate about their proposals. I believe that that there is very good answer to the problem—pass power down to the people. Indeed, I thought that nowadays the whole political tenor was about the new localism, empowering communities and pushing power down to the people, not pushing power up to a new tier of politicians—for which the demand in my constituency, and I suspect in others, is difficult to detect.
  Joyce Quin: In the past, before the right hon. Gentleman took on his current responsibilities, the Conservatives were very much opposed to regional assemblies. Is he saying that he is now open-minded on the subject because he is waiting for further information?
  Mr. Curry: I want information because a debate is taking place. The Government are spending public money on inciting people to vote in referendums, and it is a good idea that they should know what they are voting about—although I realise that the Government may find that a sophisticated concept. The Government initiated the process that leads to referendums on the basis of the most derisive show of interest imaginable—in Yorkshire, about 1,200 favourable responses from a population of 5 million were interpreted as enthusiasm for a referendum. The Deputy Prime Minister issued his blatantly biased "thumbs up, thumbs down" leaflets, with the whole argument skewed in favour of one side—that campaign cost £500,000 of public money—and toured the regions setting out the Government's position in a series of one-sided debates organised by the Government offices for the regions.
  The boundary committee set out preliminary suggestions for local government reorganisation in the two-tier areas, with some extremely curious anomalies. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, because it is close to home for him, it recommended a merger between the authorities of East Yorkshire and Selby—but Selby is part of North Yorkshire, which is two-tier, and East Yorkshire is unitary. So in Selby, people will have a referendum on whether they wish to join East Yorkshire, but those in East Yorkshire will not have a referendum on whether they wish Selby to join it. That is entirely anomalous; the proposals are riddled with such anomalies.
  Yes and no campaigns have been established in each region. The yes campaigns, at least, have the cash to set up offices and to hire staff. The Government overruled the advice of their own Electoral Commission and

  1477
  ordered postal ballots in the local and European elections in June in two regions where they were specifically advised not to do so—Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west. The commission said that the right conditions existed in the north-east and the east midlands, but recommended against in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west. This is clearly a dry run to whip up a vote in the referendum.
  A debate is under way, although I do not think that it is a subject of everyday conversation among the crowds at Gallowgate or the Stadium of Light.
  James Purnell: Does the right hon. Gentleman support regional government for London, and if so, why is it not good enough for the north-west and Yorkshire?
  Mr. Curry: We would not have set up regional government for London. The taxpayers who now face Mr. Livingstone's precept will be interested to find out whether the Minister for Local Government is going to cap Mr. Livingstone—after all, he has threatened to cap councils with a precept lower than the one Mr. Livingstone is talking about. Few people would think that the government of London is such a riotous success that it needs to be emulated in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Neil Turner: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that if the Conservatives ever got into power they would abolish the Greater London authority?
  Mr. Curry: The question was: would we have set it up? The answer is no. We will make our position clear when it comes to the election.
  Mr. Mark Field: Surely the point that my right hon. Friend is making is that if we are to have referendums, the people must be able to base their decision on the full facts. That should have applied four years ago in London, and it must apply in all the other regions if we are to have meaningful referendums that allow the people to have their say.
  Mr. Curry: It may be worth pointing out that the turnouts achieved in the referendums—even in London—are not such as to suggest that the people have overwhelming confidence in what they are being asked to vote about.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend speaks of the numbers involved in turnouts. Does he think that the lack of interest in the whole issue of regional government in, say, East Anglia, shows that people do not want an extra layer of government, do not want to know anything about regions, and think that this idea was dreamed up by a Government who have themselves created a democratic deficit?
  Mr. Curry: In my surgeries, I have not been overwhelmed by people making spontaneous demands
  1478
  for regional government. The idea has been dreamed up by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's enthusiasm for the process is palpably weak.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have a dream.
  Mr. Curry: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has a dream. We are all entitled to our dreams, but the Prime Minister gives the impression that his enthusiasm is kept strictly under control as part of the process of sharing the Deputy Prime Minister's dream.
  The common thread is that a debate is under way. However, the only place where there is no debate is Parliament. The debate will be without purpose until we know what the assemblies are going to do. It is a sort of blind date without Cilla Black.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Another dream.
  Mr. Curry: Even at my age, I can think of more exciting dreams.
  For the overwhelming majority of people in the three designated regions, the assemblies will mean a new layer of politicians, partly funded by the council tax. In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister wrote:
  "These proposals will not mean creating more bureaucracy."
  However, Unison apparently favours them, and Unison campaigning against bureaucracy seems implausible. The foreword continues:
  "In regions where people vote to have an elected regional assembly we will move to wholly unitary local government to ensure that Government remains streamlined."
  The notion that the Government are streamlined is curious, but I am willing to be informed about that.
  The Prime Minister has lost his bearings. In Yorkshire and Humber, the only two-tier area is North Yorkshire. That means that 90 per cent. of the people who live in Yorkshire and Humber already live under unitary councils. For them, a regional assembly is a new tier of government. There is no point in pretending otherwise. The Prime Minister may even have heard of Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Kirklees and Doncaster, some of the unitary councils that make up Yorkshire.
  In the north-west, two thirds of the population live in the great metropolitan areas of Liverpool and Greater Manchester. For them, an assembly will mean another layer of politicians. In the north-east, about which the Prime Minister might be expected to have an inkling, two thirds of people already live in the unitary councils of Tyneside, Teesside and Wearside. For them, too, a regional assembly means an additional set of politicians.
  What sort of politicians are we considering? They will be remote figures, elected by proportional representation. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister and I can agree on our dislike of proportional representation in general. I feel that his roots may be deep enough in old-fashioned Labour to be suspicious of that method of election. The politicians will be without constituency, mandate or identity. They will

  1479
  embark on a sort of Mary Celeste; on political ghost ships, condemned to sail the sea in a desperate hope of finding a port where they can finally be still.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that is better to have an elected extra layer of politicians or an unelected layer of bureaucrats?
  Mr. Curry: If it is so important to bring the quangos under political control, why will only the people of the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humber enjoy the wonderful privilege of regional assemblies? Why have the Government not concluded that the quangos are so onerous and such an affliction that people should be relieved of them in the south-west, East Anglia, the west midlands and the east midlands? They have not done that and they cannot therefore be so worried about the burden of quangos. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister's valedictory vanity is determined to impose regional assemblies on parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. George Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and, indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who used to be the leader of Manchester city council, that the electoral system in the north-west is almost certain to allow a British National party representative on the regional government? Would that be a good advertisement for the region?
  Mr. Curry: Whenever members of the BNP stand for election, it behoves everybody to look hard at what they are saying and to refute every single point that they make. Their campaigns are based very largely on lies and exaggerations, and nothing could be more dangerous than saying that we either ignore them or give them a breath of oxygen. I think that they should be given so much oxygen that they suffocate in their lies and misrepresentations.
  Lawrie Quinn: From our perspective in north Yorkshire, if we are to deal with parties such as the BNP, the way we do that is through all politicians calling for a maximum turnout in all elections. Will the right hon. Gentleman do so at the Dispatch Box, and ask everyone who can do so to participate in the referendums, too?
  Mr. Curry: I am entirely happy to do that. All of us are concerned about the level of turnout in some elections and the disaffection with politics. That may be partly because people are fed up with the number of elections. It is crucial, however, especially in cases in which such an issue is at stake, that people express their point of view. Certainly, I want people to vote; I just want them to vote no, as a matter of fact.
  Andy Burnham: On the question of the BNP, is it not the case that the only other political party, alongside the Conservative party, that opposes regional government is the BNP?
  Mr. Curry: That is one of the daftest remarks that I have heard in this Parliament for a long time. It is not
  1480
  worthy of the hon. Gentleman. I will take no lessons from him in opposing the BNP or anyone who is fundamentally anti-democratic.
  Mr. George Osborne: May I clarify the point that the no campaign in the north-west is the only campaign supported by Labour MPs, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives? It is an all-party campaign supported by all the parties in the north-west. What the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was saying is therefore completely erroneous.
  Mr. Curry: It is erroneous. It is true that the no campaign in the north-west has all-party support, and I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister had a little altercation with the former leader of Manchester city council when he was debating in that great city.
  Mr. Edward Davey: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming a grandfather yesterday. Secondly, in relation to the previous intervention, I know from meetings at which I have been present how hard he and some of his colleagues are working against the BNP. That should be put on the record.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, first, for the personal remark, and secondly, for the political remark. Both are matters of fact.
  How will an assembly be financed? We know that it will be financed by Government grant and by a further raid on the council tax, or income tax if the Liberal Democrats were to have their way. We will have precepts for parishes, precepts for police, precepts for fire and rescue services, and precepts for regional assemblies. The public who, as we all know, are cheerfully happy to pay up the current levels of council tax imposed by the Government will get another little supplement to their council tax if they vote for these assemblies. At least with the fire and police services, people know what they are supposed to be there for.
  What are the regional assemblies there for? The leaflets make them sound like powerhouses, yet how much public money do they control? It is about 2 per cent. of regional public spending. All this—with set-up costs and running costs of £30 million and £20 million a year—for sixpence in the pound. Will regions with an assembly be able to claim more money? Will they be able to change the balance of funding between the regions and parts of the United Kingdom? Will they be able to challenge—dare I say it?—the Barnett formula, because the Deputy Prime Minister has at least been giving the impression that if people vote for regional assemblies, there might be some rebalancing, to use the fashionable word, in relation to funding. I can find no evidence that that will be the case.
  Will the assemblies bring power closer to the people? The answer is no. They are an out-of-date, bureaucratic, unimaginative idea. The political debate is about empowering people in their communities—the Prime Minister talks about giving them control of their lives. In this case, however, the Government seem to want to disarm the citizen, remove power from the community, and push power upward, not down. The local councils will go, and be replaced by PR politicians. How many will represent North Yorkshire? We might get two, and Northumberland will probably qualify for one.

  1481
  I should be interested to know what bets the Deputy Prime Minister would lay on the level of turnout in the second set of elections to regional assemblies, if they were ever to come about. I suspect that the turnout in the European elections will be positively euphoric by comparison. People are being sold an illusion rather than the reality.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I wonder whether the Conservative party will support my private Member's Bill, to be dealt with on 27 February? It proposes the setting of a 50 per cent. threshold for turnouts. If a turnout were below that, the referendum result would not be valid.
  Mr. Curry: I did not know about the hon. Gentleman's Bill. I am usually deeply suspicious of private Members' Bills, but I feel a sudden warmth towards this one.
  In his foreword to the White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote:
  "we know that in some regions, the north-east for example, many people believe that only an elected regional assembly will allow the region truly to take control of its destiny and enable it to move up the economic and social prosperity ladder."
  The idea that the assemblies, with their small raft of circumscribed powers, will take control of anyone's or anything's destiny is sheer fantasy.
  We were told that the regional development agencies would close the gap between the regions. I recall the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—who is present—saying at the Dispatch Box that if the RDAs did not close the economic gap between the regions, they would have failed. And have they? No, they have not. We know that they have not.
  The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): They will.
  Mr. Curry: That is all very well, but how long do we have to wait for them to do it? It has not happened so far.
  If destiny is at stake, why do the citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom—the south-west, the west midlands, East Anglia—not have that sense of destiny being within their grasp? And if the assemblies are needed to control the quangos, why do those regions not suffer from the burdensome oppression to such an extent that they clamour for the assemblies that will introduce a democratic mandate and relieve them of that terrible weight?
  Mrs. Shephard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the size of the clamour from East Anglia? I believe that there have been some 547 responses.
  Mr. Curry: I did not realise that there had been such an avalanche of responses from East Anglia. It clearly represents a proportion of the population that might in any other circumstances be regarded as de minimis. The Deputy Prime Minister, indeed, might regard it as derisory. If it were a turnout in the poll it would be so
  1482
  derisory that he might even decide that the poll could not stand. But we do not know what a derisory turnout is in regional referendums, because the Deputy Prime Minister will not tell us.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has drawn an analogy with Scotland and Wales. Scotland has legislative powers and a very expensive, and as yet unfinished, Parliament building. It controls health, education, a significant part of economic development, and rural policy. We see the divergences on either side of the border growing daily. I assume that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will shortly announce the way in which the single farm payment will work in England. It is entirely possible that Scotland will adopt a different route; we have already observed that Northern Ireland and Wales are likely to do so. We accept that—it is one of the consequences of devolution—but it indicates that devolution is to a body with substantive powers that can actually be measured. Whether better welfare is delivered to Scotland or Wales is open to dispute, but the possibility is there.
  The Welsh Assembly can at least decide on the manner of application of national legislation. English regional assemblies will have none of the abilities that I have mentioned. So how will this manifest destiny be fulfilled? I simply do not understand how that can be done by controlling the market town initiative, or advising the cultural consortium in Yorkshire and Humberside on how it should go about its business. We all agree that the regions need better, more integrated economic development; we all agree that they need to catch up; but the idea that that will be delivered by regional assemblies is surely part of a fantasy world.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has done his best to inflate the importance of regional assemblies in his regional tours, in between having cheerful altercations with some of his colleagues. We are not yet—although we seem to be not far from it—at the stage where he is telling us that the assemblies can probably declare war. The actual role that emerges from the document is described almost invariably in the language of oversight, scrutiny, advice, request, consultation, influence, coordination—a permanent supplication for someone else's attention. When we look at them in detail, even the few identifiable powers are very circumscribed. Everywhere, the Government look over the assemblies' shoulder.
  Let us take the regional development agencies. One of the principal arguments is that the powers now exercised by the RDAs and supervised by the government offices should fall to regional assemblies. The assemblies must have regard to Government guidance in preparing their strategies. The Government will retain powers to ensure that RDAs and the assemblies address national strategies. The assembly must consult the Government on regional economic strategy. The Government can require changes and—this is the real killer—the regional assembly must consult the Government on individual board appointments to the RDA. That is the dimension of the autonomy. The regional assembly cannot even make a single appointment to the board of an RDA without consulting the Government—and that is supposed to be introducing some new democratic mandate.

  1483
  It is the same story for transport. The regional assembly can advise. It has powers to make proposals. It can be consulted. The only clear competence appears to be responsibility for allocating the rail passenger partnership grant. Only in the housing sector is there a ghost of a role, in the allocation of support for capital investment.
  The Government talk of new powers but when, and where from? The suspicion is that it will always be from local government and another shift upwards, not devolution downwards, of power.
  The real question is: what is at stake? What is the elector going to choose between? Where will the political choices lie? How will voting make a difference? It is the oldest question in politics. Does it matter? What is at stake? Do things change as a result of the vote? How will candidates define themselves in terms of political choice, or choice in relation to issues? There is no answer to that. They will not be able to define themselves. People will not have a choice. We will end up with assembly members with no mandate, no definable constituency, no accountability and no role, permanently packing their bags for a journey they never make.
  Those old stalwart watchers of the local government scene, George Jones of the London school of economics and John Stewart of Birmingham university, wrote in July 2002 at the time of the publication of the White Paper:
  "While this portfolio"
  of responsibilities
  "appears impressive, the responsibilities are only for preparing strategies rather than for taking action. Unless the regional assemblies are given considerable freedom to set their own strategies and to ensure their implementation they will merely be talking shops. The public will soon realise the assemblies have no real power and turnout will drop."
  A little later, they wrote:
  "The choice is between a body with strategic responsibilities but no powers of enforcement or a body with powers to enforce turning into what is effectively a supervisory body. Neither the regional advocates nor the white paper have resolved this dilemma."
  Therefore we need to know what is intended. I am happy to engage in debate.
  Mr. David Clelland: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, having reminded himself of those remarks, would like to confirm that that is also his view. Was it not he on the Radio Four "Any Questions?" programme who said that if these bodies had more power, he would be more sympathetic?
  Mr. Curry: If the bodies had significant power, at least there would be a sensible debate about how Britain was managed. I have said that repeatedly. What we do not have is a proposition, or any likely proposition, that is anything other than a token gesture to regional assemblies on the basis of an entirely false premise. So this debate is an entirely false one. People are being asked to vote for a pig in a poke that will not work. If I have to choose between that and devolving power closer to people in their own communities, giving them the ability to grasp real powers locally through representative government, I would make that choice. That is a better choice for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in the Welsh
  1484
  Assembly these days the biggest talking point is whether it should acquire more powers for itself and seek more powers from Government? Is it not likely that if these shadowy new regional assemblies are ever set up, the first thing they will try to do in the early years is to acquire more powers? What possible use will that be to the people whom they are supposed serve?
  Mr. Curry: They may well do so, because as it stands they will have practically nothing to do. Goodness knows how many days a week they will actually sit, what they will find to do, or how they will earn their pay. But the question is: where will they look for those powers? They will absorb them from local government, and that tier of government will become more remote.
  No one deities that the questions of political structures, of how we are governed and of how we secure regional economic development are vital ones, but the debate is still taking place through a glass darkly, even though the Government have the means to bring it into the open. The way to do so is to let us have real proposals soon, and the place to do so is in this House of Commons, where MPs are elected to real constituencies through real elections, in which real choices are placed in front of the electorate.
  4.30 pm
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes the Government's proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in their White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; further notes that the White Paper also set out the way in which the Government intends to build into its policy development the opportunities offered by the creation of elected regional assemblies to further decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; notes that the principal confusion about the proposed powers and role of elected regional assemblies appears to be on the Opposition benches; and condemns the continuing attempts by the party opposite both to deny people a say in how they want to be governed and to denigrate the value of that choice."
  I begin by offering my congratulations, with some envy, to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has become a grandfather. I look forward to the day when that might happen to me.
  I note that the Opposition's motion calls for clearing up "confusion" about elected regional assemblies. However, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the most confused that I have heard in my 30-plus years in the House of Commons. On the one hand, he said that the proposals were not clear enough, but he then picked out what he disagreed with and spelled out what he meant. What he really meant is not that the proposals are not clear, but that he does not agree with them. On the other hand, he said that he wants more powers—he did not spell out what they were—in order to carry out the promise that he has made for many years: a promise based on his belief in regional government, if it is "effective" regional government. I have read what he has said on the subject carefully, and perhaps I might refer to it.
  I am not surprised that the Conservatives are confused, because when it comes to devolution, the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether he is coming or going, as he made clear in his contribution. His approach is confusing not only for him but for his colleagues, as we discovered during interventions on his speech. It was not clear whether he was asking for more powers, or whether he supported the proposal. We will discover the answer as the debate progresses, but his approach is certainly confusing for the country at large.
  The right hon. Gentleman makes similar accusations against us, but he needs to make reasonably clear what his party stands for. If he wants to debate this issue, we need to know the essence of the difference between our two parties. In 1998, he told this House the following:
  "The arguments for devolution are well made…at Chequers"—
  he went to Chequers—
  "I argued the case for a federal structure in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 786–87.]
  Two years later, in York, he said:
  "In its potential to restore some vigour to local democracy, and to offer a constitutional settlement, regional government deserves real consideration."
  We understand the difficulties associated with the right hon. Gentleman's current job, but if that is his position—clearly, it is—he should tell us what extra powers he wants, rather than being so critical of us. He understands what we are doing, even though he says that he is confused, but surely he should make clear his own view, which he has yet to explain to the House.
  So despite the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the regions, it would seem that he wants to deny the people of the three northern regions the chance to vote for their own elected regional assembly and to take their own decisions. That is what this debate is about. Whatever we may say about the offer in terms of regional government, we are giving the people of the regions the chance to take a decision. The say is theirs, not ours. This is their chance to take a decision, just as the people of Wales, Scotland and London did. We are entitled to give the northern regions the same chance.
  Geraldine Smith rose—
  Mr. Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if people should have a choice on a matter so relatively small as the regional assemblies, the country ought to be given a choice in respect of a new European constitution?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: One can deploy that argument, and it has been deployed here before. We are prepared to have referendums—
  Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: May I reply to this point first? We are prepared to have referendums in respect of certain constitutional changes. We have made it clear that we think that the changes to regional government
  1486
  are necessary, and we will give a referendum. The idea is well established in Scotland, Wales and London, and it is exactly what we have to do for the English regions. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith).
  Geraldine Smith: The Deputy Prime Minister talks about giving the people of the north-west a choice. Yet only 2,900 replies were received from the whole north-west to the document people were asked to respond to. I carried out my own consultation on antisocial behaviour in my constituency and got 4,500 responses. If he can get only 2,900 from the whole north-west, is it not clear that there is no demand from the public for regional government?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, it certainly is not. There were 2,900 responses, but many of them represented petitions, and the total number involved was 50,000 throughout three areas. I have heard people in the House claiming authority for polls conducted on just 500 people. I am glad my hon. Friend had 4,500 replies to her antisocial behaviour survey, but since she is keen on manifesto proposals, particularly on the top-ups, I have to point out that this was a manifesto proposal, too. I hope on that basis that she will join me in this debate.
  Geraldine Smith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No. Sit down, and let me get on with it.
  Geraldine Smith: On that point.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I have given way. [Interruption.] Yes, I am.
  We are saying that we should give the people in the three regions the opportunity to have a debate.
  The Opposition have changed their mind so often on devolved government that we are all confused about where they stand. Let me remind the House that the previous Tory Government scrapped elected government for London, the old Greater London council. They did not consult or ask; they just nationalised it and took it over. It was the Conservative party—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a bit of a record, but let me just get through this.
  The Conservative party fought devolution for Scotland and for Wales every step of the way. Now, it seems, they support Welsh devolution and Scottish devolution, and they have a candidate fighting to be Mayor of London, so I assume they are not going to abolish the Greater London authority. If devolved—
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Give me a second.

  1487
  If devolved government is good enough for the 15 million people who live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, it is surely good enough for the 2.5 million people who live in the north-east, the 5 million in Yorkshire and Humberside and the nearly 7 million in the north-west. The Conservative policy is confused and inconsistent.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What we are interested in knowing is what powers the assemblies will have. The right hon. Gentleman said, for example, when he toured the north-east, that police would be taken under the control of the regional authorities, but that has been denied by other parts of the Government. What is the answer?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is not true. We are not putting police under regional assemblies. What we have said is that the Home Secretary is talking about having bigger police authorities because some of them are too small. There is a regional dimension, and decisions may be faced eventually, but that is not the position at the moment.
  The nine English regional development agencies have been a great success.
  Mr. Streeter: What?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has congratulated the Yorkshire agency on doing well, which might interest the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) who seems to be contesting that, too.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon can see that after three or four years of operation, the RDAs have been successful in the short term. I ask him to consider how much they reduce regional differentials. In the 1970s, we established the Scottish Development Agency, which was opposed by the Tories until they eventually came round to accepting it. The differential between the Scottish economy and those of a number of English regions has been reduced purely because—certainly, it has been an important factor—of the development agency. The Tories will keep the agency in Scotland, and they will keep one in Wales. I assume that they will keep one for London. So what is their position on RDAs? Let me quote their manifesto:
  "We will abolish the Regional Development Agencies that the Government has introduced and scrap Labour's plans for the new Regional Assemblies."
  Is that still the position? They will not do that in Scotland, where they will keep a development agency. They are keeping an agency for Wales. It is only the English regions that will have their development agencies abolished. Where is the logic in that? The question is quite clear; it is not confusing. Either they do it or they do not.
  I want to know exactly where they stand. Last October, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that his party no longer favoured outright abolition of the RDAs, but that he wanted to "engage" with them. That is an interesting point. Does the hon. Gentleman want to keep them, get rid of them or "engage" with them, or what? There is a clear position on the Labour Benches:
  1488
  we will keep the development agencies because they cart play a major part in reducing differentials between economies.
  Mr. Graham Brady: If devolution for Scotland has removed the economic differential between Scotland and England, what is the argument for maintaining the Barnett formula?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised the Barnett formula, so we can talk about financing. All sorts of assessments are constantly made about the financial arrangements between nations and regions, and the argument continues. If this debate were to occur in the northern regions, the Barnett formula would certainly come up because people think that it is unfair. If one examines departmental distributions and the new deal and housing programmes, however, it is not as unfair as people think.
  My Department must examine the balance between the Government's contribution and a council's contributions to council tax. We constantly review all sorts of financial arrangements—indeed, the Liberal party proposes the introduction of a regional tax. The Government are constantly examining the situation and are obliged to distribute resources fairly between nations and regions. That approach is right and it will continue.
  The Opposition were against the local authority-led regional chamber of assemblies, which has an important role in planning and scrutinising the regional development agencies, and proposed to abolish it. Indeed, more than 150 Conservative councillors are members of the regional chambers. However, the chairmen of the board in the South East England regional assembly and the South West regional assembly are Tories elected by majority Tory councils. It is difficult to listen to Conservative Front Benchers say that they will not co-operate. Have they agreed that the assemblies will be abolished? The Conservative party has promised to abolish them and we want to know its position because it seems confused.
  The previous Government created the Government offices for the regions. When the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to quangos, I presume that he did not mean that the Government offices for the regions are quangos. The Government offices for the regions contain civil servants from different Departments and must make decisions about many things. When the Government appointed the Government offices for the regions in 1994, they recognised the need to have a regional dimension to Government decision making—they were right and I fully supported them. The trouble is that they did not add democratic accountability and the offices remained part of the civil service.
  Under its previous leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Conservative party wanted to abolish the Government offices for the regions, but he found that he was abolished before it could be done—now he is reduced to strutting the boards of empty theatres while his replacement dreams on.
  I remind the House that in 1974 the Opposition created the metropolitan county councils of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Tyne and Wear,

  1489
  West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire and that they went on to create the counties of Cleveland, Humberside, Avon and Berkshire—they abolished them when they came back into government, which was confusing. A lot of trouble would have been avoided if they had consulted people first and got the right answer rather than setting them up and then abolishing them. No wonder there is confusion in the Conservative party.
  The little known fact is that we have regional government in this country today—it is there; it is operating. It was established by a Conservative Government in 1994, and I was fully supportive of it. The Government offices for the regions develop strategies to deal with economics, planning, transport, culture, housing, sustainable development, waste, rural action, skills, employment and skills and the European programme. Those strategies are decided by civil servants in our regions without any democratic accountability. We will not set up talking shops to discuss strategies because they already exist. The problem is that people in the regions are not co-ordinating such strategies or getting them working. We have regional government; we do not have democratic accountability.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does the White Paper say that the Government offices will be handed over to regional assemblies? No, it does not.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The White Paper does not say that because Governments will want to keep their civil servants involved in such matters. [Interruption.] We are not declaring a federal state. The framework is for the United Kingdom, and constant discussion even goes on in Scotland, Wales and London. Even if more power or more resources are discussed, we are not developing a federal government. We are developing a United Kingdom framework in which there are English regions and states, which will have their own secretariat, power and resources.
  Geraldine Smith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I will not. I notice that when the Leader of the Opposition had his press conference, he had a load of bowler-hatted civil servants in the background to show that he wanted to get rid of bureaucracy. Well, he created most of it when he was in Government, and that is without mentioning the poll tax.
  Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have told her that I will not give way to her.
  The Leader of the Opposition has made a point about the role of the state in his statements over the weekend, in his speeches about having a dream and in an article in the Yorkshire Post, in which he wrote:
  "we have a State…that is too unaccountable."
  He should know, because he was part of the Government who created most of it. Most of the quangos and the Government offices that are not
  1490
  democratically accountable were created by the Leader of the Opposition and the Government he belonged to. Now he has the cheek to tell the public that he will get rid of bureaucracy. What we want is more democracy and less bureaucracy. That is not confusing: that is our clear position.
  Mr. Streeter: The Deputy Prime Minister has just told us that the new elected regional assemblies, if they ever come into existence, will not oversee the Government offices for the regions, so they will not deal with the democratic deficit. The people who will vote on elected regional assemblies later this year need to know what powers they will have over strategic transport, because that is an important issue.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is an important point and I will come to it in a moment. I am not ducking it, because it is at the heart of the debate—as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Just hang on a sec, because I want to finish this point. In the elected regional assemblies, the people will elect the politicians who will make the big strategic decisions that affect their lives. We do not doubt that strategic decisions will be made. I have given the House the headings of plans that are being made day in, day out. Politicians in the regions who are elected by the people should have the right to decide the issues that affect their people. That is a simple democratic principle.
  Mr. Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Hang on, I shall give way in a minute to whoever it is—
  Mr. Prentice: On that point—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister will give way when he is ready to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I thought it was him. I have my friends: I have my enemies.
  Look at the kind of decisions that the Mayor of London and the GLA make. I assume that the Conservatives do not propose to abolish the GLA. Our regions will have more powers than the GLA, as the Mayor has made clear on the issue of housing. He wants similar powers to those that we propose for the regions. The Conservatives have a candidate for Mayor, and as far as I am aware his manifesto does not suggest that the GLA should be abolished. If those powers are all right for London, why are they not all right for the northern regions? We would give them the same powers and resources and put them in the same situation.
  The people in the north, where we will hold the three referendums, should have the same opportunity as the people in London. It is not my decision: if the people do not want an assembly, they will vote against it—[HON.

  1491
  MEMBERS: "Yes, they will."] Well, we shall see. The Conservatives said that about Scotland, Wales and London. They used the same arguments, but in the end they had to crawl on board in agreement. Nor do they have the guts to abolish those devolved bodies. If such a system is all right for London, why is it not all right for the three northern regions? That is a simple enough question.
  The House knows about the wide range of quangos that spend money in the regions. There are 180 in the three northern regions alone, at the last count—that is quite a few to look for—with more than 3,000 board members selected by civil servants. Elected regional assemblies will take power from central Government, not from local government, and they will give people a new political voice. Local authorities will continue to be responsible for local services. We are not making any changes to that situation. I notice that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that such powers should be exercised locally, which is a shifty little move away from regional government. Local government is the new locus that we talk about, and there is an argument for powers to be moved there. However, regions can make decisions that local authorities do not have the power to make, because they do not cover the whole area. That is why we end up with regional bodies. That is why we have regional civil servants, because local authorities cannot make such decisions on their own. They do not have the resources or the powers to operate outside their boundaries, and that is why we inevitably end up with a regional dimension.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend ready to give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister indicated assent.
  Mr. Prentice: The turnout in London was 36 per cent. It was 51 per cent. in Wales and in Scotland it was higher, at 60 per cent. Are there any circumstances in which the Government would set aside the result of the referendum in the northern regions because the turnout was widely regarded as derisory?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: There are no such circumstances. The only time the House did that was at the time of the Scottish devolution Bill, under the Cunningham amendment, and it was absolutely disastrous. There is no doubt that when people had the chance to vote, they voted overwhelmingly for Scottish devolution. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point about the number of people who participate and that should be of concern to the whole House. That is why we want postal balloting.
  Everyone knows from the evidence of the pilots that where there is a postal ballot more people turn out. Sometimes the turnout is as much as 50 per cent., which is very high. Those who say that people do not vote because they are uninterested in politics have to answer this question: why does turnout almost double, with increases of as much as 50 per cent., as soon as we change the voting method? That suggests that the answer is making the voting system more acceptable to the electorate—although not necessarily the politics.
  Mr. George Osborne: Last year, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire said
  1492
  that if the turnout in the referendum was derisory he would set aside the result. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be contradicting him. Can he explain that?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry, I did not pick up that point, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a proper answer. In principle, as I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we are not planning to include a condition on the proportion—[Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire will be able to reply to the point when he sums up the debate.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: If there was a threshold below which the result would not be accepted, would not that give the antis a deliberate tactic to persuade people not to vote? If more people voted, turnout would go above the threshold and the antis would lose the vote.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. George Cunningham's amendment was designed primarily to do that—it was an obstacle to deny the people of Scotland the chance to make a decision that the House would then make for them. People who suggest such provisions are usually against things, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) would agree—he comes from the same stable.
  On 18 December last year, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon told the House that the assemblies would be able to do practically nothing and he confirmed that in his speech today. However, at the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition, in one of his "dream" speeches said:
  "The regional assemblies…will take crucial decisions."
  Who is right? I wish that the Opposition would make up their mind. Will the assemblies make crucial decisions, or not? Will they be talking shops, or will they actually make decisions? The members of the dream team on the Opposition Front Bench should get together and work out the answer, because they are causing an awful lot of confusion.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The question that the Deputy Prime Minister poses is one that many people in the business community are putting to me. They do not have doctrinaire views on the issue, but they are willing seriously to consider a regional assembly if they can be satisfied that it will make a difference on things that matter to them, such as skills—through the Learning and Skills Council—and transport infrastructure. Can the right hon. Gentleman go further and give them the assurance that the assembly will be able to do the things that they care about?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is an important point. The assemblies will have real powers, such as planning, and I shall come to that in a minute.
  The Opposition need to work out where they stand. I believe strongly that regional assemblies offer a great opportunity for bringing more jobs and growth to the north. We are offering an alternative to the status quo. Those who do not want change have to answer for the

  1493
  status quo. If the north had had the average growth of the English regions, it would have meant a difference of about £30 billion. Do those who defend the status quo want the regional disparities in our economy to continue to grow? They need to make that clear.
  We believe that the assemblies will create extra jobs and prosperity and reduce the north-south differential. A recent publication on core cities by Professor Parkinson pointed out that a regional dimension is essential so that those cities can operate more powerfully. We tried to reflect that in the recent publication "Making It Happen—The Northern Way". We are trying to put Government social and economic investment into the development of a new growth area. We believe that we can achieve less bureaucracy and more democracy.
  Regional assemblies will be small and efficient. Each will have between 25 and 35 members. And each will be elected by proportional representation. I am not in the PR camp, but I brought it in for London. I am bringing it in for a very good reason—not for the Liberals, though I understand why they might welcome it. On strategic matters, with smaller groups one needs consensus, which means having a different way of voting. That is important in big regions particularly where political representation may dominate and there may then not be the proper balance of discussion on strategic issues, which are so crucial to the region.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is being too modest about his conversion to proportional representation. In a speech on 22 January in Manchester he said:
  "Proportional representation will bring stability and greater consensus to the system, both vital for a more strategic approach."
  The right hon. Gentleman was so right, and I hope that he is converted on the case of PR more widely.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I can guarantee that if one mentions PR in the House the Liberals will jump up in their dozens wanting to say something about it.
  I do not deny what I said then, and I have just repeated it. Consensus and stability, particularly on strategic decisions, are absolutely critical. I do not accept the same argument at a further stage, but I leave that aside for the moment. I am being driven bit by bit down this course. One has to do what is right, and it is my job to make a decision and be accountable for it.
  There has been a great deal of talk about the cost. We have said that it will be 5p a week for each household, but there will be offsetting efficiency savings. There is a figure of £25 million at the establishment, but the figures will have to be finally decided when the boundary committee says what the organisation of local authorities will be. Some applications have been for the county to be the unitary authority. I think that is the case in Durham and to a large extent in Cheshire and Lancashire. The situation will be different if it is necessary to establish a number of unitaries. As that matter is out to consultation, we cannot say exactly what the final cost will be. We shall come out with a final cost before the referendum, so that we can say what we believe the cost of the changes will be.
  1494
  The cost that we have quoted now came from the boundary committee, which has produced costs showing that there can be considerable savings. But let us come to that when we have more detailed information, which will be based on the kind of local government structure that there is to be in the first tier.
  In the White Paper we set out the minimum powers that elected regional assemblies will have. They will have responsibility for regional and sub-regional issues that the local authorities cannot handle on their own. We need to take forward jobs and growth, the promotion of social justice and improving people's quality of life. Most of the decisions are directed at those areas.
  The assemblies will also have specific functions to help deliver their own priorities and decisions. That is an important issue, and we should not dismiss it. They will make decisions about housing, transport, land and planning in the region, strategic issues at present dealt with by civil servants. The assemblies will produce the regions' spatial strategy, which puts all these matters together, as we have just announced in our "Northern Way" document.
  The elected assemblies will also take over from Whitehall responsibility for the regional development agencies, which in the three northern regions have a budget of almost £700 million. This means that the RDAs will be business-led, which business likes, but democratically accountable, delivering the assemblies' priorities for jobs and growth and implementing the strategy that the elected members for the region decide.
  Mr. Mark Field rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have to make headway.
  The assemblies will also have an important role in improving skills by working in and with the learning and skills councils. They will take responsibility for investment in housing—this is a change that we have made—and influence the billions of pounds being invested in the northern regions under the sustainable communities plan, which we highlighted in the recent "Northern Way" programme.
  Elected assemblies will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport on the allocation of funding for local transport in their regions, working with the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made it absolutely clear on 19 January that he wanted more public transport decisions devolved to the regional level.
  The situation is evolving, which will have to be reflected in the Bill when I bring it to the House. I shall come to that a little later.
  The assemblies will also have responsibilities for public health and bio-diversity, as well as being responsible for regional arts, sports, museums and promoting tourism. Those powers are not set in stone. I was asked whether the situation was changing, whether I was saying in the regions things that I have not said in the White Paper. It is true that the powers have been taken further than in the White Paper, but we said in the White Paper that the assemblies would evolve over time.
  Already, we have announced that the elected assemblies will be responsible for the £500 million that is spent in the north on regional fire and rescue services

  1495
  every year. We did not say that in the White Paper; we have learned over a period, and certainly during the dispute, that fire services should be delivered locally, but that we certainly needed a strong regional dimension to common procurement and the use of equipment, as well as when responding to major emergencies and to the responsibilities under the civil resilience programme, which deal with terrorist attack. All of that cannot be done by a local authority. Indeed, at the moment, any of those incidents are subject to a gold command procedure, where people get together and reach an understanding. That is not equivalent to a regionally agreed strategy, but it allows people to operate outside their areas of operation. To that extent, the regions will make that arrangement better.
  Let me say that the assemblies will also have new power from central Government, just like the Mayor of London—again, this was not said in the White Paper, but it is policy now—to direct local planning authorities to reject planning decisions that contravene their regional spatial strategy. We will give them the power to reject that planning application. Indeed, the Mayor of London has that power. If people want to have a regional strategy and planning applications go against those regional plans, as determined by an elected authority, it makes sense that those people should have the power to veto such decisions. That power was not mentioned in the White Paper, but we have now made it clear that we will allow local planning authorities to exercise that veto.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that
  "sensible Governments do not want great public debates".—[Official Report, 18 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 905.]
  Well, after his contribution today, I imagine that he would not want to get into them anyway. So he does not believe in talking to the people. Perhaps if the Conservative party had talked to the people, we would not have had to correct so many mistakes so quickly, such as the poll tax, which cost £30 billion and involved many civil servants—such confusion, such cost and an increase in bureaucracy. We will take no lectures from the Opposition on how we should handle decisions in the regions
  We believe in asking the people what they think, so my ministerial team and I will hold hearings in the three northern regions over the next few months. We will discuss with the people the powers that we have proposed for the elected assemblies, and we plan to publish a Bill before the House rises in July. I take on board that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that that should happen in June, but he only said that because he believes that we already know what those powers are. As I said, an active discussion is going on with the people at the moment, and we will present and reflect those views in our Bill.
  We believe that elected regional assemblies offer a great opportunity for the northern regions. We want to take power from Whitehall and give it to the people of the regions. We want greater prosperity, more growth, more jobs and more investment in our regions. Elected regional assemblies represent a new form of government, which is smaller, more focused and involves elected and non-elected stakeholders in decision making; a new vision, strengthening the
  1496
  prosperity of the north, increasing employment and reducing the present and continuing economic and political deficit in decision making; and a greater democratic accountability, providing more democracy and less bureaucracy. They will give the regions a greater sense of pride and a new political voice, but it is up to the people to decide. It is not Parliament's decision. It is not the Government's decision. It is the people's decision—their say, their choice. Just as we did for the people of Scotland, the people of Wales and the people of London, we are now offering that choice to the people of the north.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Deputy Prime Minister gave a barnstorming performance today, and I look forward to campaigning with him for a yes vote in the referendums in the three northern regions. I agree with much of what he said. I was also pleased to see him in thoughtful mode today. [Interruption.] That was not meant as a backhanded compliment. He is right that we need to try to find out whether extra powers can be given to regional assemblies, and those powers should be announced before the referendums.
  The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Liberal Democrat Members support regional devolution, but want a much deeper, richer form of it. I am afraid that that is why I have to tell him that, because of the careful wording that the Conservatives have proposed today, but for very different reasons from theirs, we will support their motion. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister should wait because we will support his amendment to it. [Interruption.] Both the motion and the amendment are totally supportable, and say different things. The Conservative motion says that the Government must publish their plans before the referendums. That is what we have argued for, as the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire knows, because he and I exchanged letters on that very point. He promised the Liberal Democrats in our negotiations on the paving Bill that the Government would introduce a draft Bill, and we want to ensure that that promise is honoured. That is why we can support the Conservative motion. However, the Government are absolutely right in their amendment, because we need to go much further and ensure that the false arguments that the Conservatives are raising in many other forums are dealt with. The Deputy Prime Minister made a good start on that today.
  If we do not get more powers for the assemblies we will be in danger of losing the argument. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows from his discussions in the regions and with his own colleagues—as many Labour Members have made clear today—many people are not convinced by the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice". That is why the Government need to go further. As the White Paper stands, not enough powers are coming down and too many are going up. Moreover, even the powers that the elected regional assemblies will have are circumscribed by the targets that they must meet, the Secretary of State's ability to override decisions and the absence of any executive powers for the assemblies. The fact that many of the policies and strategies that the regional assemblies will create will have to comply with national policy will circumscribe

  1497
  some of the powers and flexibility that they are supposed to have. We are seriously concerned about that point, and the Deputy Prime Minister must move on it.
  We shall support the Government in the referendums because the current proposals are a starting point—a building block for future, richer devolution. That is important. We also support the Government because, as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly and powerfully said, we have regional government at the moment; this debate is about accountability and democracy.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats support the referendums, but the Liberal Democrat group on Cheshire county council, and therefore the Liberal Democrat county councillors in Cheshire, opposes the referendum and is urging people to vote no.
  Mr. Davey: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is wrong. There are Cheshire Liberal Democrat county councillors who very much support regional devolution.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's problem is that he is not enthusing the pro-devolutionists with his proposals. The pro-devolutionists in my party and his are not exactly champing at the bit over these powers. Worse than that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) implied in his comment on the business communities, those people who are agnostic and non-doctrinaire about regional devolution are unconvinced. Worse still, the opponents of regional devolution are being emboldened by the strategy's weakness. The Deputy Prime Minister is in danger of giving the worst possible start to the referendums. He should move on this, and he needs to persuade his colleagues to do far more. Otherwise, we are in danger of missing a major opportunity.
  What should the Deputy Prime Minister do? He began to sketch out some thoughts today, which were very helpful, and I am sure that people will want to read the record. He mentioned that the Secretary of State for Transport is beginning to think about the potential for devolution. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his speech in Manchester the possibility that learning and skills councils could be devolved. He has also mentioned the three hearings that are to take place.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: On learning and skills councils, I was simply trying to give an idea of how regional thinking is developing and evolving. We made it clear in the White Paper that decisions in that regard were made nationally and locally, and that we would leave that new form of organisation alone. However, it was pointed out to me when I visited one of the regions that its training and skills agency had already appointed civil servants as regional directors who had to make regional decisions. I was just making the point that there had been that development in the field of training and skills.
  Mr. Davey: May I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go even further on that? Just appointing a new civil servant at regional level and making them accountable to the elected regional assembly is not good
  1498
  enough. We want powers to come down from Whitehall. We need powers over skills and training to come down from the Department for Education and Skills to the regions, so that they will have real money and real executive powers. If the Deputy Prime Minister adopts that train of thought, and takes that direction, he will get much more support.
  Mr. Brady: Has the hon. Gentleman heard the complaints from learning and skills councils around the country that the Government are already reluctant to devolve any power to them? The Government seem determined to hold on to the power centrally in the national Learning and Skills Council and to have no intention of giving power down to the regions.
  Mr. Davey: That is right. Some of us who want to encourage the Government in the direction of more localism and regionalism feel that sometimes their moves are too superficial and that the reality does not match up to their rhetoric.
  Following the last comprehensive spending review, I was pleased to see the introduction of pilots between the regional development agencies and some of the local learning and skills councils to see how the councils could work at regional level. The proposals need to go much further. The councils are to be asked to develop frameworks for regional employment and skills actions, but that is not sufficient, because they will have no executive powers, and no real thrust. There will be no real money behind the proposals.
  If the Government, before they publish the draft Bill, and way before the referendums, were to get the agreement of Ministers at the Department for Education and Skills that the whole budget for the learning and skills councils would go to the regions, they would win huge plaudits. The councils would complement the role of the RDAs and they would get massive support from business. Her Majesty's Treasury has published papers about the productivity gap between the regions, and the Chancellor seems to be thinking along those lines. Given the economic analysis that lies behind a lot of the Deputy Prime Minister's thinking, this would be a logical step for him to take. I would like to encourage him and offer him support towards making that move.
  Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman understand my impatience with the highly intelligent and extremely able people from business, the universities and various parts of the public sector who seem to be doing exactly what he is doing, namely waiting for the Government to come up with various initiatives? Surely he can see that this is a time for vision and for people with a real idea of the way in which the regions could develop to seize the opportunity that is being made available here, to engage with the yes campaign and to insist on more powers for the regions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn the art of making shorter interventions, especially when time is limited for these debates.
  Mr. Davey: In answer to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I thought that that

  1499
  is exactly what I was trying to do. The Deputy Prime Minister keeps saying that things are evolving, but we are arguing for a quicker, more visionary evolution, so that we can establish these powers before the referendum. We want to win the support of the people, but at the moment they are pretty agnostic. They are thinking, "These assemblies could just be talking shops if we aren't careful." The Deputy Prime Minister talked about a whole range of strategies that the elected regional assemblies will be able to develop, but there will be no budgets behind them. The assemblies will not have any executive powers in that regard. The powers that they will have will relate to being consulted and to advising other people, not actually to doing things. I thought that government was about doing things, not just about creating strategies for other people to implement.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a meeting took place last week at which revised housing targets were set for the east of England. As a result, the number of houses to be built in Essex up to 2021 was increased from 110,000 to 131,400, very much against the wishes of the people of Essex. That was a regional level decision. Do the Liberal Democrats support that new housing target for Essex?
  Mr. Davey: The problem that we have with the regional housing boards is that they are not democratic. They cannot therefore take into account the views of the people of Essex, for example. Our argument about these regional tiers of government is that, if they were made more accountable, the people could ensure that they answered for the decisions that they took.
  Mr. Francois: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point, but do the Liberal Democrats support that new target—yes or no?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He wants to ensure that the voice of the people of Essex is heard, but will he support an elected regional assembly in that part of the world?
  I turn now to transport. The most dispiriting aspect of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" was its failure to devolve powers in respect of transport. I understand that there are people in the Cabinet and at other senior levels of the Government who believe that many aspects of transport powers should be devolved. That would make huge sense, given the other economic functions involved.
  The first element of transport policy that I want to look at is roads. The Highways Agency already operates and produces plans on a regional basis. It would therefore be relatively easy to reorganise the functions of its officials as part of the draft Bill. That would make sense, as the agency would then be able to link in with the regional planning boards and regional development agencies, and with the sustainable duties to be placed on the elected regional assemblies. Transferring trunk road powers from the Secretary of State to the elected regional assemblies would send a clear signal that the Government were committed to devolution.
  The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed offers an example. There, people have been fighting for many years to secure the
  1500
  dualling of the A1, a move that has been resisted by successive Secretaries of State here in London. An elected regional assembly with powers over trunk roads would mean that the people of the north-east would be able to get the A1 turned into a dual carriageway. That would be a good example of devolution representing the interests of a region, by making sure that the things that people want to get done do get done.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: How would a region raise the money for that? Does the hon. Gentleman advocate a regional income tax as well as a local income tax? Is he arguing that there should be legislative as well as administrative devolution, on a par with what is happening in Wales?
  Mr. Davey: No, I am not in favour of legislative devolution. However, my party is very much against regional council tax precepting. We think that it would be much fairer and more efficient if the money were obtained through the income tax system. We want the block grants that are spent by Secretaries of State to be given to the regional assemblies, so that they can decide priorities. That is what happens in Scotland and Wales, and it works. I presume that the hon. Gentleman supported Scottish and Welsh devolution, although, as he does not often agree with his own Front Bench, he may not have done. We believe that the block grant money could be used in the way that I have set out.
  Mr. George Osborne: I am not following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Decisions to dual the A1 or expand the M6 have to be taken by national Government. The costs are so huge that no regional block grant would be big enough. He is therefore erroneous in saying that a regional government could decide to dual the A1.
  Mr. Davey: First of all, I did not mention motorways, only trunk roads. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that dualling the A1 is the same as making it a motorway he clearly has no knowledge of road transport policy. Moreover, the costs involved are not so great as he seems to think. If the budgets come down from Whitehall to the regional assemblies, they can make decisions about priorities. That is what devolution ought to be about.
  Other aspects of transport policy could be devolved in due course. I do not suggest that this is the right time to devolve the strategy governing the rail industry. The Government are in a mess on the matter, and have put the industry in turmoil, but it could happen in time. The Strategic Rail Authority is already organised on a regional basis, so it is possible that it could be properly regionalised in five or 10 years.
  Other transport policy powers could be devolved to the regions. The lesson is that organising transport policy in Whitehall has not produced happy results. The Deputy Prime Minister must know that, as he had enough problems sorting out transport policy across the country. The problem is that, in many cases, Whitehall does not know best and it has too many other things to do. Giving away powers so that other elected bodies can deal with some matters would ensure that the country's transport policy was far more effective overall.

  1501
  I have mentioned two matters—the role of the learning and skills councils, and the Highways Agency's potential in respect of transport—that the Government need to consider before producing the draft Bill. The environment is a third area worth looking at. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs contains a number of quangos, some aspects of whose work should be devolved, either to regional government or, at a lower level, local authorities. We know that Lord Haskins was pointing in that direction in his review. Aspects of the work of the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Agency must be prime targets for regionalisation, or even localisation.
  Some of the money that is spent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on area-based initiatives, for example, should be given to regional assemblies so that they can decide their priorities on economic regeneration. If the Government did that, how attractive would it be to people in the regions? The chances of winning a yes vote in a referendum would be massively improved.
  I wish the Deputy Prime Minister well in his battles in Whitehall and his ministerial colleagues. He might be reluctant to reopen some of the negotiations that must have been held before the White Paper was published, but from his sojourns throughout the three northern regions, he will know that a real political dynamic exists and that he must reopen the negotiations to ensure that what the Government offer is richer.
  I also wish the Deputy Prime Minister well in the major public hearings about which we are learning, but to take the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), I hope that he will allow the House to debate in Government time how we should devolve more powers. I hope that we will hear in the reply that when we get an announcement on the basket of further powers to be devolved, a statement will be made in the House and a proper publication will be produced prior to, or to coincide with, publication of the draft Bill.
  I thought that it was brave of the Conservatives to initiate this debate. We discovered from the Deputy Prime Minister and Labour Members' interventions that they have not exactly sorted out what they want to do. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has some problems in trying to balance his views with those of his party. His position is distinguished and well thought through, but the problem is that it is diametrically opposed to that of the party for which he speaks. When we debated the matter during the Queen's Speech debate, it was interesting that he said:
  "if the regions were offered devolution in the same way as Scotland, we would be bound to consider that"—[Official Report, 1 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 247.]
  The Conservative party seems to be showing an almost Disraelian attitude to regional devolution under the right hon. Gentleman. He wants to outbid the Labour Government and go even further. I hope that he will come forward with detailed policies and try to persuade
  1502
  the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) of that, because it really would represent a contribution to the debate.
  Geraldine Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the matter should not be turned into a party political issue? Does he accept that there are different views on both sides of the House? I appreciate that the Liberal view is to support both sides, but that is nothing new for the Liberals.
  Mr. Davey: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Lady, just as the Deputy Prime Minister wishes that he had not given way to her. I am afraid that we have a clear position: we support much stronger devolution, and we are on the Deputy Prime Minister's side, as far as he goes, but we want him to go further. We are very much against the position adopted by the hon. Lady.
  I have succour for the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon because some thinkers in the Conservative party actually agree with him.
  Mr. Dawson: Name them.
  Mr. Davey: I will name them. A gentleman called Denis Whelan wrote a policy brief for the Bow Group in May 2002 called "Devolution All Round: A Manifesto for 2005", which makes interesting reading. Its executive summary says:
  "Although the Conservative party may be quick to criticise the new White Paper on regional assemblies, there are plenty of reasons why it should embrace devolution to the English regions as the centrepiece of its own campaign at the next general election. Such a change is worthwhile on constitutional grounds alone, and—much more importantly—is politically workable and consistent with core Conservative views on the reform of public services, liberty and Europe."
  So some people in the Conservative party are, like the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, genuinely trying to engage in the debate. The document from the Bow Group is interesting because it suggests devolving powers to the regions on transport, and even says that policing powers could be devolved to the regional level.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that Sir Cyril Smith, who is supporting the no campaign in the north-west, is a rather better known figure and therefore carries more weight?
  Mr. Davey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now approves of my former hon. Friend, who is a powerful exponent of many views. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has is that his boss does not agree with him. We on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and in the parliamentary party are united. The Tories are totally divided on the issue, and that is why they take such an incoherent position.
  This has been an interesting debate. We have seen how utterly confused the Conservatives are; they cannot tell us which powers they want to devolve, whether they want to devolve them, or what their strategy is. The Government have shown that they are still thinking, which is very welcome. They should be open-minded. The debate has misfired from the Conservatives' point of view because it has given the Government a chance to show that they are open-minded and thinking. It has

  1503
  given hon. Members on both sides of the House a chance to encourage the Government to think more widely and to go for outright regional devolution. If they do so, their chance of winning the yes vote next October will increase massively. All power to the Government's elbow—they should go much further, and then we can really devolve power in this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who not only made a powerful speech in favour of regional government, but has pursued the issue vigorously since the 1970s and is now—I hope—bringing it to fruition. I congratulate him on that; it is a major contribution.
  I am concerned about the mass of quibbles that were the only arguments that the Conservative Opposition could mobilise against the proposals. I thought that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was going to bring a new decisiveness to the Opposition, but all he has done is quake more vigorously than the old Opposition. Essentially, all his points were quibbles. He said that there would be more politicians—if they were like him, that would be a bad thing. Politics is about politicians. This country has fewer politicians per capita than any other system, particularly the federal systems of Australia, Canada and Germany. We need a useful training ground for politicians, and local councils that are in tight chains and controlled from London cannot provide it.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposed system would cost more. Democracy does cost; that is an unfortunate fact about it. It is more expensive than a dictatorship or allowing bureaucracy to make decisions. We are about making institutions and bureaucracy that already exist accountable to the people. I therefore cannot understand the Opposition's quibbling nature. Let us have something clear-cut. They are either for the proposal or against it—not on the one hand possibly and on the other perhaps, with no decision.
  I am a passionate advocate of regional government. The politics of government of this country has been dominated for far too long by London, and local government has been transformed into a system of transporting begging bowls by train or plane up and down the country—begging for decisions that should be made locally to be made out of London. The great wen has become more and more dominant in our lives, and it is right to give more powers, institutions and accountability to the regions, so that local people can control matters locally and Government can be made accountable. We should bring democracy closer to the people. There is a craving in modern society to be listened to, and the proposal is a way of satisfying that craving.
  Increasingly, there is a regional basis to modern life. One has only to consider the M62, which in a sense is the village street of the new north. It unites the social,
  1504
  business and cultural capitals of the area into one developing corridor. Life is no longer lived locally: people travel further to work; they travel from Grimsby to Hull and Sheffield to go to the theatre; they travel all the way to Hull, Sheffield and Huddersfield to go to university; and they shop at Meadowhall. Nowadays, great regional shopping centres are an important basis of life—in the north-east, people shop at the Metro centre. It is right to recognise that, increasingly, we live on a regional basis. Regional institutions alone can manage a big enough framework, have the authority to make a difference to people's lives, and give us effective accountability and controls. We should therefore pass functions down from London to them. and make those functions more accountable to the people of the area.
  I am glad that throughout the north people are working together on this issue, because that is the part of the country that I come from and am proud of. However, it has been badly treated by successive Governments, so we should give it a voice. We get a bad deal in the north and receive less public spending per capita than any other part of the country. London gets all the big spending projects, such as the Olympics and the dome—it is welcome to the latter. We have suffered far more grievous blows from the decline of our basic industries than the south has, and we have higher unemployment, and lower levels of investment, education, skills and training. All those issues have to be tackled. We need a platform from which to fight back and address the north's demands and needs.
  We have seen what synergy has produced in Scotland, where the regional development agency is powered by democracy in the form of the Scottish Parliament. We need and want such development in the north, because we have seen the beneficial effects in Scotland. Given those genuine demands, the Tory position is pathetic. It is rather like the old Mort Sahl joke from the 1950s—old Republicans and, perhaps, old Conservatives believe that nothing should ever be done for the first time, whereas modern Republicans and, presumably, modern Conservatives, believe that it should be done, but not now. That stems from fear, and the Tories have a history of such behaviour—they opposed the Scottish Development Agency, Scottish devolution, Welsh devolution, the London assembly and the Mayor. They oppose the introduction of such measures, then quickly accept them. They will do exactly the same with regional government for the north, unless the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon wants to tell us that they will abolish the London assembly, devolution in Scotland and Wales, the Scottish Development Agency and regional development agencies. As he does not want to do so, the same difficult learning process—the Opposition are the SEN material whom we have to teach—will take place on regional government.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that he might support regional government if it had more power to make a difference. His constituency predecessor, Mr. Watson, echoed that argument in the no campaign in Yorkshire. They say that they would support regional government if it had more powers, but I do not believe that they would. Regional government should have more power, but do they not accept that there is a case for creating regional government to which we can attach more powers as it proves itself, as the

  1505
  people accept it and as it creates a useful role for itself? We must build the base before we can concede those powers, and that is what the Government propose to do.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No, time is pressing, as it is for other speakers.
  I am in favour of the Government's proposals, as I believe that the north needs the same powers as Scotland. I believe that we should have powers over the police, the health service. education, and learning and skills, and I should like to see the introduction of a regional tax component. I admit that that is the ultimate aim, but we must start to build the structures before we move towards a larger perspective. If the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon would support regional government with more powers, I do not understand why he is not participating in the consultation that the Government and Labour Members are holding on the powers of regional assemblies. I believe that the most convenient consultation for him is in Calderdale, and I would welcome him there. I shall hold a similar consultation in Grimsby, where he would also be welcome. He could come along and tell us what the powers should be. That would be a useful contribution to the debate, in contrast to his extensive quibbles this afternoon.
  It is sensible to have regional government and to let the north lead the way, because it is an area where all three entities have a sense of regional identity and pride—perhaps not as strong overall as it is in the Geordie nation, although Yorkshire is a pretty proud county. If we are allowed to lead the way, we will set an example that the east midlands and west midlands will want to follow, and so it will spread down the country—development that progresses from north to south instead of being imposed from south to north.
  The process will not be easy, because it is difficult to break Whitehall's grip on anything, or to get Departments and civil servants to transfer out of London to bring jobs to the regions. Nevertheless, we have to make the attempt, because the north needs that stimulus and those powers. This provides a platform on which to fight back. On that basis, I say more power to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and more power to the assemblies—let us support them and tell our people about the advantages that they will bring.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchel) said—it is very difficult to make Whitehall let go of powers. Any optimism about being able to grab such powers in future is therefore utterly misplaced.
  I must, however, challenge the hon. Gentleman's attempt to rewrite history in relation to the Conservative party, which is not, and never was, a stick-in-the-mud party. He will remember 1979 as well as I do. The start of Mrs. Thatcher's Government started the revival of the north—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may laugh, but let me
  1506
  tell him that in my years of experience of this Government, the more noise Labour Members make, the weaker their case.
  The revival of the north commenced as the old industries died and were replaced by the new industries that are benefiting the area today.
  Mr. Jenkin: Did my hon. Friend read what the director of CBI North East, Steve Rankin, wrote in an open letter to the Deputy Prime Minister in The Journal? He said:
  "You must admit that the North-East has changed dramatically for the better over the past quarter of a century and that there are sound policies in place".
  That past quarter of a century includes 18 years of Conservative government.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did read that, and it is completely true.
  Mr. Neil Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: In a minute.
  I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that we introduced organisations such as the Tyne and Wear development corporation that were amazingly successful—one can see the results in the city of Newcastle today—and that we did it in the teeth of opposition from Labour Members, who believed that the old local government structure was the right way to deliver improvements in the north-east, and resisted our new, modern method, which was ultimately so successful. The conservatives with a small "c" are to be found on the Government Benches, not on these Benches.
  Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: Not for the moment.
  The more bluster that we hear from Government Front Benchers—today we heard some vintage bluster from the Deputy Prime Minister—the more we realise how weak is their case. The Deputy Prime Minister is in danger of presiding over another constitutional cock-up to follow the Lord Chancellor's dismissal on the back of an envelope, the muddle over the setting up of the supreme court and the muddle over House of Lords reform.
  It all started in December 2002 with the first public consultation. Since then, we have had an Act of Parliament, a White Paper, regional roadshows, decisions on postal voting in the referendums, decisions about cash for the campaigns and the establishment of a boundary committee to consider how to dismantle the local government structures in, to cite my local area, Northumberland and County Durham. However, we have had no real meat in terms of details about the referendum vote in October. Having listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's speech—I shall read it very carefully in Hansard, although I imagine it will take a bit of editing—I am frankly none the wiser about what will be in the Bill in July and what will be voted on in October. Regional assemblies have been a live issue for

  1507
  so long that it is wrong that the public, who have to decide on the matter, have no idea where genuine power lies and how much power there will be.
  If someone approached me and said that a major effort would be made to devolve powers from Whitehall to local levels, I, like many hon. Members, believe that we could have a sensible debate. However, that is not on offer. The Liberals, in their wonderfully optimistic way, appear to believe that once regional assemblies are in place, they will grab all sorts of powers, as if they would have the money and power to dual-carriage the A1 in Northumberland. They will not do that. We know perfectly well that the Home Secretary will not give up powers over the police and that the Secretary of State for Health will not put his job on the line when delivering targets to a regional government. Whitehall will not give such powers to regional assemblies.
  The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned—if I understood him correctly—118 quangos in the north with 3,000 board members. He appeared to imply that regional assemblies would take power over them. Does that include national health service trusts? Will such matters form part of the so-called new regional assemblies' bailiwick? We called the debate because we wanted some information about what would be discussed and what we should campaign for between now and the autumn, when the referendum will take place. However, we are none the wiser.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has travelled around the country making all sorts of promises. He hinted that regional assemblies would mean an end of the Barnett formula, which is amazingly controversial in the north-east of England because we feel that it discriminates unfairly against us. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore been whispering to people in the north-east, "'Ere mate, once you get this assembly, it'll be all right. We can scrap the Barnett formula." However, he will not say that north of the border; he had better not let Scottish Labour Members of Parliament know about it.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned giving regional assemblies powers over the police. I have a letter from the North East assembly, which is called "The Voice for the Region" and is a prototype regional assembly. The letter gives a report of a meeting between the Deputy Prime Minister and business people. It states:
  "Mr. Prescott also highlighted examples of moves towards devolved decision-making in both the police and fire services".
  The right hon. Gentleman therefore tells local people things that he knows he will ultimately not implement because he will not have the power to do so.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has also hinted that learning and skills councils will be organised on a regional basis. Our learning and skills council in Northumberland is effective and well run. We do not want to lose that local body and have it placed on a regional basis. It deals with problems in Northumberland that, in some ways, are different from those in other parts of the region. Some are unique to Northumberland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned the letter that Steve Rankin, the director of CBI North East, sent to The Journal, which
  1508
  decently published it, because the Deputy Prime Minister failed to invite him to the business meeting and he believed that he had to respond.
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman may be a little confused. Steve Rankin was present at the business meeting that the Deputy Prime Minister conducted in Newcastle two or three weeks ago, during which some members of the business community expressed strong support for regional government.
  Mr. Atkinson: Perhaps the article is out of date. It states:
  "The CBI's invitation to the meeting must clearly have gone astray, so I shall not be there."
  Perhaps Steve Rankin got an invitation as a result of the article. If it was lost in the post and he subsequently went to the meeting, I apologise. However, the article is sensible and it is worth quoting to show hon. Members the views of a leading member of the business community. It states:
  "All that is on the table is the proposal for an elected regional assembly, without any convincing evidence that Ministers and Whitehall civil servants are prepared to decentralise any significant decision-making to the region. The Treasury, in particular, remains reluctant to relinquish any of its spending powers to regional bodies. So what we are left with is the democratic rump."
  That sums up the views of the business community. We have structures but no sensible powers for the direction of the regional assembly.
  My last point is that the campaign for regional government is causing serious collateral damage to the region, because of uncertainty about the direction in which it will go and what powers it will have. All sorts of vested interests say that the north-east has real problems to which the solution is a regional assembly. Clearly. however, these talking shops will have little ability to solve our regional problems. We should be highlighting the positive aspects of the north-east region. Whatever Labour Members say, the days of coal, shipbuilding and heavy industry have gone, and we are building a new economy in the north-east based on many local businesses that have grown up, are successful and are becoming successful. We have important companies such as Northern Rock, Sage, and a well-known national baker, Greggs. We have universities, with more than 35,000 undergraduates and more people employed in academia in Newcastle than in shipyards.
  The economy is therefore changing, but what we get is people highlighting the problems all the time. There is a campaign for the learning and skills council to be taken over because we have the worst record on skills, education and training in the country. As a result, the negative things about the region are highlighted all the time. What makes me angry is that those disadvantages, which we are struggling to overcome, are being highlighted on a false premise that the solution is to set up another talking shop—in our case, a 25-member assembly—which will have the powers to put that right, when we know perfectly well that it will not.
  The people of the north-east are being conned—the regional assembly will not help them, it will not help to solve the problems of the region, it will cost them a considerable amount of money, it will change the local

  1509
  government structure in a damaging way, taking local decisions away from people, and it will provide no benefit in the long term to the economy of the region.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Neil Turner: It is a sad fact that the more the Conservatives talk of freedoms for local government and so on, the more they oppose those freedoms. We saw that in their opposition to this devolution of powers, and we saw it in the powers that they took away from local government when they were in office. We saw it in their opposition to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London Assembly and even foundation hospitals. Now we see it in their opposition to regional assemblies.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) commented on the regional development agencies and why they were opposed by people in the north-east and the north-west. We did not oppose the idea of regional development agencies; we opposed the fact that they were not accountable to anyone in the regions in which they were set up. The whole argument about regional assemblies relates to the democratic deficit and the need to provide accountability
  Mr. Atkinson: I want to make it clear that I was talking not about the regional development agencies but about the regional development corporations, which were slightly different.
  Mr. Turner: I agree, but that reinforces the point, because the regional development corporations were much less accountable than the regional development agencies, which at least have some accountability to the regional assemblies that were appointed.
  This country's constitution is an unwritten one. One of the great benefits of that is that incremental changes can be made to it on a basis that suits the changing needs and requirements of society. I therefore welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals to allow additional powers, and I hope that the eventual Bill will include a clause that will give the Deputy Prime Minister, or whoever is the Secretary of State at the time, the ability to devolve more and more powers down from central government to regional assemblies. What we should be doing is making sure that we can prove that the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber can make a success of their powers and can move forward to gather more powers as they are more successful.
  The motion shows not just that the Conservatives are opposed to regional assemblies but how old-fashioned their thinking is. They are living in a time warp in terms of the way in which powers are looked at. They seem to think that powers are as they were previously, when there was no crossover or connection between various organisations and local authorities, and no co-operation. That is not the case. The whole point about our excellent councils is that they do cross over with and talk to other organisations, both within the council and outside, which makes them much more effective. The
  1510
  world has moved on, and the regional assemblies will be able to be much more co-operative and partnership-orientated than they would have been in the past.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The motion does not say that the Conservative party opposes elected regional assemblies—mainly because its Front Benchers are confused about their position.
  Mr. Turner: That may well be true, but no one would think, having listened to the speeches we have heard, that the Conservatives were other than opposed to the idea. Certainly all the Conservative Members from whom I have heard have been campaigning for a no vote, at least in the north-west.
  Strategic bodies such as regional assemblies must consider local needs. As the White Paper says, they must take account of planning, housing, transport and so forth. That does not subvert the role of local authorities; it enhances it. Just before Christmas, I received information from the Government office for the north-west about the capital programme for council housing allocations. I do not think decisions like that should be made by bureaucratic organisations such as the Government office. I think they should be made by a body that is accountable to people in the north-west.
  The point about the Government office in the north-west is not just that it is not accountable to those people. It is, in fact, accountable to Whitehall—to civil servants who are answerable to Ministers. That removes it a step further. Bureaucrats who have no idea of the difference between Wigan and Wigton, or between Stockport and Southport, are making decisions about the north-west. A regional assembly that is rooted in the north-west will understand its problems, and will be able to make decisions about priorities.
  It would be wrong of me to suggest that I do not want more powers for the regional assemblies. I think that virtually everyone who supports the principle of regional government wants them to have more powers. Nevertheless, I think that we in the north-west should prove that we can make a success of things before earning those extra powers. Powers in themselves are not necessarily the important, defining issue. Manchester city council, for instance, failed in its bid for the Olympic games and was understandably dismayed, but not disheartened. It learned from its failure, realised where it had gone wrong, and made a successful bid for the 2002 Commonwealth games.
  Manchester has no more powers than any other unitary district council, and has fewer resources than some. It looked beyond its own boundaries: it presented other members of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, businesses, universities and voluntary bodies with its hugely successful plan for the Commonwealth games. In that instance, it was not power but vision that was important. The council's determination to work with all its partners made the games a success.
  I believe that there will be a yes vote in the north-west, for a number of reasons. We are proud of our history. Our region was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, which shows that we have the ability and the skills to ensure that we are part of the new economies.

  1511
  We are proud of our cities. Manchester is a hugely developing city. It is regenerating itself. Liverpool is to be European city of culture. We are hugely proud of that and of the way in which it has gone from the devastation caused in the 1970s and 1980s to the kind of city that it is now.
  We have vitality. The north-west's music industry is tremendous. The arts in the north-west are bursting with vitality. We have the capacity and capability to ensure that our world-class universities, businesses, entrepreneurs and work force become leaders of the new economy, just as we were the leaders of the old economy.
  More importantly, in the north-west, we have a vision. We know where we want to go. We have the determination to make that vision a reality. More importantly still, we have the confidence to ensure that we forge our future in the north-west and make it a place in which children will be proud to be brought up. The best way of achieving that is to ensure that we have the capacity and ability, through the structures of the north-west—the regional assembly—to turn that into reality.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: This has been an interesting debate, not least because the interventions by the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) on the Deputy Prime Minister showed that it is not a party political debate, as Government Front Benchers would have us believe. In the north-west last summer, I got together with the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and other Labour Members to create a no campaign. Indeed, we got together with the Labour leader of Lancashire county council and other local authority leaders from the Labour party. The reason we were able to create a broad coalition, which has not been replicated on the yes side to any degree, is that people have a number of concerns about regional government in the north-west.
  Some, like me, I fully confess, are against regional government. I represent a county seat in Cheshire. We do not want Cheshire to be abolished. We do not want its identity to be abolished. We do not want decisions to be taken away from the rural community in Cheshire and taken into metropolitan areas. However, the reason why the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East and for Manchester, Blackley object to the proposal is that they want to see a city government form of region for Liverpool and Manchester respectively. Indeed, some people have joined our campaign because they do not think enough powers are being devolved.
  Mr. Dawson: Can the hon. Gentleman please explain to me, as one Member from a rural constituency to another Member from a rural constituency, what the particular advantages of city government for Liverpool and Manchester would be for the people whom we represent?
  Mr. Osborne: With the greatest respect, it is of no great interest to my constituents how Manchester or Liverpool govern themselves. That is an issue for the people of Manchester and Liverpool and their representatives, not an issue for the people of Cheshire.
  1512
  We have come together, as a broad no coalition that is relatively well funded and organised at this early stage, to oppose the Government's plans and the yes campaign. We were prepared to have an argy-bargy with the yes campaign and to trade literature with it. We were less prepared for the extraordinary Government propaganda campaign that has started, funded of course by the taxpayer.
  The campaign is exemplified by the leaflet that I have here, and I believe that similar leaflets have gone out in other northern regions. It is called "A new opportunity for the North West" and was sent to me by the director of the regional government office. It purports to be an information leaflet but it is the most biased, one-sided piece of propaganda that has been produced by a Government Department in living memory. It is extraordinary.
  The picture on the front cover is of four people in Blackpool. There are two rather surly looking men with hats on with their thumbs down and two smiling young ladies with their thumbs up. That sets the tone for the argument throughout the rest of the leaflet.
  For example, there is a section on a new form of government. It says:
  "You could vote for a new form of elected government in the North West, a regional assembly that would:
  give your region a voice".
  Excuse me, but I thought that our region did have a voice—through its Members of Parliament. I am bound to say that the vast majority of those Members are Labour Members, but if the Government do not think that that has resulted in the north-west's having a strong voice in Parliament, I suggest that the problem lies within the Labour party and its Members of Parliament. I feel, as do other Conservative MPs, that we provide a strong voice for the north-west in Parliament, and I know that the Labour MPs involved in our campaign feel that they can do the same.
  The leaflet continues by stating that a regional assembly would
  "be more inclusive—you could get involved".
  That strikes me as very interesting. How can a regional assembly be more inclusive? Under the Government's proposals, Cheshire could have just two representatives, each of whom would represent 300,000 people. In the process, the Government could abolish a system that involves 50 councillors. How can it possibly be more inclusive to have two representatives representing a third of a million people each?
  The leaflet continues:
  "Why have an elected regional assembly? Currently, responsibility for issues such as jobs, housing, and transport in the North West is split between many different—largely unelected—organizations…The Government believes that the people who have responsibility for such important issues should be democratically elected by, and accountable to, the people who are affected by their decisions."
  I agree, but that accountability comes through the Minister. The Minister—like the Deputy Prime Minister and all Ministers who sit on the Government Front Bench—is responsible for such matters. They are accountable because they are elected through the House of Commons at general elections. That is accountability. It is just wrong to say that there is no accountability for regional organisations. Such accountability flows through Ministers, in the way it has traditionally done.

  1513
  The leaflet also sets out some of the functions of a regional assembly. Such functions are at the heart of the reason why we have initiated this debate, because many of them remain opaque. However, let us see what the Government say those functions will be:
  "Developing the economy of the North West would be at the heart of the assembly's work."
  Of course I want the north-west's economy to be developed, but I do not see how having a regional talking shop will do that, and nor, indeed, do any of the regional business organisations. That is why the regional CBI has opposed it and the chambers of commerce have opposed it. [Interruption.] It is clear that there is doubt among Labour Members, so let me tell them what the Warrington chamber of commerce, in partnership with the North Cheshire, Wirral and North Wales chambers of commerce, said. They advise the Government
  "to abandon this project before it wastes a great deal of money on a level of government that few people want and even less people need."
  Overseeing skills will be another function of the elected assembly. I have done some research, and the results were quite interesting. The Deputy Prime Minister had a meeting with the yes campaign in the north-west in December. Unfortunately, the minutes of that meeting were leaked. They record the following:
  "In terms of the additional powers over regional skills and training function, Mr. Prescott said that this is an ongoing issue as the Department for Education and Skills would like to keep skills training where it is".
  What a surprise.
  I was a little surprised by the argument advanced by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Wigan (Mr. Turner). In essence, the hon. Member for Wigan conceded that very few powers are currently being given to regional assemblies, but he said that we could build on them and thereby get a foot in the door. If he seriously thinks that Whitehall is going to concede more powers to regional assemblies over time, I am afraid that he is mistaken. That is not the way Whitehall works. What will happen, of course, is that the powers will be sucked up from local government as regional government establishes itself. I offer the hon. Gentleman some candid advice. If he wants to argue the case for more powers for his regional government, he should do so now—before the referendum and before the Bill—so that he can establish them now. There is no sign that Whitehall departments are going to concede those powers.
  The leaflet says that housing, planning and fire and rescue services would also be the responsibility of regional government. Local government currently holds most of those powers, so this is not devolution but sucking power up. Fire services in Cheshire are currently organised by the Cheshire fire authority. Under these proposals, the powers will be sucked up into a regional assembly. There are also powers over public health, culture, tourism and sport, and the environment.
  Anyone reading the leaflet would assume that the implication is that the regional assembly will have lots of money to spend on sports facilities, cleaning up the environment, health services and so on. Of course, that
  1514
  is not the case. There will be no more than a power to sit on consortiums and forums, to issue consultation papers and strategies and to be consulted and consult. This will not be about spending real money on real things, which is what people would expect and what, if they read this leaflet, they would be led to believe.
  Lord Rooker gave the game away last year in the other place. On 28 April, he said there would be no new powers and no new money for regional government. That is the truth. What there will be, of course, are extra costs.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend telling me that Lord Rooker's comments about no new powers and no new money have not gone into the leaflet given to the general public? Is that not an extraordinary omission from what is supposed to be a piece of Government information that dispassionately explains the facts?
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have read the leaflet from cover to cover and back again, and, for some reason, nowhere in it are Lord Rooker's comments to be found. Then again, nor do certain comments made by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire appear in it. There is nothing on the turnout issue, on which I pressed the Deputy Prime Minister. The leaflet asks how the referendums will be decided, and says that it will be by a simple majority. I can see the local government Minister nodding at that. Last year, though, when he was asked what would happen if the turnout was derisory, he said that the result would be set aside.
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I never said that the result would be set aside. I pointed out that the referendums were advisory and that the Government would not be bound to implement proposals if the turnout was derisory. I stand by that.
  Mr. Osborne: I am delighted that I gave way. It is interesting to have that remark on the record once again. I suggest that the Minister should inform the Deputy Prime Minister of that—[Interruption.] Maybe he has, but the Deputy Prime Minister did not seem to know it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us later what he would consider to be a derisory turnout. Indeed, will he support the private Member's Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? Perhaps the Minister thinks that 50 per cent. is too high a figure, and that that would not be a derisory turnout.
  Mr. Raynsford: It is a threshold.
  Mr. Osborne: In that case, perhaps the Minister will tell us in his wind-up speech what a derisory figure would be. It would be interesting to know whether the Government would not proceed with regional assemblies if the turnout was too low, which is certainly what the Minister has just said.
  The leaflet was produced at considerable public expense, costing £500,000. The chairman of the very successful yes campaign for the Scottish Parliament, Nigel Smith, told me that the entire literature budget of that campaign was, to his recollection, not as much as

  1515
  that. Yet the Government have already spent that, long before the referendum has arisen. Luckily, there is an organisation—North-West Says No—that brings together Members of Parliament from the Labour party and the Conservative party and local government people from the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour parties. It also has the heavyweight support of Sir Cyril Smith, who is well known in the region. I am convinced that, as we point out that the assembly will be an expensive talking shop that does nothing to bring new jobs and investment to the region and nothing to improve transport links, but merely undermines local democracy and accountability, we will carry the day.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: To listen to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), one would think that regions were of no importance to the governance of our country. In fact, the importance of regions has been recognised throughout the last century by all political parties and Governments. It was, as has been said, a Conservative Government who went further than any other in recognising the importance of regions by setting up the regional offices. They recognised that they could not run all the regions from Whitehall. Our argument with that is that it was not a democratic way of running the regions. The debate is not a party political one that has simply to do with Labour's regional policy. All Governments have had regional policies of one sort or another.
  Two main arguments appear to be emerging in the north-east as the campaign gets under way. First, the no campaign say, "We don't want any more politicians." I must point out to those who use that argument—I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—that compared with other democracies we are poorly represented by elected representatives in this country. Notwithstanding that, because there are more than 300 councillors in Northumberland and more than 400 councillors in Durham, if the people in the north-east vote for regional government there will obviously be a reduction in locally elected councillors, so there will be fewer politicians, not more. Those who argue that they do not want more politicians should vote yes in the referendum because regional government will result in fewer politicians.
  The second argument concerns powers, and it has formed part of today's discussion. It is odd to argue against regional government because it is not powerful enough. That is like a homeless family being offered a home but refusing to move in because it does not have a porch, a conservatory and a swimming pool. When people move into a property, they wait until they feel comfortable and then they begin to add to it up, and the same is true of regional government. When regional government is set up and people see what it can do and how it can work, regional government and central Government will talk about increasing powers.
  I do not share the scepticism of Conservative Members that powers will never increase because Whitehall will never let them go; the Government have already moved towards letting powers go. If people are ever foolish enough to vote for a Tory Government, they may find that powers are withdrawn from the regions and local authorities and returned to London,
  1516
  but some Governments—this is one of them—will devolve powers to the regions. I sympathise with the points made by some of my hon. Friends and the Deputy Prime Minister and would like to see some of the powers outlined in the White Paper extended in the draft Bill before the referendums.
  It is important for my region that the learning and skills councils are brought under the purview of regional government. It is nonsense that regional government should be responsible for economic development but not have that vital link to skills, training and learning. There are problems in the region in relation to skills and training such as the skills gap and low productivity. The unemployment rate is very high in the north-east, and we have a poor culture of lifelong learning, low educational and career aspirations, skills shortages in certain areas, an underperforming labour market and low demand for higher skills. Developing higher skills is a crucial factor in improving economic growth in the north-east, and I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us more in his winding-up speech than the Deputy Prime Minister told us the other day about the possibility of learning and skills councils coming under regional government.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does that not underline our point? The hon. Gentleman is asking for information about the powers that the assemblies will have, and he has listened to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has not told him the answer. Our point is that people are not getting a clear picture of the powers that the assemblies will have.
  Mr. Clelland: We have a clear picture of the initial powers because they are contained in the White Paper, so there is no question about that, and those of us in the yes campaign are already campaigning on that point. We have been promised that the draft Bill will be produced before the summer recess, and it will provide a further example of how the powers might develop. Other hon. Members and I are trying to beef up the powers so that when we get the draft Bill there are extra powers over and above the White Paper, which will undoubtedly help our campaign.
  I should like powers on transport to be devolved to regional authorities. Our transport priorities in the north-east would certainly be different from those of central Government and the Highways Agency. We want devolved powers so that we can tackle problems such as the A1 north of Newcastle—although I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that we need to be practical and that things cannot happen overnight. However, the A1 improvements would have a much higher priority under regional government, as would the completion of improvements to the A69 and the urgent work needed to relieve congestion on the western bypass.
  Of course, devolved transport powers would cover not only roads, but the rail infrastructure, buses and the integration of our transport system, which, like learning and skills, is extremely important to the developing economy of the region. I hope that the powers set out in the White Paper will be extended under the draft Bill. Even as currently proposed, they are a step forward that the country needs to take to become a more modern and vibrant democracy. The choice for the people of the regions is simple, as I shall tell the people of the north-

  1517
  east: do they want the concentration of power in London to continue, or do they want some of that power in their region where they can have an influence on it? The question is simple and I think that when people are given the opportunity to vote on regional assemblies, they will vote yes.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), not least because he has long been a consistent supporter of regional government. He expresses his views on the subject honestly and trenchantly.
  However, the hon. Gentleman has also done much to make the argument for our proposal. He said that the initial powers were set out in the White Paper and explained that the draft Bill would shed a little more light on them. However, he then said that he hoped there would be more in the draft Bill than there had been in the White Paper, which implies that he believes it preferable for the powers of a regional assembly to develop and increase over time. That is precisely the proposition, which is, I think, irrefutable, set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) at the outset of the debate: the people who, in the autumn, are to be given theopportunity—albeit not one that they particularly wanted—to vote on the question of regional assemblies ought to know exactly what they are voting on.
  There was no suggestion from the hon. Gentleman that, if there was a significant change in the range of powers for regional assemblies following the referendum, he would expect a further referendum to be held. There would be no further consultation of public opinion as to whether those powers should be increased or changed.
  The Government claim to be strong supporters of regional government—the Deputy Prime Minister has certainly been campaigning for it for a long time—and they are prepared to ensure that referendums are held in three regions in the autumn, despite poor expressions of interest from all three during the consultation process. However, as the Government are not prepared to give either the House or the people of the three regions any detail about what the regional assemblies would be empowered to do, we are entitled to ask why they will not give that information.
  The most charitable interpretation is that the Government do not want to say definitively what the powers will be, as they might change during the passage of the Bill. The Bill that will be considered in the summer will of course be only a draft; there is no guarantee that it will even have been introduced in Parliament by the time the referendums are held. It is thus possible that, through no fault of the Government, the powers might be different after the referendum. That reason might fall into the category of Government incompetence; they do not know what the powers will be, because they cannot control the process—they have been unable to pass the legislation.
  Another answer might be that the Government cannot agree among themselves what the powers should be. There is a strong suspicion that the Prime Minister is
  1518
  not really interested in regional government and does not support it, but is merely humouring the Deputy Prime Minister. He is getting the Deputy Prime Minister out from under his feet by sending him off on tours around the regions. That has a ring of truth about it. If it is not incompetence, perhaps the reason is confusion in the Government, and they simply do not know what they want to do or cannot agree.
  There is the third and more worrying possibility that the Government know precisely what they would like the regional assemblies to do, know what their powers should be, but do not want the public to know. That would be a deliberate act of deception. I prefer to take the more charitable view, but we are left wondering.
  What we have to suspect, though, is that the Prime Minister knows that he does not want significant powers to go to the regional assemblies, because that has been the pattern of his behaviour through the whole of the Government's devolution strategy, if it can be called a strategy. Their plan has been to devolve powers, whether to London or Wales, and then busily set about trying to claw them back or to make sure that they can control the people elected to run the bodies in question: throwing Ken Livingstone out of the Labour party and then taking him back in; trying to decide who should be the First Minister in Wales.
  A picture of confusion emerges. The Deputy Prime Minister, in a classic performance, a great performance very much in keeping with his tradition and style, did nothing to dispel any of the existing confusion and actually sought to advance it during his speech. It was remarkable that he accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon of being confused on the subject, saying that it was the most confusing argument he had ever heard. The words "kettle", "pot" and "black" came to mind, though not necessarily in that order.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has been selectively advancing the argument that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. He apparently believes that that might be one of the advantages of moving towards regional government. When I challenged him on the matter, the result of my intervention was interesting. I asked him to give an argument for keeping the Barnett formula, given that he had said that Scottish devolution had removed the regional economic disparity between Scotland and England, but he carefully refused to give me any answer. He said that the Government and his Department were constantly reviewing all kinds of financial arrangements. When I sought to intervene again to establish very clearly whether the financial arrangements that the Government were constantly reviewing included the Barnett formula, he would not take my intervention. I very much hope that in winding up the local government Minister will respond on this point: do the Government welcome a review of the Barnett formula or not?
  Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend suspect that what the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to do was to float the idea in the north-east, generate lots of local excitement that the Barnett formula might be

  1519
  removed in advance of the regional referendum, and then do absolutely nothing about it after the referendum takes place?
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I think that he is falling into the trap of imagining that this was a deliberate strategy on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman merely opened his mouth before engaging his brain, and the first thing that emerged was what appeared to be an argument that was popular where he was at the time.
  We need to know, and people on both sides of the English-Scottish border need to know, whether the Barnett formula is being reviewed or not.
  The Deputy Prime Minister also confirmed that the powers that he and the Government have in mind for regional assemblies have changed since the White Paper was published. As one example he cited the power to veto local planning decisions. Labour Members try to advance the argument that regional assemblies will increase democratic accountability, and then one of the principal changes that have taken place already, before we have the draft Bill, reduces local decision making and accountability, taking those powers away from local people to a more remote tier of government.
  Of course Ministers are very fond of claiming that such change will not increase the number of tiers of government. The Minister is nodding in agreement while he sits on the Treasury Bench, yet it is absolutely certain that, for my constituents, who currently live in a single-tier metropolitan borough authority, his proposals—if he has his way—will lead to an extra, unnecessary tier of bureaucracy, costs and politicians. The fact is that that unitary authority has been able to function effectively. It worked very well, until Labour took over the administration of Trafford borough council in 1996, and it will improve again in June, when Labour loses control of the council. There is nothing wrong structurally with that unitary authority and that single tier, which works extremely well.
  Obviously, colleagues who represent constituencies in shire counties are free to believe that the alternative is a better structure, and I am happy with that. Those of us who represent constituencies with unitary authorities, however—single-tier authorities—believe that they are perfectly efficient structures for local government, but, if the Government have their way, we will be faced with an unnecessary, additional tier of bureaucrats and politicians that we simply do not want.
  I should like to touch on another issue briefly. During the opening speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) referred to the possible effects of using proportional representation in any assembly election and the danger that that might provide an opportunity for minority parties—some of them are particularly unpleasant, such as the British National party—to gain a foothold in the assembly. The Minister shook his head and vehemently disagreed with that suggestion, but I have not yet heard him give any reason why he is confident that the PR system, if it is put in place, will not allow for that possibility. I would welcome a response on that point. I would also welcome his comments on the danger of fraud if we opt for postal ballots, particularly given today's revelations about the integrity of the electoral roll in some areas.
  6.27 pm
  Andy Burnham: We have heard Opposition Members advance some interesting arguments today, but the one that I will take away involved the image of the great Tory revival of the north. May I offer a genuine and warm invitation to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) to come to Leigh at any time to deliver that speech? We will see what reaction he gets if he does. The fact that they have all glossed over is that we live in a country where health, wealth and life chances are unevenly spread, both by social class and geographically. Over the years, many people have been motivated to come to the House to do something about that. Some people have come here because they want to keep things that way. Sadly, that group has held sway.
  In truth, there are complicated reasons why Britain is still an unequal country, but it is a fact that children born today in Liverpool or Manchester can expect to lead shorter, unhealthier lives than those born in towns across the south. They can expect to earn less and to have less chance of going into higher education. Whatever the detailed reasons for that, without doubt, the underlying essential truth is that, for centuries, political power and resources have been disproportionately concentrated in the south of this country, leading to a southern bias in decision making and helping to create an entrenched north-south divide.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Andy Burnham: Time is short, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Today, we are debating a proposal to begin loosening that grip on the levers of power and to take power away from Whitehall and place it in the hands of elected people in the regions. Those who oppose that have sought to engender cynicism about politicians and politics. Opposition Members have not used them, but people on the same campaign will use phrases such as "jobs for the boys" and "gravy train"—we can hear it all now. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) should understand that that is easy pub talk and that it is far harder to make a case for change, but we will do just that.
  Tomorrow, the yes for the north-west campaign will be launched in locations across our region. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said that there was no great rising up of enthusiasm and no great cross-party support. He should just wait and see. He should look in his local paper tomorrow, or watch the television when he gets back tomorrow evening. There are some serious business figures involved in that campaign.
  Mr. George Osborne: It is cross-party.
  Andy Burnham: The Liberal party is fully involved in the campaign. Let us just wait and see. I put this point directly to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, as he laughs. In arguing for the status quo, he comprehensively fails to illustrate how the systems of government and public administration of this country have served the people of the north-west—including those in his constituency—and elsewhere. The

  1521
  Conservatives cannot do that, because on any objective analysis, it is those structures that have created the divided country that we have today.
  Let us focus on health inequalities, which are probably the best indicator of the failure or success of public policy. The determinants of health involve not only the share of health resources but—according to Donald Acheson's 1998 independent inquiry into health inequalities—education, employment, average income, housing, transport and other environmental issues.
  It is 24 years since Sir Douglas Black published his ground-breaking report on health inequalities. If the system of government that we had in this country had worked properly, we would have seen a steady narrowing of those inequalities in response to that report. Instead, the chief medical officer's annual report for 2001 came to the shocking conclusion that communities in some parts of the north-west and north-east of England had death rates similar to those that prevailed in the 1950s. I do not understand how anyone advancing the case for the status quo could fail to see the importance of that statement—[Interruption.] It is to do with regional government, because every one of the responsibilities that we are proposing to devolve to those bodies—housing, skills and so on—has an effect on public health.
  That shows how the country is divided at the moment. It is perhaps less the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but people not far from there have a lower life expectancy than elsewhere, and it behoves all of us to do something about that. Those Members opposed to the proposals need to tell their constituents what plans they have to give the north-west a bigger share of the resources and a greater ability to do something about these important issues for themselves.
  Every day, unelected people in Government Departments take decisions on behalf of our constituents. I would like to give the House a flavour of my time in Whitehall. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where I was an adviser, is possibly the most London-dominated of all the Departments. I remember well sceptical voices there expressing doubt about Manchester's ability to stage the Commonwealth games. In culture and the arts, London dominates absolutely. Money is given to regional projects if they fit the assumptions of the capital élite, and the view has prevailed for far too long that England's heritage lies in the pretty market towns rather than the industrial north. That view has only recently begun to change, with the extension of the blue plaque scheme to the regions. Regional programming is the strength of British broadcasting, yet the London-based broadcasters often only pay lip service to their regional commitment.
  These are all examples of decisions taken in Whitehall that affect our constituents, and it is about time that they had a chance to express their views on such issues themselves. People of my generation recognise the north-west as the place that they come from; they have a growing sense of regional identity and share culture,
  1522
  music, humour and passions. It is about time that we let them organise for themselves the way in which they express that regional identity.
  In contrast to the cynics, I believe that a regional assembly could refresh our political culture. A real problem for politicians on both sides is that our political structures are not doing their job. Our councils are sometimes seen as parochial and unable to effect change, and we are sometimes seen as being too remote from the people we represent. That has played a part in disengaging people from politics. If we get the new regional assembly, it could generate new interest in public affairs, and bring in different kinds of decision making. These proposals should go hand in hand with the reform of the House of Lords, which could be indirectly elected from regional lists. If that happened, the voice of the regions would start to boom around the country. That is exactly what a lot of people are very afraid of.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: I am delighted to have a few minutes to oppose the motion moved by my good parliamentary neighbour the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). We need a bit more white rose and a bit less Whitehall. I shall refer to two specific examples arising from the experience that I have gained as a constituency MP in the Yorkshire and Humber area. Regional government would have made a difference in both.
  The hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) placed much emphasis on the economy and business. They asked whether regional government would make a difference to economic development. Interestingly, the regional organisation of the CBI in my area is neutral on the matter. It can see pros and cons, and is open to argument. That is important.
  The hon. Member for Hexham mentioned the decline of the coal and steel industries. People in Selby know all about that. The first example that I want to mention has to do with the European spallation source project. It is the principal long-term project of Yorkshire Forward, and is based in my constituency. I shall not explain it in detail, but it involves a neutron scatterer. The project—a massive science park—would amount to a £1 billion investment. It is backed by Yorkshire Forward and the blue-chip institutions that make up the white rose consortium of universities.
  I tried for a year to secure a meeting with a Minister about the project. I like to think that I am a reasonably assiduous MP. I vote with the Government—on the whole—and thought that a meeting would probably be granted. In the end, a Yorkshire Forward official, Tom Riordan, had to come down here. An alternative site for the project in Oxfordshire is much beloved of Whitehall civil servants. Only after Tom Riordan criticised their attitude, in the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee, did the meeting take place.
  The business magazine Insider published a list of the 100 most important people in Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is not here at the moment, so I can tell the House that he is No. 2 on the list. The managing director of Yorkshire Forward is at the top, and Tom Riordan—that very good servant of

  1523
  Yorkshire Forward—is at No. 4. Not one local politician is in the top 10. I am at about No. 453. That not one local politician is considered to have influence on economic development is a terrible thing.
  If we had a Yorkshire regional assembly, the meeting that I was trying for would have happened an awful lot sooner, and the case that we could have made would have been much stronger. I spent a year trying for a meeting, and the Government are now responding and considering the case that I want to press. However, the delay should not have happened. We need a body with region-wide responsibility to act in such matters.
  My second example has to do with transport. The CBI in Yorkshire has pointed out that only £70 of every £100 spent on public transport in England as whole is spent in the Yorkshire and Humber area. I attended a meeting last Friday in the grand surroundings of Hull's guildhall. The company First York won the trans-Pennine rail franchise, but it has cut the service between Hull and Manchester airport. It sent its regional public relations people to tell the various Members of Parliament and council leaders who attended the meeting that the company was not about to change its mind. If we had a regional assembly with powers to make representations to the SRA, and with powers over rail passenger transport grants and local transport plans, the company would have been forced to send representatives of much higher status to the meeting.
  I turn now to some of the points made in the debate. How much money would really be controlled by a regional assembly? In Yorkshire, £500 million would be controlled directly, and £1.1 billion indirectly. That sounds a lot to me, and it is much more than I have ever controlled as a politician, but the Opposition say that it is a small percentage of total public expenditure overall. We do not want to control defence in Yorkshire or transfer payments; we want to control the things that influence our economy.
  The role of strategies is much mocked. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke from experience about culture and sport. I wish that Yorkshire could have a regional strategy for sport, controlled by Yorkshire politicians. We love sport in the region, although we are doing terribly badly at cricket and football. The only thing that we have to boast about is Doncaster Rovers—[Interruption.] I suppose I could also mention Hull City and Bradford Bulls in that context, but a strategy at grass-roots level to rebuild Yorkshire sport would be a great help.
  I could talk about the local government changes in north Yorkshire. They are as complicated in Selby as the Schleswig-Holstein question in the thirty years war or the Alsace-Lorraine question in the first world war. However, I do not have time.
  In conclusion, I think that the hearings initiated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister represent a great opportunity. Many of us will make the case for learning and skills, and a little more might be given in respect of transport. When it comes to the great northern vote, I hope that the people of Yorkshire and Humber, for those reasons of economic development above all, will vote yes. An additional reason why they will vote yes is because the last thing that we want in
  1524
  Yorkshire and Humber is for the north-east—the Geordies—and the north-west to have regional assemblies, and for us to be left without one.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have had an interesting and illuminating debate, and anyone who reads it will realise why so many hon. Members have become enamoured with the idea of elected regional assemblies. They think that they can pick any failing in their constituencies and anything that has gone wrong in their region and pin their hopes on a regional assembly curing all. They say that the projects mentioned by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), life expectancy, health and housing will all be cured by regional assemblies, although, according to the White Paper, they will have virtually no power at all. The debate has served a purpose by exposing the enormous gap between what people say that regional assemblies will do and what the Government's policy actually offers to the people who will participate in the referendums.
  I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister with my usual care, but I thought that he got into a muddle when he complained that the Government offices were terribly undemocratic. He did not seem to understand that he is accountable to the House for the operation of the Government offices, and it is his colleagues and mine who hold him to account for that—they are, in fact, accountable. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister scoffs derisively at that comment, but he failed to give any assurance that the Government offices would be handed over to the regional assemblies. They will not be handed over; in fact, they will become more important than ever in enforcing Whitehall's will on regional assemblies and local authorities, as they are doing more and more under this Government.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for supporting our motion, but I think that he slightly confused the situation by telling us that he would vote for the Government's amendment as well. I should point out that the amendment commends the Government on the information that they are giving voters on the subject, but our motion does precisely the opposite. I would love to be a Liberal. One could just relax and let it all hang out. One could decide whatever one wanted and go home and sleep easily at night.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman because I feel that I owe it to him.
  Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his motion does not suggest that people oppose regional assemblies if they vote for it?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to accept that because I do not think that it is the issue. [Interruption.] Yes, it is perfectly true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, what we are worried about is the lack of clarity in Government policy. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we are not standing for election in the referendums, so our policy is not the issue. We are not heading for a general election

  1525
  in October, but referendums. If the referendums are to be a proper test of public opinion rather than just an opinion poll on which group voters in the regions specifically resent at that moment, we need clarity. The debate is not about whether we favour elected assemblies for the English regions. The real question is how much power will a regional assembly really have. The Deputy Prime Minister singularly failed to answer that question.
  Let us be absolutely clear. The assemblies will certainly be nothing like the Scottish Parliament—I have not seen that cure all the ills of Scotland. They will be nothing like the Welsh Assembly. They will have even less power than the London assembly. For example, according to the White Paper, a north-east assembly would not only have no legislative powers whatsoever—not even secondary legislative powers—and control less than 2 per cent. of public expenditure in the region, but would not even be able to control appointments to the regional development agency because Ministers would still have the right of veto over the appointment of business men to RDAs. The issue is the disparity between what the Government pretend that regional assemblies will do and what is set out in the White Paper, because that is hardly a basis on which voters may make an informed and educated choice in the referendums.
  Fundamentally, this debate is about the Deputy Prime Minister's failure to explain his proposals on elected regional assemblies for which Ministers are responsible. Given that there has been no public clamour—in fact, little but apathy—for elected regional assemblies, and, frankly, hostility from business, the Government are desperately thrashing around trying to sell a virtually unsaleable proposal. This debate is about Ministers' failure to be open and straightforward, and to present clear and intelligible proposals for people to vote on. The more that they attempt to explain their proposals, the more opaque they become. The Deputy Prime Minister in particular has been encouraging people to believe things about the Government's policy that have not been agreed by the Government to try to rescue the idea of regional elected assemblies. That threatens fundamentally to corrupt the referendum process, which should be an objective test of public opinion after a prolonged and informed debate.
  Let the House recall the careful and meticulous way in which the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, approached the referendum for a Scottish Parliament. I did not agree with the concept of a Scottish Parliament; I fully accept that the debate was comprehensively won by the pro-devolutionists. [Interruption.] I do not deny a bit of it. [Interruption.] Is the Deputy Prime Minister finished? Just a few months after the 1997 election, Donald Dewar published a White Paper that was absolutely clear. No one voting in the Scottish referendum could have been in any doubt about what they were voting for. Let us compare that with the conduct of the Government's policy on elected regional assemblies.
  Like plans for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, proposals for elected regional assemblies were included in the 1997 manifesto. That was seven years ago, and it remains astonishing that, even though the referendums in the north of England are now only
  1526
  nine months away, the Government have still not explained the powers to be devolved. They are spending £500,000 on an information campaign that does not explain the powers. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) an assurance that we will return to the question of the Government's information campaign and its impartiality.
  Mr. George Osborne: I discovered today that the launch of the Scottish White Paper was paid for by the yes campaign because civil servants in the Scotland Office thought that it would be wrong for the Government to spend taxpayers' money on it. It would be interesting to know whether that has been happening in the regional campaigns.
  Mr. Jenkin: No, of course not; these people have got really sloppy.
  Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister, who, as we know, is lord high everything else in this Government, went on a grand tour of the north of England to promote his proposals, and spoke at meetings in Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. At all those meetings, he held out the prospect of significant additional powers for elected assemblies beyond those set out in the White Paper—powers on policing, adult education and training and even health. We know that other services such as fire services are being considered for regionalisation.
  The difficulty for the Deputy Prime Minister is that the proposals in the White Paper are but a shadow of what he really wants. The reality is that, seven years after the manifesto, there is no agreement in the Government on what should be the powers of regional elected assemblies. That is why he is talking up the powers. He is haunted by the near defeat in the Welsh Assembly referendum. That is why he will not accept what the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire clarified while he was absent from the Chamber: the Government will dismiss a derisory turnout even if the vote is in favour.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify that in his winding-up speech. The Deputy Prime Minister is determined to talk up what the regional assemblies might be going to do.
  The most interesting thing that has fallen into my hands recently is an extraordinary document of the minutes, to which one of my hon. Friends referred, of a meeting between Felicity Goodey, who is the leader of the yes north-west campaign, representatives of the north-west business leadership team, and none other than the great panjandrum himself. the ever effervescent and charming Deputy Prime Minister. The meeting took place in his large office at No. 26 Whitehall, along with his ever loyal and patient minder, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire.
  Most interesting are the Deputy Prime Minister's comments about the Barnett formula. The minutes say:
  "Mr. Prescott emphasised the scale of public money going into the regions…Mr. Prescott hoped to see an increasing level of co-operation across the North of England…where the power of the regional voice…would be difficult to ignore in London. He drew comparisons with Scotland and Wales' lobbying on the Barnett formula."

  1527
  The right hon. Gentleman missed the point about the Barnett formula. The Scottish and Welsh lobbies were never stronger in Whitehall than they were before they had a Parliament and an Assembly. Since devolution, the Barnett formula has been surreptitiously altered to accelerate the equalisation of spending between England and Scotland.
  The minutes continue:
  "He referred again to the Barnett formula, indicating even in Scotland and Wales this was not seen as fair. He felt that the introduction of additional Assemblies would provide a 'great opportunity' to open up a debate on this subject".
  Is that the Treasury's policy? We know that it is not, because a menial little official immediately slapped the Deputy Prime Minister down without much difficulty. That chaos underlines the chaos of the Government's constitutional reform agenda, and it is about time that the Prime Minister clarified the situation.
  6.51 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Opposition's stance reminds me all too clearly of Talleyrand's description of the Bourbons:
  "They have learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing."
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the Opposition got it wrong every single time that the Government introduced an important devolution proposal: they opposed the Scottish Parliament, but now they accept it; they opposed the Welsh Assembly, but now they accept it; they opposed the Greater London assembly, but now they accept it; and they opposed regional chambers, which are now populated by more than 150 Conservative councillors—mercifully, not all in one place. Of course, there are the regional development agencies, which they opposed. Now, however, we do not know—more astonishingly, they do not know—what they think about them. With that track record, how can they expect their policy on elected regional assemblies to be met with anything but derision?
  There is confusion about regional government, but it is the Opposition who are confused about the powers and role of regional assemblies which, for their benefit, I shall spell out in simple terms. Elected regional assemblies mean more accountable regional government. They mean less say for the Whitehall machine and more power where it belongs—in the hands of the people in the regions.
  In the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) looked forward, we were pleased to learn, to campaigning with us on a referendum for a yes vote, which we welcome. However, he spoilt his announcement by saying that he would vote tonight with the Tories, who are utterly opposed to regional devolution. The nub of his argument was that the powers of the elected regional assemblies should be extended. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, we have already gone beyond the original powers spelt out in the White Paper, and he made it quite clear that this is an evolutionary process. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton welcomed the decision to hold hearings in the northern regions, and I am sure that he and his hon. Friends will want to contribute to them.
  1528
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave a forceful speech in favour of regional devolution, paid tribute to my right hon. Friend's long-term commitment to regional government and looked forward to a successful outcome.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) strained the bounds of credulity with his astonishing claim that Baroness Thatcher, whose Government probably caused more devastation to the north than any Government in history, was secretly a friend of the north. He must be bemused by the ingratitude of the people of the region, who disproportionately and stubbornly refused, with the exception of his own seat, to show their gratitude by voting Conservative.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) welcomed the Government's proposals and argued strongly that decisions affecting the north-west should be made by people elected by, and accountable to, the north-west. He spoke proudly about the regeneration of the cities of the north-west, and looked forward to a yes vote in the referendum.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) confused regional responsibilities with local council roles. For his sake, I shall spell out the difference. We regard local service delivery as the continuing responsibility of local government. There will be streamlining of local government, and I am astonished that he opposes the idea of more cost-effective service delivery. Local government will continue to deliver services locally, whereas regional government will deal with regional matters. The hon. Gentleman queried whether the referendum would be decided by a simple majority. As we made clear, there will be no threshold, because thresholds have perverse consequences, as we saw in Scotland in 1979. A simple majority is important.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No. I am answering the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  As I have said, referendums are technically advisory. The Government will certainly be guided by the majority, but we are not bound to implement on that basis and we have said that we will not be so bound if the outcome is derisory. I am confident, however, that there will be a decisive vote, because we are doing everything that we can to ensure a high turnout—postal voting is part of that. Any friend of democracy will want to see a decisive outcome and a clear view expressed by the people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) strongly supported the proposals for regional devolution. He argued for stronger powers because he believes that the proposals represent a good base for future development, and he welcomed the fact that the Bill will be published in July.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) argued, against all the evidence, that the proposals would increase local bureaucracy. Let me remind him that the figures that the boundary

  1529
  committee produced in its preliminary proposals show that the number of councillors in the north-west—some 1,405—could fall as low as 213 if the wholly unitary options are pursued. It was not logical of him to argue that the proposals will mean an increase in bureaucracy when all the evidence shows that that will not happen.
  The hon. Gentleman was even less logical when he talked about the British National party, repeating the malicious and unfounded argument that elected regional assemblies could provide a doorway for the BNP to get elected. We all hate the politics of hatred that characterise the BNP and will do everything that we can to oppose that. However, in my experience of campaigning against the BNP in London—in Millwall—and elsewhere 10 years ago, the most decisive way to defeat the BNP is with a high turnout in a reasonably large constituency. The BNP flourishes in small areas with low turnouts; our elected regional assembly constituencies will be large, which will allow for a decisive vote against it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) emphasised the proud regional identity of the north and argued that the new devolution process could help to revive our political culture.My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) rightly highlighted the merits of the white rose as against Whitehall.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made great play of his wish to see a Bill. We understand that, and it will be published in July. He did not say, of course, that that is a wonderfully convenient way of enabling him to keep his options open. He is a thinking person who realises the futility of the Bourbon style of opposition. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman went on the record two and a half years ago in favour of regional government. Now, he has the misfortune of serving in a Front-Bench team that is viscerally hostile to elected regional assemblies and that, even more embarrassingly from his point of view, sees the policy as a European conspiracy. No wonder he is hedging his bets: he knows that almost every other country in Europe has devolved regional government—apart from places such as the Vatican, Luxembourg and Malta, where there are obvious geographical obstacles—and that here in Britain a great deal of Government activity has a regional nature.
  The current regional structures outside London are not accountable to the regions and often involve regional government by quango. Those who take the decisions are usually well intentioned, but are not answerable to the public whose lives and prosperity they are deciding or influencing. Furthermore, because they involve separate bodies that are closely focused on their own subject, they often fail to secure a joined-up and co-ordinated approach.
  Our task is to give the people the option of a more accountable, more democratic, more joined-up structure with the powers to make a difference on matters that need to be dealt with at a regional level, such as jobs, housing, transport, planning and the environment. Elected regional assemblies will bring a new perspective, a new vision and a new opportunity to
  1530
  the regions. They will not add to bureaucracy—on the contrary, our proposals could well lead to a substantial streamlining of local democracy.
  Regional assemblies are about choice, democracy, prosperity and more effective government. In summary, they are about the future. By contrast, the Opposition's position offers nothing: it is incoherent, remorselessly negative and backward looking. It is the product of a party that failed the people when it was in government and has been wrong about every devolution debate in the past decade. The Opposition have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing; the House should decisively reject their motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 281.

  Division No. 53]

  [7:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Allan, Richard

  Westminster)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Flook, Adrian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bacon, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baker, Norman

  Francois, Mark

  Barrett, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Garnier, Edward

  Beith, rh A. J.

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Bercow, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodman, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Surrey)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brady, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gummer, rh John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Breed, Colin

  Hancock, Mike

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Burnett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Burnside, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Cameron, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Fife)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Jack, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chope, Christopher

  Keetch, Paul

  Clappison, James

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Inverness)

  Collins, Tim

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Curry, rh David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Stamford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Howden)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Fabricant, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  1531

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Marsden, Paul Shrewsbury &

  Spink, Bob Castle Point)

  Atcham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, rh Francis

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mercer, Patrick

  Swire, Hugo E Devon)

  Mitchell, Andrew Sutton

  Syms, Robert

  Coldfield)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Teather, Sarah

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Thurso, John

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Trend, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, rh John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Rendel, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Wiggin, Bill

  M-Kent)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Ruffley, David

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilshire, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Selous, Andrew

  (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Simmonds, Mark

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kincardine)

  Gregory Barker and

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  NOES

  Adams, Irene Paisley N)

  Bryant, Chris

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Burnham, Andy

  Darwen)

  Cairns, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Challen, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Best, Harold

  Pentlands)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chryston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Clelland, David

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Borrow, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cohen, Harry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Colman, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Connarty, Michael

  1532

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cranston, Ross

  Hatfield)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kidney, David

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Denham, rh John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Doran, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Love, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  McCafferty, Chris

  Efford, Clive

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  McDonnell, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McFall, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, rh Derek

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  McNulty, Tony

  & Rye)

  MacShane, Denis

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWalter, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Mole, Chris

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Moran, Margaret

  Healey, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hendrick, Mark

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hermon, Lady

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heyes, David

  Owen, Albert

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Perham, Linda

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Picking, Anne

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  1533

  Purnell, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Anniesland)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheridan Jim

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Finsbury)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Speller, rh John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Wright, Anthony D. Gt

  Lochaber)

  Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian Eccles)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Straw, rh Jack

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 133.

  Division No. 54]

  [7:15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Best, Harold

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Allan, Richard

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Blunkett, rh David

  Darwen)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baker, Norman

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Barnes, Harry

  Breed, Colin

  Barrett, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Battle, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Beard, Nigel

  Bryant, Chris

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Burden, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew

  Burgon, Colin

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Burnett, John

  Berry, Roger

  Burnham, Andy

  1534

  Cairns, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Grogan, John

  Fife)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hanson, David

  Challen, Colin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hermon, Lady

  Chryston)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Holmes, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cruddas, Jon

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hatfield)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keetch, Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Denham, rh John

  Inverness)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Doran, Frank

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Doughty, Sue

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Foster, rh Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez Hastings

  McCartney, rh Ian

  & Rye)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McDonnell, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McKechin, Ann

  Gidley, Sandra

  McNamara, Kevin

  1535

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  MacShane, Denis

  Finsbury)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Kincardine)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Spellar, rh John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Merron, Gillian

  Lochaber)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mole, Chris

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Moran, Margaret

  Straw, rh Jack

  Mountford, Kali

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Teather, Sarah

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thurso, John

  Perham, Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Picking, Anne

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prescott, rh John

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purnell James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Arnniesland)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Willis, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Wills, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woodward, Shaun

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Yarmouth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wyatt, Derek

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bacon, Richard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Barker, Gregory

  Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brady, Graham

  1536

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, rh David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burnside, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Maples, John

  Cameron, David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Mercer, Patrick

  Barnet)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Chope, Christopher

  Coldfield)

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Conway, Derek

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, rh David

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Paterson, Owen

  Stamford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Howden)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Randall, John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Redwood, rh John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Fabricant, Michael

  M-Kent)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Francois, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Goodman, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gummer, rh John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, rh Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Walter, Robert

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilshire, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Mr. Hugo Swire and

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. Mark Field

  Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the Government's proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in their White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; further notes that the White Paper also set out the way in

  1537
  which the Government intends to build into its policy development the opportunities offered by the creation of elected regional assemblies to further decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; notes that the principal confusion about the proposed powers and role of elected regional assemblies appears to be on the Opposition benches; and condemns the continuing attempts by the party opposite both to deny people a say in how they want to be governed and to denigrate the value of that choice.

  Regional Assemblies

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on motions 5 and 6.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      IMMIGRATION
      That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.
      That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
      Question agreed to.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at the sitting on Tuesday 24th February,—
      (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Smith relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply; and
      (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Michael Howard may continue, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Margaret Moran.]

  PETITIONS

    Ongar Fire Station
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Eric Pickles: I wish to present a petition in the name of constituents who are concerned about the possible removal of a full-time fire station at Ongar and its replacement with a part-time fire station. My constituents are particularly concerned because Ongar fire ground is the largest in Essex, and they are concerned about the level of coverage.
    Some 5,506 constituents, covering all age groups, have signed the petition. I was particularly impressed by the collection organised by the pupils of Chipping Ongar primary school.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents of the Parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar and areas served by the Ongar Fire Station
    Declares that they are concerned that our local Fire Station's status will be changed from full time to part time.
    The Petitioners therefore request that this House of Commons brings this concern to the attention of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and ask him to use his good services to prevail upon the Essex Fire Service to review their proposals.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Council Tax
    7.29 pm
    Andrew Selous: I present a petition signed by 559 of my constituents who are concerned about the unfairness of council tax for people on low or fixed incomes.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents of South West Bedfordshire
    Declares that a major review of Council Tax is required for people who are on fixed incomes and pensions, and raises their concerns about reassessment of properties in 2005 which will bring further worries about impending increases in taxes.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to establish a major review of the Council Tax system, and to examine in particular the effect of Council Tax rates on those people who live on fixed incomes and pensions.
    And the Petitioners remain. etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Cervical Screening
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Susan Van Neck was born on 10 January 1967. She married in 1991, and became Mrs. Susan Spratt. She died of cervical cancer in September 1999, at the age of 32. She had three smear tests during her life, which were examined in the laboratories of two different hospitals. As events have proved, two of those tests were inaccurate. They did not detect the first signs of cancer that would have made it possible to treat her fully and save her life.
  As we all know, every woman in the United Kingdom between the ages of 25 and 64 is eligible for a free cervical smear test every three to five years. In 1988, Sue's first test gave her the all-clear, but recommended a further test a year later. The outcome of her second smear test in 1989, examined by the cytology laboratory at Derriford hospital in Plymouth was an all-clear, suggesting that no further test was necessary for five years. In 1993, the test result conducted by the cytology laboratory at the Taunton and Somerset hospital was also an all-clear and suggested no retest for five years.
  Sadly, in 1995, just two years later, Sue was admitted to the accident and emergency department at Yeovil hospital with evidence of advanced cervical cancer. She received intensive treatment, which seemed to work for a while, but in April 1998 she was found to have a recurrence of the tumour. This time, she failed to respond to chemotherapy and after a brave struggle she died on 28 September 1999.
  Since then, the NHS has admitted that it had been negligent and compensation has been paid to Sue's husband. The debate tonight is not about compensation, blame or looking backwards: it is about looking forwards. As part of the contact with the NHS following Sue's death, an eminent medical expert, Professor Dulcie Coleman, was invited to re-examine the original smear tests. She produced a report showing that, among other things, the 1989 smear test that pronounced Sue all clear should have found the early signs of cervical cancer and referred her for further examination by a specialist and treatment. The professor also found that the 1993 test, which again pronounced Sue to be all clear, should have found the traces of cervical cancer that were present and should have sent her for further examination and treatment.
  Professor Coleman concludes her report with these words:
  "If Mrs Spratt's smears had been correctly read in 1989 and 1993, her cervical cancer would have been diagnosed 6 years or 18 months earlier when it was still in the pre-invasive stage. She would have been treated conservatively by local ablation and her prognosis would have been excellent. The local treatment would have been unlikely to affect her chances of becoming pregnant and she would not have had a hysterectomy, radiotherapy or chemotherapy."
  Sadly, that was not to be, and Sue became one of the thousand or so women who die from cervical cancer every year in the United Kingdom.
  Before Sue died, Mrs. Van Neck promised her daughter that she would do all she could to improve
  1540
  cancer screening for Sue's sister and nieces and for all women, so that fewer families would have to suffer the trauma and tragedy of a life so full of vitality and promise being cut short. Since then, Mrs. Van Neck and her husband have been very active, delivering on that promise. They have been in contact with the hospitals in Taunton and Plymouth to chase up improvements in the system. In June 2001, they learned that clinical trials of a new type of cervical cancer screening—liquid-based cytology—were being carried out at a number of hospitals across the country. They made contact with each to set out their tragic family experience and to urge rapid progress.
  As the House will know, until recently all smear tests were conducted by the traditional Pap method. Unfortunately, over the years, it has been found that about one in 10 smear tests using that method have to be repeated, because the person checking the test at the laboratory cannot see whether pre-cancerous cells are present. The errors and anxiety that may arise are amply demonstrated by the Van Necks' experience and by several similar cases.
  The Van Neck family were delighted when, in October 2003, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, as a result of the trials, recommended the use of liquid-based cytology throughout the NHS. As the Minister will know well, liquid-based cytology is a new way of collecting and preparing cell samples from a woman's cervix. Samples are collected using a brushlike device, rather than a spatula. The head of the brush is rinsed or broken off into a container of preservation fluid that protects the cervical cells. The evidence of the trials was that liquid-based cytology results in samples that are of better quality and easier to read, thus reducing the number of tests that need to be repeated.
  Obviously, the introduction of liquid-based cytology would offer a much improved service for all women and would be a positive step forward, so Mr. and Mrs. Van Neck decided to do all in their power to ensure its early introduction. They first visited me at my constituency surgery in November 2003 to tell me of their tragic experience and of their determination to see a better smear test system introduced in this country. I found their story deeply moving and their determination to redeem the promise that they had given their daughter very impressive. I welcome their presence, with their other daughter Debbie, in the House this evening.
  Following that meeting, I tabled a written question on 4 December, which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), on 10 December. She set out the welcome news that the Government had decided that liquid-based cytology would be rolled out nationally across the national health service, for everybody. The reply also stated:
  "We expect the roll out to take up to five years, due to the retraining of all laboratory staff who read cervical screening tests and all sampler takers in primary care."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 415, c. 506W.]
  I have also written to the South West Peninsula strategic health authority, and its chair, Judy Leverton, replied that the authority hoped to introduce the new

  1541
  system in the next financial year, depending on a number of factors, especially on whether all the necessary staff could be trained in the use of the new procedures.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for the speediest possible introduction of cytology in screening. Does he agree that the HART—HPV in addition to routine testing—study suggested that the human papillomavirus test, in conjunction with cytology, might be the most effective mechanism for primary screening? Three implementation pilots are due to report but have not yet done so, and it would be helpful for the House to know when we might receive more information about that further improved screening method.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right: the HPV testing method will give additional support to the cytology process that we hope will be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a few words about the likely speed of the roll-out when he responds. The Van Neck family, too, will be keen to see the HPV test become part of the procedure.
  The purpose of the debate is to urge the Government to ensure that the roll-out of that new screening system happens as quickly as is humanly possible, to give every woman in this country the best chance of detecting cervical cancer at the earliest moment. If at all possible, the new screening procedure should be rolled out within the next 12 months.
  It would also be helpful if the Minister could place on the record tonight detail about the age at which it is now intended that women will have their first smear test, and the intended frequency of subsequent testing.
  More than 3 million women are screened each year. No doubt this year, 2004, will be little different. Under the old system one in 10 of those tests—300,000 of them—might have to be redone. That is not to say that all 300,000 would produce an inaccurate result. Of course that is not true, and I have no wish to cause any unnecessary alarm. But it is certainly the case that accuracy will be improved under the proposed new system. So every year counts; every month counts.
  We understand the need for retraining and the never-ending claims on finite resources, but I urge the Minister to make sure that resources are made available to enable the new liquid-based cytology screening process to be introduced within the next 12 months.
  The Van Neck family know full well that nothing can be done to bring back their lost daughter. All of us who are parents can stand with them tonight and acknowledge their loss. We can also admire their fortitude and perseverance in pursuing the improvement of the system of smear testing in this country, a redemption of a promise made to Sue while she was terminally ill. But most of all we can respond to their courage and tenacity by advancing the plans to roll out the liquid-based cytology system as soon as is humanly possible, so that not a single life is lost unnecessarily to this dreadful disease. I call upon the Minister to assure the House that this will indeed be done.
  7.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on obtaining this debate and on representing the views of his constituents so well.
  I also congratulate the Van Neck family on their campaigning. It must have been a horrible tragedy for them to have their daughter taken in the way that occurred. It highlights exactly why we need a high-quality cervical screening service, and why we must take every opportunity to improve it. As new techniques become available, and we obtain evidence to support them, we must try to implement them as rapidly as possible.
  That said, and acknowledging that tragic mistakes do happen, I have to begin by pointing out that the United Kingdom has one of the most successful cervical screening programmes in the world. That is something that we should be very proud of. Experts estimate that the programme prevents up to 3,900 cases of cervical cancer each year. Experts also agree that that the NHS cervical screening programme is responsible for a reduction of over 40 per cent. in the incidence of cervical cancer in the last decade.
  But we are not complacent. We are always striving to improve the programme, and that is why the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was asked to look at the liquid-based cytology technique. As the hon. Gentleman said, LBC is a new way of preparing cervical samples for examination in the laboratory, and it has the potential to improve efficiency and ensure that fewer women have to be recalled because their test could not be read.
  Following the evaluation of a Government-funded pilot of LBC, NICE issued its final appraisal document on LBC on 22 October 2003, concluding that it should be rolled out across the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has ministerial responsibility for public health, announced on that day that LBC would indeed be implemented across the service, as part of a package to modernise the NHS cervical screening programme. That is the first indication for the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to waste any time.
  The independent evaluation of the pilot concluded that LBC resulted in a clear reduction in the number of inadequate tests, from 9 per cent to between 1 and 2 per cent. Inadequate tests are those that cannot be read in laboratories for a variety of reasons. When LBC is fully rolled out, 300,000 women a year will not suffer the anxiety and uncertainty of an inadequate test, and will not need to be re-tested.In addition, the evaluation showed that the productivity of laboratories rose by 9 per cent., and backlogs were reduced, meaning that women will have to wait for a shorter time to get their test results.
  There are therefore clear benefits in introducing LBC, and that is why the Government are providing £7.2 million to kick-start the process over the next two years.
  However, we do not underestimate the challenge that implementing LBC across the NHS presents.
  As LBC is a totally new technique, the time scale of implementation in England will be determined by the need to retrain all laboratory staff involved with cervical

  1543
  cytology—all the doctors and nurses who take the samples—and to install equipment in laboratories. About 3,000 laboratory staff currently read cervical screening tests in England, and it will take around six months of training before an individual is competent to use LBC techniques satisfactorily. Rigorously developed courses can accommodate only 10 to 12 people at a time. In addition, 40,000 doctors and nurses who take the samples will need to be retrained. For that reason, we anticipate that implementing LBC will take up to five years to complete nationally. Implementation could not progress more quickly even if we provided more funding.
  The key to LBC implementation is retraining the staff in LBC techniques, both in primary care and in laboratories. The programme is already successful, and we must be very careful not to jeopardise its quality. LBC is being rolled out nationally. All those in cytology training schools in England will be trained as part of the first phase of implementation. Strategic health authorities have been issued with advice on how best they can roll out LBC for their local populations, laboratories and primary care.
  We are also taking the opportunities presented by LBC to modernise the NHS cervical screening programme in other ways. The frequency with which women are invited for screening has been standardised across England for the first time, thus correcting a long-standing inequality. Following the publication of research from Cancer Research UK, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening has advised that clinical best practice is that women should receive their first invitation when they are 25 years old and that they should be invited every three years until they are 49, and then every five years until they are 64.
  A fundamental tenet of any screening programme is that it should do more good than harm. Cervical cancer is very rare in women under the age of 25. Research presented to the advisory committee, coupled with 15 years' experience of screening, shows that screening women under the age of 25 may do more harm than good. They may undergo unnecessary investigations, after false positive results suggest that they appear to have cervical abnormalities when, in fact, they do not. Screening women from the age of 25 onwards will help to reduce anxiety, as well as the number of unnecessary investigations and treatments in younger women.
  We will further modernise the service. In some areas, there are difficulties with the recruitment and retention of cytology screeners, which has been attributed partly to low morale and low pay. We appreciate the hard work of all the staff in the programme, particularly over the past few years, when morale has not been helped by adverse publicity.
  We are taking steps to modernise pathology services through the Department of Health's pathology modernisation programme. We recognise that pathology's most valuable resource is its staff and that the need to support and develop those staff is vital. A number of long-term initiatives are in place—which, in time, will provide the NHS with the pathology staff it needs. That will also bring staff into the cytology-screening programme.
  We are also committed to developing new and innovative ways of working, such as extended roles, improved skill-mix and more flexible career pathways,
  1544
  providing new opportunities and better ways to work for staff. One example of that is the new advanced practitioner in cytology grade, which increases the opportunities for staff to extend their skills and improve their pay. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently announced that, as part of the broader NHS recruitment drive, health care scientists who decide to return to the NHS will also now be eligible for a returner's package.
  More broadly, as part of the Government's improving working lives initiative, by 2003, all NHS employers must be able to demonstrate that they are delivering flexible working arrangements, that they are offering good quality, affordable and accessible child care, career breaks and flexible retirement and that they are investing in staff training and development, tackling discrimination and harassment and providing healthy and safer workplaces and other measures to support staff and improve retention.
  I shall now touch on the issue of human papilloma virus that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned. As part of the LBC pilot, we also piloted the use of human papilloma virus testing as triage for women with mild or borderline test results. HPV is a group of more than 80 virus types, some of which are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer. Most women, and indeed men, are infected with the virus at some point, but it is not yet possible to tell which infected women will go on to develop cervical abnormalities, or which of them will naturally expel the virus by the normal functioning of their immune system. Most HPV infections disappear, and even those women who contract high-risk HPVs rarely go on to develop cervical cancer. Carrying out an HPV test at the same time as a smear test may help to decide how to manage a woman if her smear shows minor abnormalities, and could avoid referral to colposcopy, with its associated anxiety.
  There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of HPV testing as a primary screening tool. However, we know how important HPV is in the development of cervical cancer, and that is why we are piloting the use of HPV testing. The independent evaluation report of the HPV arm of the pilot is expected in the summer. In addition, Professor Henry Kitchener, professor of gynaecological oncology at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester, is co-ordinating a study to investigate HPV as a primary screening method. It began in January 2001 and will take six years, including the follow-up of the data, and will involve 28,000 women. The Department of Health is funding equipment for the study at cost of £90,000 per annum. The health technology assessment programme is funding the rest of the study.
  However, we must all remember that early detection by screening and follow-up treatment can prevent only 80 to 90 per cent. of cervical cancers from developing. Like any screening test, cervical screening is not perfect. It might not always detect early cell changes that could lead to cancer. There are three main reasons why abnormal cells on a slide might not be recognised. First, sometimes they do not look very different from normal cells. Secondly, there might be very few abnormal cells on the slide. Thirdly, the person reading the slide might miss the abnormality. This happens occasionally, no matter how experienced the reader is. It is always very unfortunate, but these errors do occur.

  1545
  Women invited to participate in the NHS cervical screening programme need to understand the potential benefits and harm in doing so, in order to be able to make an informed choice about whether they wish to proceed. Information provided to women must be honest, comprehensive and understandable. Following the target set in the NHS cancer plan, all women now receive a national evidence-based information leaflet with their invitation for cervical screening.
  Strict quality assurance is operated within the cervical screening programme at a cost of £4 million a year. Laboratories that read cervical screening tests as part of the screening programme are subject to rigorous external quality assurance procedures that aim to spot potential problems before they become serious, and quickly to identify solutions. When a laboratory consistently fails to meet quality standards, the strategic health authority or primary care trust can require it to stop reading screening tests.
  In conclusion, we do not yet know if LBC will be more accurate than conventional cervical screening, but we hope that it will prove to be more sensitive. We do know, however, that 300,000 fewer women a year will have to undergo the anxiety of a repeat test, and that laboratories will be able to process samples more quickly. But this will take time. Retraining all the staff who work in the programme is an enormous task, and we must do it properly. The issue of quality, both of the programme and the people who work in it, is paramount. We would do a disservice to the 4 million women a year who participate in the NHS cervical screening programme if we were to rush the training of the staff who provide the service. Nevertheless, the Government and the Department of Health are committed to rolling out the technique as quickly as possible. I am therefore pleased to give the hon. Gentleman and the Van Neck family the assurance that we shall not waste a single day—or, we hope, a single life—in introducing this technique.
  Lady Hermon: I am always reluctant to intervene in an Adjournment debate, especially when I have not spoken to the hon. Member who initiated it, but I am increasingly concerned that the NICE guidelines do not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, has mentioned
  1546
  England several times. Will he confirm that what he has said about liquid-based cytology and the retraining of staff will apply to Northern Ireland as well? Women there who read this debate or watch it on Sky television will be worried that only England has been mentioned this evening.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, but I am a health Minister for England. Devolution means that my responsibilities are only for England, so it is not for me to speak about what will happen in Northern Ireland. However, I undertake to make sure that the attention of the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers is drawn to this debate. I will also make sure that any evidence that we in the Department have is shared with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I will ask those Ministers them to write to her about their intentions, and I will put a copy of the correspondence in the Library.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful for that response, but I remind the Minister that the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in October 2002. Many months have passed since then, and it is important that the women of Northern Ireland are not forgotten.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Assembly is not sitting at present. However, the legislative framework in which Northern Ireland Ministers take decisions is very different from what applies here. My responsibility is for England only, but I accept that women in Northern Ireland will want this technique to be rolled out there. I undertake to ensure that Ministers in Northern Ireland are aware of the concern that she has expressed, and that they respond as positively as they can.
  Once again, I give the hon. Member for South-West Devon and the Van Neck family the assurance that they seek. We will not waste any time in rolling out the technique. We know how important it is. We cannot guarantee that it will be any more accurate than the other technique, but we can guarantee that it will be more sensitive. Fewer women will have to undergo the distress of re-tests, and I believe that fewer mistakes will be made in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eight o'clock.