Commons Sitting of 30 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Grammar Schools
    Sir Teddy Taylor: How many representations he has received about the future of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. [180480]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): As at 10.30 this morning, there were 65.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Government reconsider their decision to abolish academic selection for grammar schools, given that it is clear that the majority are opposed to the change and that Northern Ireland has such an excellent educational record? Is it not genuinely strange for a Labour Government to introduce a scheme that will deprive able children from working-class homes of the opportunity to break through the system, and to replace it with a system of class segregation whereby wealthy people in wealthy areas will get the best education, while poor children living in poor areas will be stuck where they are? Does the Minister agree that a Labour Government should think again about that, because it is not fair and not right?
    Mr. Gardiner: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's focus on children, because in the ongoing debate we often look at structures instead of standards and children's needs. I remind him, though, that two thirds of respondents to the Northern Ireland household survey clearly stated that they wanted an end to the 11-plus, or secondary transfer test, and a similar proportion said that they wanted some form of academic selection. I am surprised that we sometimes understand the word "selection" to mean segregation, because it is not. Children can be set appropriately in maths, French or history; but what on earth makes us think that because one is good at maths, one has to be good at history and French, too, or that because one is bad at one of those subjects, one is bad at all the others? There is no need to segregate children at the age of 11.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend share my sense of disappointment that the question has not been answered by the Minister who made the decision on selection in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which he is accountable under the watchful eye of the people of Northern Ireland? Does this snapshot of education in Northern Ireland misunderstand the complicated situation there?
    Mr. Gardiner: Of course it would be better were these decisions taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly, but my hon. Friend will understand that the post-primary review was inaugurated by that Assembly, and in that sense we are carrying on its work.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: It has been clearly shown that our education system in Northern Ireland is socially inclusive, that a higher percentage of pupils gain university places than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that standards of achievement in our secondary schools continue to improve. Will the Minister therefore tell the House why he seeks to destroy our grammar school system? The proposals were rejected by a majority of respondents in the widest consultation ever to take place in Northern Ireland. Why has no alternative to the existing transfer procedure been proposed; and why is the Minister helping to wreck an education system that has proved successful for all the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Gardiner: We are not trying to do away with or abolish the grammar school system; that is clear. The hon. Gentleman focuses on the good things that the Northern Ireland education system has achieved, and he is right to do so. I pay tribute—as, no doubt, would he—to the teachers, students and parents who have contributed to those achievements. As he will know, however, 21 per cent. of all children in Northern Ireland leave secondary education without a single qualification at GCSE grades A to C, and 24 per cent. of young people aged 18 to 25 have no literacy or numeracy at skills level 2. That is why we need the entitlement framework and the proposals made by the post-primary working group.
    Mr. David Lidington: The Minister has voted in the past for parents in England to have a ballot before academic selection was ended in their locality. Why will not he allow a similar ballot to parents in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive our incredulity at the Tories' posing as the great protectors of the grammar school. Mrs. Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other Secretary of State for Education. When will they learn that standards, not structures, matter in education? They do not care about grammar schools. Even now, they propose to take £1 billion out of our schools, including grammar schools, to pay for—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have shorter questions and shorter replies.
    Mr. Lidington: The Minister was clearly embarrassed by his inability to justify the double standards that the Government apply to their policy on grammar schools

    267
    in England and Northern Ireland. He made a great deal of the 11-plus and his objections to it. Why will not the Government consider seriously the alternative models of academic selection that the grammar school head teachers propose and which operate in countries such as Germany, which have academic selection without the 11-plus?
    Mr. Gardiner: We are listening to all the proposals because we are in the consultation period. However, I emphasise that the review was initiated in the Assembly and that the household survey was subject to the widest consultation in Northern Ireland. We are determined to push the proposals because they originated from the will of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend make clear the comments of the Costello report about the educational benefits of the 11-plus?
    Mr. Gardiner: Yes. I would welcome doing that. The report made it clear that there were no educational benefits to segregating children into academic and vocational routes at the age of 11. It also pointed out that it was wrong to presume that more able pupils should always follow an academic rather than a vocational route.

    Pension Payments
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Whether an equality assessment was made of the impact of the decision not to pay double pensions through the Post Office bank account in Northern Ireland for 12 July. [180481]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)Customers paid by direct payment have their accounts credited on the last banking day prior to the holiday in all cases.
    As that arrangement did not change with the introduction of the Post Office card account, there was no requirement to conduct an equality impact assessment.
    Direct payments due to credit accounts on 12 or 13 July 2004 will be credited on 9 July.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am amazed by that answer, because postmasters and others have been in touch with me about the impact of the decision and the misleading guidance of the Bank of England, which states that 12 July must be viewed as a local holiday whereas 17 March and the Scottish day at the beginning of the year are also local holidays. Is it not passing strange that the Bank of England, which owes its existence to the Williamite revolution, targets us for commemorating it?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that brief historical journey. However, on pensioner benefits, those who were due to be paid on 12 and 13 July, which is a local bank holiday, as he rightly says, will be credited on 9 July. They will therefore get their money slightly early.

    Asylum Seekers
    Lady Hermon: What alternatives to HMP Maghaberry have been identified by the Department as appropriate accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. [180482]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): Currently, 140 people are supported by the National Asylum Support Service in Northern Ireland. A total of 14 immigrant detainees are currently accommodated by the Prison Service. One is temporarily in Maghaberry, three are in Hydebank Wood and 10 are in hostel-type accommodation adjacent to the old Crumlin Road jail. All 14 have been offered the option of being held in a detention centre in Great Britain.
    Lady Hermon: I am grateful for that detailed response but I remain unhappy and concerned about the conditions in which asylum seekers are kept at various locations in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please facilitate a visit by me and representatives of various Churches to all the locations where asylum seekers are currently held?
    Mr. Pearson: I would certainly be very happy to facilitate the visits that the hon. Lady requests. She will be interested to know that the Law Centre and Amnesty International have viewed the accommodation at the outworking centre by the Crumlin Road jail, and said that it is far more suitable than the accommodation at Maghaberry prison. I hope that she will take some reassurance from that.

    Paramilitary-style Assaults
    Mr Adrian Bailey: What efforts he is making to eradicate paramilitary-style assaults on the civilian population of Northern Ireland. [180483]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The police are doing all that they can to bring those responsible for these vicious assaults to justice, but it is not solely the responsibility of the Government to seek to bring these attacks to an end; it requires the support of the whole community. We continue to call on those with influence over the paramilitary groups to demand a complete cessation of these barbaric acts.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply. The first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission stressed that everyone in Northern Ireland with a community responsibility had a duty to do everything in their power to end these attacks. Will my hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made on that front?
    Mr. Pearson: The Government are engaging with politicians and community leaders at all levels in an attempt to bring these barbaric acts to an end. In addition, the policy of community policing is being vigorously taken forward, the better to integrate police on the beat with their local communities and to build support and trust within those communities. It is

    269
    important that we continue to do all this work with the police acting on the ground at community level and with the Government engaging with political and community leaders. We are quite clear that all paramilitary activity must cease, and that must be the clear objective of the intensive discussions that will take place in September.
    Lembit Öpik: One paramilitary-style assault that led to a conviction for murder was the killing by two Scots Guardsmen, Mark Wright and James Fisher, of Peter McBride in 1992. Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), together with The Irish World and other media outlets, has sought to highlight the findings of the independent assessor for military complaints procedure, Jim McDonald, who criticised the readmission of Wright and Fisher to the armed forces? What assessment has the Minister made of Mr. McDonald's assessment?
    Mr. Pearson: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in asking that question. I have not yet had a chance to read that report, but this is essentially a matter for the Ministry of Defence, and I shall bring it to that Department's attention.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that in the past three weeks, two of my constituents were beater almost to death, one by loyalist paramilitary groupings, the other by republican groupings. Does the Minister agree that this type of cudgel policing in parts of Northern Ireland is being used by paramilitary groups to gain a stranglehold? Will the Government again make it clear, along with the Irish Government, that any political grouping that continues to associate with illegal armies has no place in the legitimate political process?
    Mr. Pearson: I agree with my hon. Friend. These paramilitary-style attacks—so-called punishment beatings—are completely unacceptable. I totally reject the term "punishment beatings" which is sometimes used, because it gives a spurious respectability to the activity and hides the level of violence that is taking place in Northern Ireland today. People are being crippled, made limbless or becoming brain damaged as a result of these attacks. They must cease, and we must call on all responsible politicians in Northern Ireland to ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister was quite right to stress the importance of policing as a response to paramilitary assaults. However, the number of officers who have left the part-time reserve since June 2000 has been 313, while only 108 have joined. How can he therefore contemplate dispensing with the services of the full-time reserve?
    Mr. Pearson: The Chief Constable will review the issue of the full-time reserve and produce recommendations in the autumn. The policing budget in Northern Ireland this year is some £726 million. I believe that we have a reforming and totally transformed police service in Northern Ireland that is doing an effective job at community level and in tackling paramilitary activity wherever it occurs, and I am sure that it will continue to do so.

    Devolved Government
    Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for the reinstatement of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [180484]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): As the Prime Minister said on Friday, it is time to complete the negotiations with a conclusive agreement or find another way forward. The Prime Minister made it clear that there will be intensive talks in early September. Our position is clear—we need to see an end now to all forms of paramilitary activity, and it is imperative that we restore as soon as possible a stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When we were in Northern Ireland recently, it was trade unions, business and community organisations that urged us most strongly towards an early reinstatement of devolution in Northern Ireland. That was not a criticism of him or his fellow Ministers but a desire for an early return to normality. What chance has he had to discuss the issue closely with those organisations, to enable them to make their voices heard?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. Last week, I talked to the Irish TUC, its general secretary and president, and to the CBI and other business leaders. It is important that civil society in Northern Ireland recognise the accessibility of devolution and local administration. We want a swift end to the present situation of direct rule and the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive. It is also worth reminding the House that all political parties in Northern Ireland also want an end to direct rule and the restoration of devolution as soon as possible.
    Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the fact that the Government are finally planning in the autumn to have a series of intensive discussions, which, unfortunately, are much postponed. Will the Secretary of State make it clear, however, that that is not just yet another target but that it really is a deadline, and that the Government will stick to this—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could have some quiet in the Chamber.
    Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that this really is a deadline and not just another disposable target, and that if the deadline is not met, there will be firm action by the Government to make it clear to the parties that have been dragging their feet over the past couple of years that the Government will move on, close down the Assembly and put in place alternative arrangements?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand that there are other attractions besides me in the Chamber this morning. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said on Friday that these talks in September must decide the issues that

    271
    are in front of us. We cannot go on for ever in this way. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who said rightly that there is an appetite for devolution in Northern Ireland to return, we understand the issues that must be dealt with when we return in September. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we must decide them then.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: As one whose head feels even more naked than usual today, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he was as intrigued as I was to read in this morning's paper that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) has stated that the Democratic Unionist party will enter into talks with Sinn Fein towards a devolved government when Tim Henman wins the men's singles at Wimbledon? May I ask my right hon. Friend, whose skills and abilities are widely respected in this House, whether he can offer us any hope that this happy event may come about? While we are cheered that at least the DUP is talking about talking about talks, we may, at the end of the day, yet again be cheated by the Swiss.
    Mr. Murphy: I have always believed that international involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process is important, but that is a rather roundabout way of getting to it.
    As my hon. Friend says, the parties must engage with each other in the talks. I believe that the DUP is serious in wanting an end to direct rule and the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive; but like other parties in Northern Ireland, it wants an end to paramilitary activity first.

    Decommissioning
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What recent progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives.[180486]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): There have been four acts of decommissioning to date. The latest act occurred on 21 October 2003, when the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed a third event in which IRA weapons were put beyond use.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I accept that there have been four such acts, but does the Minister accept that, although the last was slightly larger than the previous three, they have been only token acts of decommissioning? If Sinn Fein/IRA are serious about democracy and wanting to share power in Northern Ireland, they will have to decommission considerably more arms and make those decommissioning acts more meaningful. Is it not about time that the Government took this more seriously, and pressed Sinn Fein really, genuinely, to decommission its weapons?
    Mr. Pearson: We are taking these matters seriously. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that three acts of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA have taken place. That was the start of the process, and the hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the process must continue until all the apparatus of terrorism in all its
    272
    forms has been dismantled. That is the clear objective of the Government, and it will be the clear objective of the intensive talks that we will hold in September.
    David Burnside: Why should the IRA decommission? The deadline was June 2000. The Government did not stick to the deadline. The Blair promise of action and expulsion was not adhered to. Why should the IRA decommission, when it has a very useful negotiating tool for the next raft of concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA?
    Mr. Pearson: What is important is to recognise that the decommissioning process has started. Certainly we as a Government are not complacent. We want to see an end to all paramilitary activity, we want to see full decommissioning, and we want to see Sinn Fein take its place on the Policing Board. We need to ensure that all the parties are agreed and signed up to this, and that the Provisional IRA and the other terrorist groups all put their weapons beyond use.

    Core Syllabus
    Mr. Graham Allen: Pursuant to his oral answer of 11 February 2004, Official Report, columns 1403–04, on the core syllabus, what advice he has received from the working party on (a) the core syllabus in relation to religious education and (b) ensuring that children understand both Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity; and if he will make a statement. [180488]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): As part of the initial public consultation in September, respondents were given the opportunity to discuss their views further. Those meetings were conducted earlier this month, and views expressed are currently being considered by the working party. I now expect its advice in the autumn.
    Mr. Allen: May I ask Ministers to redouble their efforts to ensure that all children in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, are given the broadest possible base for both religious and non-religious education in values? Does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who will suffer from less religious bigotry in Northern Ireland schools are the men of violence?
    Mr. Gardiner: I heartily agree. It is of course essential for children from all communities to experience not only the religious traditions of the other side, but the breadth of other faiths and world religions, which we are trying to make part of the curriculum. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still a few minutes before Prime Minister's Question Time. May I ask the House to come to order?

    Security Situation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the current security situation. [180489]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): Dissident republicans remain a threat to the peace process, but for the most part their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by good policing operations. The latest round of internal feuding between loyalist paramilitary groups ended following the murder of Brian Stewart in east Belfast last month.
    Let us be clear about this: it is time for republican and loyalist paramilitary groups to make a commitment to ending all forms of violence.
    Mr. Bellingham: Although, as the Minister says, the security situation is relatively stable, and as a consequence troop numbers are at their lowest level for a generation, what contingencies does he have for reinforcing troop numbers if that is necessary, especially given the huge overstretch in the armed forces?
    Mr. Pearson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent announcement that two rear-based battalions will be taken from the authority of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and transferred to other functions. Those matters are kept under constant review. The situation is such at the moment that the police have the full backing of the Army as and when they require it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue to be the case.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Lynne Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 June.
    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.
    Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend will recall his visit to Birmingham's university hospital trust. Since then, there have been year-on-year improvements in services, with waiting times for in-patients and out-patients now down to seven weeks. We are also getting a new hospital. However, will my right hon. Friend take care not to ape the desire of the Tories to reintroduce the market into public services, particularly when everyone knows that market mechanisms—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries are supposed to be short. I call the Prime Minister to answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: I will make sure that we make the health service a place where we can offer the very best quality care on the basis of need and not ability to pay. What my hon. Friend says about waiting lists falling is now true in her area and right throughout the whole country. All the waiting list figures are better, and I am
    274
    sure that the House will be especially interested in the accurate figures for the East Kent Hospitals NHS trust, which show an 81 per cent. reduction in the total outpatients who are waiting 30 weeks or more. The Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust shows a 76 per cent. reduction in out-patient waiting. I am sure that that will be particularly welcomed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who I hope will apologise this week for running down the national health service last week on the basis of wrong information.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Let me deal straight away with the Prime Minister's last point. My constituent was told that she would have to wait 20 months for radiotherapy. It turns out that that was a mistake. She should have been told—[Interruption.] She was told 20 months, but she should have been told 20 weeks, which is five months. If the Prime Minister and the party in government think that a five-month wait for treatment for someone with a life-threatening illness—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak—[Interruption.] Order. If an hon. Member defies the Chair, they might have to leave the Chamber. That is the message that I am sending across the Chamber. Do not defy the Chair.
    Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister and his party think that the fact that someone has to wait five months for treatment for a life-threatening illness is something to boast about, they are even more out of touch with opinion in this country than anyone would have thought. Waiting lists are a British disease; the right to choose is the cure for them.
    Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has won his battle against the Chancellor and the Education Secretary to set up 200 academies rather than 50?
    The Prime Minister: Before I deal with city academies, let me first say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: I do not want anyone to have to wait for life-saving operations, but I point out that it is under this Government, with our mixture of investment and reform, that waiting lists are tumbling right round the country. His Government could not even meet an 18-month waiting list target.
    We will publish our proposals on city academies next week, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is indeed an expansion of city academy schools. They are of course mixed ability schools that service their local area, and they will give children from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to get high-quality education. Contrast that with the proposals that he announced yesterday, which are elitist, divisive and reactionary.
    Mr. Howard: Let me make it clear: we welcome academies, which build on the successful Conservative idea of city technology colleges that the Labour party opposed. But the Prime Minister is only giving freedom to up to 200 schools. There are 20,000 state schools. Why cannot they all enjoy the same freedom?
    The Prime Minister: I have to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that actually, all the schools are getting much greater freedom and the specialist schools have greater freedom, which is one of the reasons why school results are going up. If he is talking about his party's record in education, I welcome this debate. Let me remind him that when he sat in the Conservative Cabinet, year on year, they cut spending per pupil. It is now up £800 a year per pupil since 1997. They had a capital spend of under £700 million; it is now £4.5 billion. They cut the number of teachers; we have raised the number of teachers. And barely half of 11-year-olds were getting the right results in primary school; now, three quarters are doing so. So let us have a debate about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record and our own.
    Mr. Howard: What the Prime Minister does not understand is that people are not just interested in the money that goes into education; they are interested in the standard of education that their children receive. Under this Government, one in three 11-year-olds cannot read, write or count properly; 1 million children played truant last year; a teacher is attacked every seven minutes of every school day; and the number of parents appealing against the school allocated to their children by the state has gone up by 50 per cent. since 1997.
    The Prime Minister is selecting an elite few schools and favouring them with more money and more freedom. Last night the Minister for School Standards spoke about Labour's vision
    "of empowering our best schools."
    Why should it be only our best schools? Why should Labour be creating a two-tier school system? Why cannot the Prime Minister treat all schools the same? Why cannot freedom be extended to the many. not the few?
    The Prime Minister: I really do welcome this debate. First, let me point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—again—that actually, all schools are given far greater freedom now than under the previous Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. Secondly, in relation to the difference between us on policy, he is saying that schools should now decide all their admission policy, which would mean a return to selection at the age of 11. That would mean not parents choosing schools, but schools choosing parents. He is combining that with a private school subsidy that would cost, according to his own figures, about £1 billion a year. That would be money going straight out of the state system and into the private sector.
    The truth of the matter is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies on health and education are elitist, divisive and reactionary, because at their heart is always this idea that the best one can hope for in public services is to get out of them. It is precisely because we recognise that public services are for the many, not the few, that we are investing in them, improving them and making them fit for all.
    Mr. Howard: No, we are not taking money out of the system. We are putting an extra £15 billion into the system, and if the Prime Minister thinks that that is a cut, he should start attending his own numeracy classes.
    276
    What on earth is the Prime Minister complaining about? Let me remind him and his colleagues that just three months ago he said:
    "choice is crucial to individual empowerment and—by enabling the consumer to move to an alternative provider where dissatisfied—to quality of service."
    He said that the ability to move to an alternative provider is crucial to quality of service. Those were his words, not mine, just three months ago. Why can he not have the courage of his convictions and stand up for what he believes in?
    The truth is that, under his system, a tiny proportion of schools will get more freedom; under ours, they all will. Under his system, successful schools will 'not be allowed to expand; under ours, they will. The freedom that our system brings will drive up standards in all schools and allow teachers to impose discipline in classrooms. Does it not all boil down to this: under our system, every—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I give some elbow room to the Leader of the Opposition, but he really is pushing his luck. I think we will leave it at that.
    The Prime Minister: We do indeed increase choice if we expand the number of good schools. That is the purpose of investing in them and creating specialist schools and city academies—to bring greater diversity into the system. What is not the answer, however, is ending up reintroducing selection at the age of 11 and subsidising private education. As to the £15 billion extra that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is going to spend on schools, may I remind him that he went into the Lobby and voted against even the investment that we are putting into our schools system? The idea that it is credible, after all the money that we have invested, for him to come along and say, "Actually, I am going to spend £15 billion more" is, as the Secretary of State for Health has put it, "Laa Laa land". It is another example of the same phenomenon.
    The fact is that where the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies are coherent, they are reactionary and divisive; and where they are not reactionary and divisive, they are utterly incoherent. That is why I am delighted that, at every Prime Minister's Question Time from now until the election, we will carry on this debate.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Yesterday the Secretary of State for Health visited Milton Keynes general hospital and saw for himself the extra staff and extra facilities funded by this Government. Of course we would like even more funding to meet the needs of our growing population, but will the Prime Minister assure me that he will never propose to take £1 billion of funding out of the NHS to subsidise private health care for those who can already afford it, as proposed by the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend of that. We will continue to ensure that the health service is provided free at the point of use, and based on need, not the ability to pay. Our investment and reform programme in the national health service is delivering real results. People can see that in constituencies up and down the country. Whatever the attempts of the Conservative party to run down the health service, the

    277
    fact is that many people know that they are getting superb treatment out of the national health service—and we shall continue to deliver it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his review of the funding of local government has ruled out replacing the council tax as the principal source of local taxation? Of course, he inherited it from the last Conservative Government, but is he saying that he is ruling out replacing that unfair and deeply unpopular local tax?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am not saying that. It should be an open review, and that is what it is.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will that open review take into account the question whether it is at all fair that the poorest 10 per cent. of people in our country now pay four times as much as a proportion of their income in council tax as the richest 10 per cent. of people? What does that say after seven years of a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: What it says, I am afraid, is that we entirely accept that there are problems with the council tax. However, I have to say that there are problems with virtually every system ever introduced for local taxation, and arguments went on under the old rating system, then with the poll tax and now with the council tax.
    Bob Russell: What are you doing about it?
    The Prime Minister: What we are doing is having the review that people asked for and we agreed to provide. We will come forward with the results of that review, once it is concluded. Nothing is ruled out; nothing ruled in. I have to say that, personally, I do not believe that the idea of the local authority taxing people on the basis of their income carries much conviction. The review can look at all the options, but when the right hon. Gentleman goes round the country, as he does, saying that the Liberal Democrats will get rid of the council tax, it is right that he explains to people that it will be replaced by at least 6p on the standard rate of income tax.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Denzil Davies.
    Geraint Davies: How is it that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call Geraint Davies; I called Denzil Davies.
    Denzil Davies: Now that sovereignty in Iraq has been transferred from the coalition, would an Iraqi Government be free to acquire, produce or indeed hold weapons of mass destruction, or will the instruments of transfer contain a stipulation to prevent that?
    The Prime Minister: No, and I have absolutely no doubt that the new Iraqi Government, who are working
    278
    extremely well with us, will, if they are allowed to defeat the terrorism that besets them, be an immensely stable partner for the international community and will contribute not to the proliferation but to the reduction of weapons of mass destruction.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The policy of the US Administration not to allow any of their aid funds to be used for the support of HIV prevention programmes involving the use of condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa is costing tens of thousands of lives and putting pressure on Department for International Development budgets. May I urge the Prime Minister not to be discouraged by his failure to persuade his good friend and ally, George Bush, on Kyoto and Guantanamo and to continue to press the US President to stop that policy for the sake of the African continent, and will he condemn that policy now?
    The Prime Minister: What I will do, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, is set out the policy of the UK Government. The policy of the UK Government is to increase the amount of help we give for HIV/AIDS; actually, we have ended up trebling the amount of aid we give Africa. I am responsible for UK policy; it is one of which we can be proud. The money and help we are giving Africa is far in excess of anything the Liberal Democrats have ever asked for.
    David Taylor: The Prime Minister has shown this morning why he has a reputation for the effective promotion of the virtues of choice. Can he tell us whether he will be using his powers of persuasion to allow the 6 million United Kingdom citizens who live in local authority housing to have the right to opt to retain their landlord while still having the right to have a decent home by 2010?
    The Prime Minister: We will be bringing forward proposals to try to help local council tenants and housing association tenants to have greater choice over the lettings available to them. I also point out to my hon. Friend that we have doubled—it is somewhere in the region of that—the amount of money going into social housing, which obviously has an impact on those houses, too.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Last week, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) made some extremely serious allegations in the House about events during the recent elections in Birmingham. He said that
    "regular phone calls were made to the police by people complaining about the pressure that they were being put under … A postman complained to his superiors that the brother of one of the candidates had offered him £500 for his sack of postal votes".
    He quoted a front-page editorial in The Birmingham Post, headed "Bribes, bullies and ballots", which referred to
    "a … councillor 'sorting out' ballot papers in the shadows of a back street car park at midnight".—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1232–34.]
    Does the Prime Minister agree that such incidents call into question the integrity of our electoral system, and should not all the mainstream political parties work together to stamp them out?
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to comment on the individual allegations, as I do not know the details, but of course I agree that it is important for all political parties to stamp out corruption or malpractice wherever it exists.
    Mr. Howard: The Electoral Commission has in the past argued that allowing observers to oversee elections would promote the transparency of the democratic process. The chairman of my party has written to the Electoral Commission asking it to appoint observers at the current by-elections in Leicester, South and Birmingham, Hodge Hill. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging the Electoral Commission to respond positively to that request?
    The Prime Minister: I will consult with colleagues and get back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the proposal that he has just made—literally, right now. I shall have to investigate its implications and I shall get back to him as soon as possible.
    Mr. John Hume: Given the enormous damage, especially to young people, caused by the illegal drugs industry, does the Prime Minister not think that the time has come when Governments should work together internationally, with the countries where those drugs are produced, to get that industry stopped completely?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely what we are doing, not least in countries such as Afghanistan, which are still obviously in danger of developing an economic dependence on drugs, but I agree that international action is one, major part of what we should do, and we are acting on it.

    Hazelwood House, Devon
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will make an official visit to Hazelwood House, Kingsbridge, Devon.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: Although Hazelwood provides reconciliation and hope for the few, there is no hope for the rest of my constituents if they are in pain because there is not one NHS dentist in the whole of south Devon to help them. What can the Prime Minister say to a low-income family from Kingsbridge whose children have teeth problems and cannot afford to go private or a pensioner who has an abscess but nowhere to go for treatment? Is not he, as the Prime Minister, ashamed to preside over a Government who tolerate such neglect of the people?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that there are real problems in relation to dentistry and dentists at the moment—that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will bring forward proposals on that in the next few weeks—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me about the origins of the problem: a 1990 contract for dentistry that was disastrous and, in addition, a massive cut in the
    280
    number of training places for dentists. So although we have been describing some of the real progress that has been made in the national health service, I agree that, in respect of dentistry, there is a lot more to do, but I do not believe that the Conservative party is in any position to criticise.

    Engagements
    John Barrett: Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents how far he thinks it is reasonable for them to walk to their nearest post office?
    The Prime Minister: I obviously do not know the exact details of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but we are putting between £300 million and £400 million a year into support for post offices. It is true, particularly in urban areas, that closures will take place, but the only way to stop those closures is to provide even greater subsidy and money. I am afraid that we cannot afford to do that, so we will continue to work with the association of sub-postmasters to provide as much help and cover as we possibly can. We set down minimum targets for the distance that people would have to go to a post office. The hon. Gentlemen will know that the reason for closures is that more and more people are putting the money that they get directly into their bank account. As I say, the only answer is an even bigger subsidy, which is not viable. So we are putting in, as I say, between £300 million and £400 million, which is, frankly, the most that we can afford at the moment.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the decision of the United States Supreme Court about the conditions under which prisoners are held at Guantanamo Bay and their entitlement to legal representation to appeal against their conditions. He will also be aware of the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the British Government are not satisfied that British detainees at Guantanamo Bay can have a fair trial. In those circumstances, first, to what extent are Her Majesty's Government prepared to help to fund any appeal that may made by British detainees to the Supreme Court to examine their cases and, secondly, will the British Government seek to appear as an amicus curiae before the court to make representations on their behalf?
    The Prime Minister: Our position is that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the UK. We have concluded that the military commissions process does not provide guarantees to the standards that we require. As my hon. Friend will know, five of the detainees were returned to the UK in March. We continue to work to resolve the situation of the remaining four detainees, and discussions with the United States are continuing.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Following the weekend revelations that the Home Secretary is or was the patron of an anti-vivisectionist society, what comfort can the Prime Minister give to the British scientific community and the hundreds of my constituents who continue to be

    281
    terrorised by animal rights terrorists and who feel that the Government, and specifically the Home Office, are not giving them the protection that they deserve?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to run a perfectly fair point with a totally unfair point. The fact is that the Government are doing everything that we possibly can to protect people against what are clear abuses, and we have tightened the law, not loosened it, since we came to office. We are now looking at what we can do further but let me make it absolutely clear that the activities of those who harass and intimidate people engaged in legitimate research are completely unacceptable. It is for that reason that we have, as I say, already tightened the law. We are prepared to do so even further. The hon. Gentleman will know that many of his constituents have been in direct contact with us about this matter.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will visit Indonesia after the presidential elections there later this year to discuss with the newly-elected President what further support the UK can give for its programme of reform.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so, but we look forward to developing a strong bilateral relationship with the Indonesian Government following the presidential elections. We will continue to focus on areas including support for democratic transition, tackling poverty and co-operation on fighting terrorism.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and urge him, whatever the outcome of the presidential elections, to make a quick visit to Indonesia to underline our support for its reform programme of rebuilding democracy, tackling human rights abuses, overcoming international terrorism, healing Muslim-Christian conflicts and strengthening the economy. Does he agree that such a visit would help to rebuild our relations with the Muslim world and encourage British industry to invest in Indonesia and help its economic recovery, which is vital if the reform process is to be a success?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I will visit Indonesia in the near future, but I can say that we are in close contact with the Indonesian Government. We continue our work with the consultative group on Indonesia and with the Indonesia-British Business Association. I assure him, especially because of the incoming President, that we believe that there is a real opportunity to make progress in Indonesia on democracy, human rights and trade. Indonesia, as he rightly points out, is an immensely important country in the Muslim world, and how it develops will have a crucial impact on relations between the west and the Muslim world. Even if I am not visiting the country personally, I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to be closely engaged in its development.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sorry that the Prime Minister's busy schedule does not allow him to pencil something in because as Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, now is the time when a visit by a British Prime Minister would be helpful, especially following the inter-faith visit led by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) several years ago. That visit helped, but will the Prime Minister accept that there has been a resurgence of atrocities in which moderate Muslims, as well as Christians, have been murdered by extreme Islamists?
    The Prime Minister: I have to repeat what I said about visiting Indonesia, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to continue to help the country to make progress. It is faced with a difficult situation regarding terrorism and extremism, as are many other countries. It is a tribute to the Indonesian Government and authorities that they are trying to make progress while not imposing undue restrictions on civil liberties. We will continue to work with them to ensure that human rights, democracy and, of course, freedom from terrorism are pursued.

    Engagements
    Ms Oona King: On the subject of antisocial behaviour, does the Prime Minister agree with a survey of Tower Hamlets residents that concluded that the key drivers of antisocial behaviour were lack of parental control and drug misuse, and that the key solutions were more police and youth services? We have had more police appointed, so will he tell us what further improvements might be made and what can be done to alter the Cinderella status of youth services, which are important to the future of our young people?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that we will be able to ensure that our youth services are put on a stable footing in the long term through the comprehensive spending review, because they are immensely important. My hon. Friend will agree that the new measures on antisocial behaviour are also important. It is important for us to continue to ensure that fixed penalty notices are issued for disorderly behaviour, that we close down drugs dealers' houses and that we place antisocial behaviour orders on people who continually abuse the rights of their local communities. We are tightening up the law for those who are on drugs but refuse to have treatment. I only hope that when new measures are brought before the House, we will for once have the support of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in taking them forward.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister confirm that in the 1960s the islanders of Diego Garcia were cleared from their island to make way for a military base? In 2000, they won a High Court judgment that established their right to return, but in the past few weeks he has overturned that with an Order in Council because America wants to hang on to the base, perhaps to use it as another Guantanamo Bay. How is any of that compatible with natural justice for the 2,000 islanders

    283
    and their descendents? How can the Prime Minister pursue a shoulder-to-shoulder relationship with George Bush when he seems to spend most of his time on his knees?
    The Prime Minister: First, in respect of Diego Garcia, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the position in a recent statement. Secondly, there is no
    284
    question of using Diego Garcia as another Guantanamo Bay and, thirdly, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman exhibits his usual lack of judgment in thinking it a bad thing for this country be a key ally of the United States of America. That may be something that the Scottish National party resents, but I think that the vast majority of people in this country realise it is an important part of our security.

NATO Summit/Special EU Council
12.30 pm
The Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the NATO summit in Istanbul, and briefly report on the special European Council in Brussels last night.
First, I thank the new NATO Secretary-General, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer, for his chairmanship of the NATO Summit, and President Sezer and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey for hosting it. I am placing copies of the summit declaration in the Library of the House. We were joined in Istanbul by NATO's seven new members from central Europe. They bring a renewed perspective to the alliance, and their recent history of repression makes their attachment to security, freedom and democracy that much keener. We were also joined by NATO's partners: Russia, Ukraine and others from across stern Europe and central Asia. We endorsed capabilities targets to ensure that we make the best use of NATO forces. We supported the further reform of NATO's structures to adapt the alliance to the new threats that we face. We agreed to end the NATO mission in Bosnia, SFOR, at the end of the year and committed to a successful handover to a European Union force.
The two main issues on the NATO agenda, however, were Iraq and Afghanistan. The summit opened just as the new Iraqi Interim Government assumed full authority and sovereignty in Iraq. Politically, Iraq now has a broad-based and representative Government; a timetable and a process for its first democratic elections; a new constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms and the rule of law; a devolved system of government—almost all towns now have municipal councils and those that have been elected are largely secular; and guaranteed protection of minority rights. That is in place of a dictatorship that brutalised the people and ransacked the country. Economically, Iraq now has an open economy with an independent central bank, a real budgetary process, and a new and stable currency. A start has been made to rebuild Iraq's hugely damaged and underinvested infrastructure—a process that will now continue under the guidance of the new Iraqi Government. That is in place of an economy where a country rich in resources had, under Saddam, 60 per cent. of its population dependent on food vouchers.
Britain can be proud as a country of the part that we, and in particular our magnificent armed forces, played in bringing that about. We express our deep condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and to all those who have lost their lives in that struggle. We should pay tribute, too, to the many British public servants, policemen and women and volunteers, so ably led by David Richmond, the UK special representative, who played a crucial role in helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives under difficult and stressful conditions. Her Majesty The Queen has graciously agreed that their extraordinary contribution should be recognised with the award of a special civilian medal.
One overwhelming central challenge, however, remains in Iraq: security. Former Saddam supporters, and increasingly terrorists from outside Iraq linked to al-Qaeda, see progress in Iraq and its potential, and hate all that it represents. They are therefore killing as many
286
innocent people as they can, trying to destroy oil and power supplies and create chaos, so that the path to stability and democracy for Iraq is blocked. At the NATO summit, the Iraqi Government requested NATO's help with the training of the new Iraqi security forces, and NATO agreed it. The crucial task is now to put in place the training, leadership and equipment to give Iraqi police, civil defence and armed forces the capability to take on the terrorists and beat them. The determination of the new Iraqi Government is inspirational, but the challenge, especially around Baghdad, is formidable. None the less, I hope that by the end of July, the Iraqi Government and the multinational force will agree and publish plans to ensure that over time that capability exists. There is simply nothing more important to the stability of Iraq or that of the wider region. Britain, the United States and the rest of the former coalition remain dedicated to helping the Iraqi people in that task.
In addition, NATO as a whole has agreed urgently to consider further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to Prime Minister Allawi's request.
In respect of Afghanistan, President Karzai gave a typically forceful presentation, both on the progress made in that country over the past two years and on the huge challenges that remain to be overcome. President Karzai explained that more than 5 million Afghans have now registered to vote in the September elections, 3.5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan, and 3 million girls are in school. Living standards are rising and the economy is growing by 20 per cent. a year. But again, terrorists with the same intent as in Iraq stand in the way.
NATO agreed, therefore, to expand the role of the international security assistance force outside Kabul, with provincial reconstruction teams to help build Afghan force capability. Some of those teams are already set up in the north. The UK is providing two. The next stage will be to establish similar teams in the rest of the country too. In addition, we agreed a package of support for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan, including a role for the NATO response force. Finally on Afghanistan, we now have an agreed process of stability in the command of the international security assistance force for the years ahead. We have offered to provide the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, one of NATO's high-readiness headquarters, to lead ISAF in 2006.
The role that NATO is playing in Afghanistan and the new role it is taking on in Iraq reflect the new security challenges that we face. Our adversary is no longer the Soviet Union, but terrorism and unstable states that deal in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the possibility of the two coming together. Both Iraq and Afghanistan face the same struggle for democracy and freedom. Both were used as terrorist bases, and both were horrific examples of repression organised and promoted by their Governments while their people were deprived of even the most basic dignity and human rights. Both now have the hope of a new dawn, but are confronted by the remnants of the past they seek to escape.
Let us be quite plain about what is at stake. If we succeed, the Iraqi and Afghan people prosper, their states become valued partners in the international

287
community, and the propaganda of the terrorists—that our purpose is to wage war on or dominate Muslims—is exposed for the evil nonsense it is. Should we fail, those countries would sink back into degradation, threaten their neighbours and the world, and become again a haven for terrorism. The terrorism that we face is not confined now to any one continent, let alone any one country. From Saudi Arabia to the cities of Europe, it is there, active and planning. Since 11 September 2001 in New York we have known its potency. So what now happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects us here as it does every nation, supportive or not of the actions we have taken.
NATO's focus on these issues shows at least a start to understanding this threat and its implications. But I worry, frankly, that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge that we face. I repeat what I said at the NATO plenary session: this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. It also needs us to focus on the causes of it. Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains a vital strategic necessity, as does the recognition that our ultimate security lies in the spread of our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The more we can assist in the development of these values in the wider middle east, in partnership with reform-minded Governments and people, the better will be our long-term prospects of defeating the threat.
But the battle is here and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning. Succeeding in it would be a fitting way to reinvigorate the transatlantic Alliance and heal its divisions.
Finally, on the way back from Istanbul I attended a special European Council. It agreed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, as the new Commission President. He is an excellent choice, committed to economic reform, committed to the transatlantic alliance, and committed to a European Union of nation states. It was a good finale to a brilliant Irish presidency of Europe.
Mr. Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the decision on the new Commission President.
The whole House will, I am sure, wish to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of our armed forces in Iraq, and that of our public servants in that country. The House will also be as one in condemning the killing this week of Fusilier Gordon Gentle. He is the 60th British soldier to have lost his life since the start of the war in Iraq. We send our sincere condolences to his family.
May I also join the Prime Minister in welcoming wholeheartedly the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq? We wish the Interim Government well in the challenges that lie ahead. Their first few weeks are clearly vitally important. Could the Prime Minister therefore answer some specific questions on the implications of the handover?
First and foremost, can the Prime Minister update the House on the immediate security situation? Are there now clear rules of engagement for the multinational
288
forces, clear lines of command, and agreement on the precise nature of political control to be exercised by the Interim Government, including control over sensitive operations? Does he envisage any increase in British troop deployment, and is there now any potential for further troop deployment from non-NATO members, including Arab states?
What are the implications of the handover for the ability of the security services in Iraq to purchase arms with which to defend themselves and carry out their responsibilities? What progress has been made so far in training the security services in Iraq? We welcome NATO's decision to offer assistance to the Government of Iraq with the training of its security forces. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the likely numbers involved, including the UK contribution? Will all the training take place in Iraq? Can he confirm that France has insisted that there should be no NATO flags or insignia on the uniforms of soldiers sent to help Iraq? What is the basis for such an objection, when all countries are now united behind United Nations resolution 1546, when NATO pledged its
"full support for the effective implementation"
of that resolution, and when it was the Iraqi Government themselves who requested the NATO training support?
What are the prospects for an acceleration in reconstruction work in Iraq, with electricity supply, for example, still falling well short of target, and for better employment prospects for the citizens of Iraq? Following the announcement from the Iraqi authorities that Saddam Hussein has now been transferred to the legal custody of Iraq, what is the position of the other prisoners being held in Iraq?
We welcome the ongoing NATO commitment to enlargement. The Prime Minister said this week that
"it makes sense to build up European military capabilities equally available to NATO and to the European Union".
Does that represent his view of the future balance between the military responsibilities of NATO and the EU?
The Prime Minister also referred to the additional troops to be provided to Afghanistan. What, once again, is the UK contribution to be? Can the Prime Minister tell us more about the nature and size of our proposed contribution to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, to which he has referred? What are the prospects of finding enough troops to extend peacekeeping in the longer term, including outside Kabul? The Prime Minister wrote on Monday that the challenge for NATO was to come up with the military resources. Does he think that it has met that challenge?
The NATO Secretary-General recently said, with reference to Afghanistan, that it was "simply intolerable" that he was forced to get out his begging bowl as a standard operating procedure. NATO's members, he said, announced political decisions to undertake missions, but then, he said,
"we suddenly find out that nations are not prepared to make available the necessary capabilities".
What lessons can be learned from this? Is not the presence in Afghanistan precisely the kind of operation in which a post-cold war NATO should have come into its own?

289
We welcome the measures announced to enhance the fight against terrorism and on non-proliferation, and also the ongoing review of NATO's capabilities, but does the Prime Minister agree that a step change is necessary in the thinking of NATO members themselves? In particular, the communiqué itself calls for greater willingness and preparedness of nations to provide the resources and capabilities required. What progress does the Prime Minister envisage being made in that area?
Does not the Istanbul summit point not only to the progress NATO has already made in adapting to changed circumstances, but to the huge amount that there is still to do? Does the Prime Minister agree that the future development of NATO as a whole is at a crossroads? Will he do his part in ensuing that having helped to win the cold war, NATO is better equipped to help achieve a lasting peace?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the last part of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and I am pleased that we are in agreement on that. The truth is that NATO is changing to reflect the new security threat, but as I implied in my statement, I worry that the nature of that threat and the need to gear up to it are not yet sufficiently understood.
I would answer the question on Afghanistan and our response in this way. If NATO is asked for and sends the NATO response force, that would be a significant step change in its attitude to Afghanistan, but I make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred to have a larger number of troops there from the very beginning. That would have been a better thing and we should have done it, and I agree with the remarks of the NATO Secretary-General. Since that time, we have had the Berlin conference that has donated, or put aside, $8 billion-worth of aid for Afghanistan, and we have had the NATO summit, but we want to be under no illusions at all.
The fact is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem is not complicated to describe, but simple: it is security. Everything else in those two countries would move ahead at speed if the security situation were better. That is precisely what NATO should be able to do. There is still, at least in certain quarters, not the right sense of urgency—willingness would perhaps be putting it the wrong way—in meeting the challenge that we face.
Listening to President Karzai and the new leaders in Iraq is truly inspirational. In such countries they are dealing with problems that we cannot even contemplate, and they are doing so under threat to their personal safety every day, but in the knowledge that the vast majority of their people are on side with them. We should step up to the mark and help them. The summit marks a move forward, but there is more still to do.
Let me deal with some of the other issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. In respect of Iraq, the rules of engagement remain pretty much the same for the multinational force, as does the chain of command. The thing that has changed is that, in respect of whether to do a particular operation, the political control is with the Iraqi Government. We are there in a supporting role, but there is no question of coalition or British troops or the multinational force being subject to
290
an order to do things that we do not think are right or necessary. The British troops in the south of the country have already undergone something of a change of posture. Already in the south, there are significant numbers of trained Iraqi police and civil defence people who can take on some of these tasks. Some of the councils have already elected local leaders and they are taking charge of political control. Around Baghdad the situation is more difficult, but in time I hope that we can resolve it.
In respect of the supply of arms and their control and purchase, there is a part of the agreement with the new Iraqi Government that deals with that. Basically, they are obviously subject to restrictions in respect of weapons of mass destruction, but in respect of arms supply they are subject to the same rules as other countries. In the short term at least, we will be supplying; the coalition will have to supply the right equipment.
I suspect that the training will be done mainly in Iraq. It is possible for some to be done outside, but I think that the reality is that we would want it done in Iraq. I had not heard the comments about the flags and emblems, but I am sure that the NATO soldiers will be there as NATO soldiers.
On electricity supply and oil, the only problem is the terrorism. That is why the new Iraqi Prime Minister wants to train specialist units of either armed forces or civil defence people who can guard the electricity supply better. In the long term, of course, we are now letting the contracts to build major new power supply and equipment in the whole of Iraq. Those contracts will obviously make a huge difference to the people in Iraq.
Finally, on NATO in the European Union, as we make clear in the European defence document, NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but as I think we are proving in Bosnia, there can be a role for European defence. I would only point out that it was unanimously agreed at the summit that the relationship between NATO and the EU is important. Specifically, it endorsed the concept of European Union defence as we set it out.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I join the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in expressing our sympathies to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, who so tragically lost his life this week in Iraq? Whatever views people in the House and across the country legitimately hold, everybody wishes the handover of power from the occupying forces to the interim Administration every chance of success. The handover is in everybody's interests—not least, of course, those of the Iraqi people themselves.
I want to ask the Prime Minister some specific questions arising from both summits and, indeed, the exchanges that have just taken place. I welcome NATO's agreement to help train Iraqi security forces, but I want to press the Prime Minister further. Given the recent statements from the previous Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, and the new Secretary-General of NATO about the strain imposed on NATO by its operations in Afghanistan, is the Prime Minister satisfied that NATO can prioritise the training of the

291
Iraqi security forces while maintaining, and if necessary extending, its commitment in Afghanistan? What was the view on that question at the summit?
Where does that decision leave the outstanding consideration for the British Government, namely the possible deployment of 3,000 additional British troops to Iraq? In earlier exchanges on that issue, a number of Liberal Democrat Members made it clear that we do not want to see a significant additional British troop presence outside our existing territorial area of operation and responsibility. When can we expect the Government to announce a decision on a possible significant deployment?
As a result of the handover taking place in Iraq this week, do the Government envisage making public any phased withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and what is the current status of such considerations? A few moments ago, the Prime Minister referred to the essential political control of the new Administration. If, as a result of the continuing horrible levels of violence, the new Administration decided, for example, that they want to impose martial law, what position would the British Government take on the policing and administration of martial law in Iraq by our forces? Was the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) at Prime Minister's questions a tacit acceptance that, given the status of the new Iraqi Government, weapons of mass destruction no longer exist within Iraq?
Was Sudan discussed, either formally or on the margins, at either the European summit or the NATO summit? The Prime Minister did not refer to Sudan in his statement, and it may be that the issue did not arise. What action are the Government taking to get the Government of Sudan to accept responsibility for the horrendous violence occurring within Sudan's borders? Will they move to give urgent aid to the authorities in neighbouring Chad to help deal with the growing refugee crisis as a result of events in Sudan? What more can the UK do to help ensure that the terrible situation in Sudan does not spill over into Chad? Was the matter discussed as a result of the European Union position on placing monitors in that country?
Finally, we wish the new President of the European Commission well and congratulate him on his appointment. We hope that his period in office will be successful both for him personally and for Europe as a whole. Given that that appointment has been agreed, a subsequent consideration is the appointment of the new Commissioners. The Prime Minister would perform a valuable service and, perhaps, put one or two Labour Members out of their misery if he told us when he expects formally to submit the name of the new British Commissioner and who it will be.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must wait a little longer in suspense for the answer to his last question. I thank him for his immensely constructive contribution—I do not know whether there is any significance in that. [Laughter.]
On training, NATO has the resources, but they will be stretched. The vital long-term point concerns capability: leaving aside the United States, NATO contains
292
hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but how many of them are operational, and how many of them can actually fight? The Secretary-General of NATO reminded us that—George Robertson often used to say this—we must obtain capability. If, apart from the modest role that we have assigned to it, European defence has one benefit, it is that it allows us to try to get other European countries to focus on defence capability, which sometimes does not match the number of troops on paper.
I cannot say whether we will need more troops in Iraq, but the matter is kept under constant review, and no decision has been taken.
Mr. Kennedy: When?
The Prime Minister: Well, because the matter is under review I cannot say when I might decide or not decide. All I can say is that no decision to send additional troops has been taken.
As for the phased withdrawal of existing troops, when the Iraqi Government and the multinational force publish the plans—I hope that that will occur towards the end of July—we will be able to see a clear plan for the build-up of Iraqi police, civil defence, specialised units and armed forces, and it may be easier at that point to give people a clearer idea of how the need for British troops will diminish We will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job done. Obviously, the whole purpose of the process is to build up the Iraqi security capability so that we can reduce the necessity for the multinational force.
As I said a moment ago, our forces remain under our command, and martial law in Iraq is the latest hare to be set away in that particular debate. The Iraqi Government obviously want to take tough security measures. The terrorists have killed coalition troops, but the principal victims of terrorism in Iraq are innocent Iraqi civilians. Some reports in the newspapers about the thousands of Iraqis who have died since the conflict began, or even since the conflict ended, seem to suggest that that was a result of the coalition's actions. Of course, some situations in which civilians were killed involved coalition forces, but terrorists, whom coalition forces are trying to stop, are responsible for the vast bulk of the killings in Iraq.
I do not believe that the Iraqi Government want to introduce martial law, but they want to take tough security measures. It is perfectly obvious that one reason for the full transfer of sovereignty is to give responsibility to the Iraqis. One can talk about Iraqi public opinion, because now people can express their views, and, as far as I can make out, the Iraqi people's concern about the multinational force is not that its measures were too tough, but that they were not tough enough.
I spoke to the Secretary-General of the United Nations about Sudan yesterday, and we are doing everything that we can. Colin Powell is currently in Sudan, and we continue to urge the Government of Sudan to co-operate in every possible way. I must get back to the right hon. Gentleman on the help that we are providing for refugees who enter Chad, but we are providing significant support for the Government and the people of the region.
Donald Anderson: The current Secretary-General and his predecessor both called Afghanistan a test case for NATO now that the out-of-area debate is over. When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Afghanistan last month, it was made clear to us that NATO was failing that test. Apart from the praise for the British contribution to the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-sharif, it was clear that several NATO countries were not delivering on their promises and that even if they did supply troops, they were so surrounded with cautions and reservations that they were unable to do their job effectively.
My right hon. Friend says that 5 million of the electorate have been registered, but that is still less than half the total, and only in the easy areas. Can he truly say that he is satisfied that the other NATO members have recognised the seriousness of the situation—that it is indeed a test case—and that this time they will deliver all that is necessary?
The Prime Minister: The honest answer to my right hon. Friend is that I hope that they do. It is very clear how NATO should develop over the coming years. We made a good start at the NATO summit, but I would describe it as a start and, as yet, no more than that. We need the capability and commitment. As regards Afghanistan, as President Karzai pointed out, the people who are being killed are innocent civilians—in particular, women who want to register to vote, because terrorists have an issue with those women. Two female registration officers were assassinated the other day. I hope that if we get the right report back on the NATO response force, we will deploy that force specifically to help with the election process. There may still be many people to register, but 5 million is an extraordinary achievement for Afghanistan.
Sir Peter Tapsell: At the NATO summit, did the Prime Minister boast, as he has today, of the part that he has played in handing over to a disarmed transitional Iraqi Government a country that he helped to plunge into blood soaked chaos—it is in that state now, and getting much worse than it was under Saddam Hussein—all of which was done in the search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
The Prime Minister: First, on WMD, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that Saddam used those against his own citizens. We have already found the remains of about 300,000 people in mass graves in Iraq. One million people died or suffered serious injury as a result of the Iran-Iraq war.
Whatever problems Iraqi people may have with the coalition forces, it is extraordinary to suggest that they would prefer Saddam. The hon. Gentleman says that life was better under Saddam, but that is not their view. Their view is that they have the prospect of making their own lives of better, of having democracy and the rule of law, and of having proper civil rights and civil liberties—but that the terrorists stand in their way. Even people who totally disagreed with the decision to begin the conflict can surely see that there is only one side to be on now—that of the Iraqis, the international community, and the American and British soldiers who are making the place better.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: Taking into account what my right hon. Friend said about the vital necessity of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue; taking into account, too, the right of the Palestinian people to democracy and freedom; noting yesterday's ruling by the Israeli courts on the huge damage that is being inflicted on the Palestinians by the present line of the Israeli wall; in the expectation of the ruling by the international court next week on the legality of Israeli wall; and taking into account the continued deaths on both sides, including the deaths of Palestinian and Israeli children, will my right hon. Friend now make his top international priority the pursuit of progress on the road map?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of that topic; a very large part of my bilateral meeting with President Bush the other day was devoted to it. That is why the Quartet—the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union—is publishing plans for Palestinian security and economic and political reform. In my view, it is essential that when the disengagement plan goes ahead, we are in a position that at least in Gaza and parts of the west bank, the Palestinians have the beginnings of what can be the nucleus of a viable and democratic state.
That is not to say, in any shape or form, that that will be the end of it. There have to be final status negotiations that allow us—based, as we have said before, on the 1967 boundaries—to create a viable Palestinian state. The primary objective that I am working for is to ensure, first, that the disengagement goes ahead, and then that the international community is ready to step into the vacuum that will come about in respect of Gaza and the west bank. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to make this a huge priority for the Government and for our work in the international community.
Sir John Stanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the failure of significant numbers of NATO members to deliver on their force commitments to Afghanistan not only threatens the credibility of NATO out of area, but seriously threatens the future of stability and democracy in Afghanistan itself? Will the Prime Minister do his utmost, with his Defence and Foreign Secretaries, to persuade the backsliding NATO members to deliver on their force commitments? Several of us who have recently been in Afghanistan believe that unless the security situation is significantly improved—that means boots on the ground—it will be too late.
The Prime Minister: I agree, and it is for precisely that reason that we insisted that Afghanistan should form the major part of the discussions that we had at the NATO summit. The strategic importance of succeeding there is absolutely obvious. We have taken important decisions, particularly on the deployment of the response force. I hope that we will manage to get that force to support the elections, because that will make a difference. The next few months will be a real test of NATO's commitment.
David Winnick: Arising from what my right hon. Friend said about the rule of law

295
earlier today and in his statement, did he take the opportunity over the weekend to tell President Bush directly that what is being proposed for the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay is simply unacceptable, and that the patience of both Houses of the British Parliament is wearing rather thin? Does President Bush understand the feelings expressed on this issue by those of us who certainly have no time for terrorism, and never will have?
The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have been in discussion with the United States over a period of months, and that is why five of the detainees are back. We continue to discuss the fate of the remaining four, although it is important that if we do have them back here we are able to guarantee the security of our own people.
Mr. Robert Jackson: The Prime Minister deserves congratulations on reaching this milestone in Iraq, but I want to ask him about France. Over the past month, the French have blocked the appointment of an excellent British Commissioner to the presidency of the Commission on grounds that imply that we would be permanently excluded from appointments to that position. They have impeded the NATO deployment for training purposes in Iraq, and they are preventing the adequate deployment of NATO forces in Afghanistan. Like the Prime Minister, I count myself as a Francophile, but does he share my concern about what those events may tell us about France's reliability as an international partner?
The Prime Minister: Earlier today I resisted the temptation to speak for American policy, and I think that I am even less qualified to speak for French policy in this regard. All I can say is that we will continue to work with France and with other countries. We secured agreement in Istanbul, eventually, and we will continue to work with France and other countries to ensure that we fulfil our obligations to people. There will be disagreements from time to time, I am afraid, but we just have to try to overcome them.
Jeremy Corbyn: Was the use of Diego Garcia discussed at either summit that the Prime Minister attended? Why, on 10 June, was an Order in Council issued that prevents the Chagossian people from returning not only to Diego Garcia but to the outer islands from which they were so scandalously taken in the early 1970s? They won their legal right of return in a court order in Britain in 2000 against which the Foreign Office did not appeal.
The Prime Minister: The reasons are those set out in a statement on 10 June. Diego Garcia was not discussed at either summit that I attended. However, I point out that it is an important base for this country's security. Of course, it is important to take account of the rights of the people there, but I hope that my hon. Friend understands that Diego Garcia has played a vital part in the security of this country over the years.
Tom Brake: Does the Prime Minister support the BBC World Service
296
proposal to establish an Arabic satellite TV channel that could present an alternative view to that of al-Jazeera? Does he believe that that would help to defuse tension in the region?
The Prime Minister: There is some merit in the proposal, but a cost comes with it. We must therefore ensure that it can be done within budget. It is interesting that the new Iraqi Prime Minister, President and Government are now given a somewhat fairer wind than hitherto even in parts of the Arab media. Having an Iraqi face explaining what is happening there and the need for our action makes a tremendous difference. I have had some discussions about the BBC World Service's proposal and there may be something in it, but the budgetary issues must be resolved.
Ann Clwyd: The coalition and the Iraqis should be congratulated on capturing most of the most-wanted members of the former regime. The trials will start and charges will be made against them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have lingering doubts about the morality of toppling the regime, such as the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and the bishops who have written to my right hon. Friend, remained silent over the past 25 years when Saddam Hussein executed, tortured and ethnically cleansed his own people? Does he also agree that, if we are considering morality, they should feel the same moral outrage as anybody who stood at the side of a mass grave containing hundreds of thousands of people?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank her again for her immensely courageous and important work.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Returning to the comments of the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), I underline that those of us who went to Afghanistan and saw President Karzai, many of his Ministers and the commanders of the international security assistance force, left with a clear impression that unless NATO acted quickly we would have a disaster on our hands. Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there is little time, given the approaching elections? Clearly, he is not satisfied by the backsliding of some of his NATO colleagues. What more will he, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary do in the next few days to ensure that there are more troops in Afghanistan? They are desperately needed.
The Prime Minister: We will continue to put pressure on our NATO partners to ensure that there is no backsliding on the commitments that have been given. The Secretary-General is entirely seized of that view. At the bilateral meeting with President Bush, Afghanistan was as much a topic of the conversation as Iraq. The test will be the deployment of the response force. The Government will want it and there is no reason why it should not go. I accept that the situation is urgent because the elections will take place in September. There has been a tremendous boost to registration—according to President Karzai, about 100,000 people a day are

297
being registered. However, if they cannot vote properly without fear and intimidation, the elections will not count. I therefore agree that the position is urgent.
Tony Lloyd: Let me continue on the theme of Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend is entitled to exempt himself from the following criticism, but one of the worrying features of Kosovo and Afghanistan is that the world moves on quickly and loses interest in completing the job. It is vital, for reasons that my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, that we properly finish the job of reconstruction in Afghanistan, for both that country and the signals that that will convey elsewhere. Will he speculate on American reaction to the failure of NATO allies to play a proper role? The Americans have the opportunity to walk away from NATO.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point is correct. The NATO alliance depends on strong American commitment and people should recognise how vital that is. The Americans have some 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, where the strategy is to put provincial reconstruction teams in the north and west of the country. Problems with various private militias exist there, but none the less the Afghan force capability can be built up reasonably successfully. We have been doing that at Mazar-e-Sharif. The real problem is therefore in the south, where pockets of the Taliban and al-Qaeda exist. That requires a fighting force, which the Americans are providing.
The American contribution is vital to the security of our world. I have always said that the danger is not that the Americans exert their power, but that they could pull up the drawbridge and tell us to get on with our business. We need the Americans. The most powerful contributions at the NATO summit are by the east European countries, which are now democracies and know well the value of the transatlantic alliance.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Prime Minister share the evidence for the increasing role of foreign terrorists in Iraq? Can he provide a sense of the number of attacks—which involve launching lethal weapons at coalition forces—that come from non-Iraqis?
The Prime Minister: There is no scientific answer to that. The view of the Iraqi Government and leaders is that outside terrorists are increasingly responsible and that, in particular, al-Zarqawi, who is part of the al-Qaeda network, has a big role. Former Saddam elements have access to the weapons that were there in Saddam's time and they join in that action. However, the Iraqi Foreign Minister and Defence Minister, to whom I spoke, said that they believed that they needed to reach out to Sunni elements, and even former Ba'ath people, who could perhaps be brought into some arrangement in the new Iraq and who had all sorts of issues with the coalition that would not apply to an Iraqi Government. Increasingly, they believe that the real problem is outside terrorists using the country as a base for their activities. As I said, I have no scientific basis for that, but that is their strong view and they live there.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend has today recognised the continuing
298
violence against women in Afghanistan. Given that only one third of those registered for the election are women, may I endorse the calls for extra NATO troops to be sent as soon as possible, not only for September? Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that all Departments of the UK Government pay specific attention to the needs of women in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the preparation for democratic elections?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is one of the reasons for ensuring that we continue our support. In Afghanistan and Iraq, women now play a part in the political process. My hon. Friend is right that fewer women than men are registering to vote in Afghanistan, but President Karzai told me that, in some provinces, the numbers of women are significantly up. It is worth reflecting that, a few years ago, women were effectively unable to play any proper part in the political process in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Prime Minister concede that the battle is not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in Gaza and the west bank? Does he acknowledge the moral authority and right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty? As the Israeli armoured bulldozers and tanks demolish civilian properties, especially in Gaza, what specific steps is he taking now to ensure that the Israeli Government are brought to book on those illegal, collective punishments of a civilian population? Will he give an undertaking to take action so that we can at least try to break the cycle of violence that is currently so destructive in Israel and Palestine?
The Prime Minister: I agree that the Palestinians have the right to a sovereign, independent and viable state, and we are committed to that. I also agree that we must reduce the cycle of violence. However, that depends on both sides—innocent Israeli civilians die in terrorist attacks as well. It is important to recognise that the single biggest obstacle to political progress at the moment is the absence of a proper security infrastructure that allows us to be able to say definitively that the Palestinian Authority are doing what is necessary and what they are able to do to stop the terrorism, so that a political process can begin. It is necessary to have empowered Palestinian Ministers who are able to take those decisions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Might not the new Iraqi Government wish to avoid a rush to rip-off forms of privatisation at knock-down prices, as occurred in Russia following the fall of communism? Will the British Government act to ensure that undue pressure is not brought to bear on Iraq by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US to reach that position?
The Prime Minister: It is important that Iraq should take a step-by-step approach to an open economy. The Iraqi Ministers are well aware of that, and are proceeding with care. It is worth pointing out that Mr. Bremer, when he was head of the coalition authority, specifically made it clear that he thought that there were

299
limits to how fast Iraq could be opened up to the private sector. The point made by my hon. Friend is well in the minds of Iraqi Ministers.
Mr. John Randall: At Defence questions, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), said that the United Kingdom would not be supporting the aspirations of Macedonia to join NATO. Will the Prime Minister tell us why that is the case, and whether any applications for new membership were discussed at Istanbul?
The Prime Minister: There has been a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Macedonians. It is important to assess whether people can meet the relevant criteria. There was some discussion of new members at the NATO summit, and I am sure that NATO will continue to expand. I understand the issues that the Macedonians feel strongly about in relation to future membership, but they have to be matched against our criteria.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I know that my right hon. Friend will join me in wishing every success and a safe return to my constituents who are currently serving with the Cheshire Regiment in Iraq. On NATO training, is it our intention to play our part in that equation, and will we be offering the resources at Shrivenham and the wonderful royal college of defence studies to that retraining effort? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was agreeing to the last part of that question.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Yes.
The Prime Minister: I congratulate the Cheshire Regiment on all that it has done in Iraq and, yes, we shall certainly play our full part in ensuring that the Iraqi forces are properly trained.
Richard Younger-Ross: Could the Prime Minister expand on the future of Iraqi detainees? In the light of his letter to the Intelligence and Security Committee, could he also tell us when British intelligence became aware of the abuse of detainees by Americans? He says in his letter that the concerns of the staff were passed on to the US authorities, but can he tell us when they were passed on, when the intelligence officers became aware of them, at what level the US Government were advised of them, and what response we received in reply?
The Prime Minister: I cannot recall off-hand the exact time when those concerns were passed on, or in what form they were passed on. However, I would like to point out that in respect of ourselves and, to be fair, in respect of the Americans, the allegations covered by the Red Cross had already been the subject of investigation and prosecution long before this became a public issue. So far as we are concerned, every complaint has been
300
investigated and, where prosecutions should result, they are resulting. The Red Cross said recently, in relation to those whom we were detaining, that we were making sure that they were treated properly. Everybody from the President of the United States downwards has condemned without equivocation or hesitation the mistreatment of people at Abu Ghraib prison. It is precisely for that reason that people are now being prosecuted.
David Cairns: The day after the Afghan conflict began, my right hon. Friend said from the Dispatch Box that dealing with the Afghan opium poppy trade was one of the key aims of the conflict. I welcome the additional troops that have been pledged, but is it not the case that, unless NATO alters its terms of engagement in Afghanistan specifically to include counter-narcotics activity—however that might be defined—we shall continue to see the increases in the poppy yield that we have seen over the past two years, which will inevitably mean cheaper and more readily available heroin on Britain's streets?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this is an issue that we have consistently raised. President Karzai's view is that the Afghans have to develop their own capability in regard to this issue. Part of our discussion was about how NATO could assist in that. His view is that the situation is changing, in the sense that people now know the risks for the stability of the country involved in becoming some kind of narco-economy. It is fair to say that there have been some successes in eradication, but for a long time under the Taliban this trade provided a main source of income for them. It would certainly help if this became part of the NATO tasks, but we shall have to continue to have that debate.
Hugh Robertson: The former Iraqi governing council estimated that Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage enriched themselves to the tune of $10 billion as a result of institutional corruption during the oil-for-food programme. That money is now being used to fund the insurgency against our troops and the new Iraqi Government. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with other leaders about this issue during the summit, and what specific steps are his Government taking to support calls for a full, independent inquiry that must, necessarily, be independent of the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: We have raised the issue, and we continue to look at the best way of ensuring that we get a proper account of what took place under the oil-for-food programme. I am not yet in a position to say what the right way forward will be, but this has formed part of the discussions that we have had with the United Nations, too. The issue was not specifically discussed at the NATO summit, but it is part of the discussions that we have with our partners in Iraq and, obviously, with the new Iraqi Government. One thing that will happen under the new Iraqi Government is that there will be a great uncovering of what took place, and it will be very educative to allow people to see just how much corruption there was inside Iraq and to see the links

301
between what happened inside Iraq and outside. I hope and believe that some interesting things will emerge from that.
Kevin Brennan: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that many of us who sincerely opposed the military action now equally sincerely wish success to the new Government it Iraq, and not just because the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the new Iraqi Government spent some of their exile in Cardiff? Is it not the responsibility of us all to put aside whatever stance we took, either in favour of the war or against it, so as to help that Government to succeed? Does that not apply with even greater urgency to our partners in NATO?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I agree with him. An interesting question for people to reflect on is why outside terrorists and al-Qaeda people are trying to get into Iraq and to stop the Iraqis succeeding. It is because they know very well that if the Iraqis succeed, they will fail. Their primary targets now are not the coalition forces—although they will kill members of the coalition forces when they can—but innocent Iraqi people. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend: whatever view people took of the conflict, this is a fight that we can all support. That is why NATO should realise that, whatever divisions there were among the NATO membership about the wisdom of the conflict, there should be none about the wisdom of supporting the new Iraqi Government.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Following the Prime Minister's rather brief five-line summary of the European Council, could he explain the statements by the French and German Governments that, in return for Mr. Barroso, they would be allocated the key economic portfolios, from which they would try to reverse liberal competition policy, introduce a more protectionist industrial policy and reverse the Lisbon process?
The Prime Minister: I gave only a brief summary of the European Council because, thankfully, it was a brief summit.
The new Commission President will allocate posts. We supported a proposal for a Commission Vice-President who particularly looks after economic policy. I think that Mr. Verheugen, should the Commission President wish to appoint him, would be a very good choice; he has shown himself to be an immensely capable Commissioner. In respect of anything else, there will be the normal discussion and debate with the Commission President, but I would not, were I the hon. Gentleman, believe everything that I read in the papers.

Points of Order
1.30 pm
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Department for Work and Pensions announced possibly the most significant reorganisation of its local services in the past decade, which would involve the closure of 550 of its 650 local benefits offices. That will affect virtually every constituency in the country, and could result in tens of thousand of jobs being lost in the civil service—yet the announcement was made in a written statement, not in an oral statement in the Chamber. Therefore, Members were given no opportunity to question the Secretary of State. Will you consider the development of a protocol that would provide guidelines for the Government on what matters should be announced in written statements, and what matters should be announced in oral statements, based on their significance to our constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As I said in the House on Monday, not all Government statements can be made orally. If he wishes to bring this matter to the Floor of the House, as he clearly does, there are various ways of doing so. As an experienced Member, he knows as well as anyone what the options are. I am sure that he will find a way of doing so.
Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you give some indication as to the importance of statements? We have no notice of statements being made, other than on the day on which they are made, no opportunity to question them if they are written statements, and no automatic right to question Ministers. Therefore, something as important as the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) refers, or the Orders in Council made on 10 June concerning the Chagos islanders, cannot be challenged other than by the lottery of Adjournment debates.
Mr. Speaker: It would be very difficult for the Speaker to judge which statements were important. Some hon. Members would consider one statement important and another not so important. The Adjournment debate is not the only facility available to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), whose experience I mentioned: questions can be put to the Leader of the House, asking for a statement or debate, and further parliamentary questions can be put. The picture that I am painting is that there are many ways of ensuring that the Minister concerned is accountable to the hon. Gentlemen.

Northern Ireland (Severe Learning Disability)
1.33 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for identification of persons in Northern Ireland with severe learning disability; to make provision for the assessment of their health, social care and other needs; to make provision for appropriate services for such persons and for independent advocates to act on their behalf; and for connected purposes.
A learning disability is a lifelong condition acquired before, during or shortly after birth, and can affect someone's life in many ways, causing difficulties in learning, communicating or doing everyday things. Two per cent. of the population—or 33,000 people in Northern Ireland—have a learning disability. Just over 16,000 people with a learning disability are in contact with health and social services.
This Bill defines someone with a severe learning disability as
"any person aged 16 or over who has been recognised by a competent professional as having severe impairment of intellectual ability with associated impairment of social and economic competence, originating before birth, at birth or before age 10."
In 2000, there were 1,671 children in the severe learning disability education sector, of whom 325—some 19 per cent.—were profoundly disabled.
Currently, people with a learning disability should have an assessment of their needs in accordance with section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Those provisions, however, are less formal, with an outcome that is less clear, and with considerably weaker accountability than those in the proposed Bill. The Bill's provisions on entitlement to services are similar to those in section 3 of the Act, which is entitled "Assessment by Boards of needs of disabled persons". Section 3 has never been implemented, and it seems unlikely to be implemented for all disabled people owing to resource issues. I am introducing the Bill because the needs of people with severe learning disability, their parents and carers are so pressing. Section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 provides for the recognition of individual advocacy agreed with the disabled person, but that, too, has never been implemented. I therefore bring this Bill before the House because it is important, in my judgment, that those people are looked after.
The Bill confronts the problem of the allocation of, and access to, services for people with a severe learning disability. It also confronts the problems that carers and parents encounter in their struggle to ensure that the person for whom they care has the best possible services. People with a severe learning disability face huge obstacles in accessing the services that they require. There are very real problems of communication. They use a wide range of health and personal social services, reflecting their specific needs. They begin their lifelong service-using careers at birth or in early childhood. They and their families are likely to rely on a range of social care services, including social work support, the development of social and living skills, long-term housing and support services, practical help in everyday
304
care and personal assistance with everyday tasks, as well as access to services for families needing a break from caring.
In contrast with other people who use health and personal social services, services provided for people with a learning disability may be concerned with encouraging independence and learning new skills. Services are provided not to prevent something, or because someone is no longer able to do something, but to develop and build on the individual's ability to maximise their potential. Families are often so caught up with providing much needed support or care that they remain isolated and not informed about services or opportunities for support that are available. People with a severe learning disability must be empowered to help them to live a full and healthy life. They require personal and specific support to lead that full life.
At the same time, caring for a person with a severe learning disability is a lifelong responsibility. Often, there is an over-dependence on family support, which can leave families' lives unacceptably restricted. We need to replace core family support with independent support that increases the individual's contact with the community. The aim is to ensure that the horizon of the person with a learning disability is not restricted by the family's front door.
We must recognise the needs of families as well. The frustration that they experience often leads directly to stress and exhaustion. They have to fight for services again and again. Rather than having easy access to services for the person with a learning disability, many parents find that there is a postcode lottery—that the quality of service depends on where they live rather than on what they need.
There is a difference between the legislation in England and that in Northern Ireland. The Bill provides a route to services, as well as clarity about what is needed. In contrast to provision by the Department of Health in England, there seems to be little published information in Northern Ireland about the criteria used to decide whether people are eligible for services. For instance, on 14 March 2004 the Department of Health produced a document called "Fair Entitlement to Care Services", containing guidance on eligibility criteria for adult social care. Northern Ireland has no community care Act, and the "people first" policy that is our equivalent does not have the same strengths. Eligibility under community care provisions is related to the breakdown of family support and the need for residential care. "People first" does not cover the full range of needs in Northern Ireland.
Parents, particularly those whose children are leaving school, face problems in finding their way through the maze of needs and services. They must move from a relatively structured education environment, with well-established points of contact and relationships, to adult health and social services, where they will have to negotiate a system that is fragmented, diffuse and diverse. There is no clear process to help them identify their needs and those of the person with a learning disability. The difficulties are compounded by the absence of any clear statement of what services will be provided in response to the identified needs. As a result, families must fight to retain services. People with learning disabilities and their families require a clear process, involving clear statements about needs and the

305
services that will be provided to meet those needs. Many parents talk about the build-up of stress when they must care for an increasingly unhappy family member 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, year in, year out with no respite.
The Bill aims to provide a definition of severe learning disability; an entitlement to an assessment of needs for people with severe learning disability, carried out by a responsible agency; an entitlement to implementation of the recommendations of the assessment by a responsible agency; and an entitlement to an independent advocate to support the person with a learning disability in the processing of the assessment and its implementation. It aims to achieve identification and recognition of the needs of people with severe learning disabilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Roy Beggs, David Burnside, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Tom Clarke, Lady Hermon, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Lembit Öpik and Mr. David Trimble.

Northern Ireland (Severe Learning Disability)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (SEVERE LEARNING DISABILITY)
  Rev. Martin Smyth accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for identification of persons in Northern Ireland with severe learning disability; to make provision for the assessment of their health, social care and other needs; to make provision for appropriate services for such persons and for independent advocates to act on their behalf; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 130].
Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Regional Government
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of 361the Prime Minister. There is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I appeal to Front Benchers and to all hon. Members to bear it in mind that as a result of an important statement time has been lost. I hope that some regard will be paid to the time taken in the principal speeches, so that everyone who wishes to speak will be able to do so.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the continuing confusion surrounding the Government's regional policy; notes in particular that the disagreement about all-postal voting between the Government and the Electoral Commission has thrown into doubt plans for the referendums in the autumn on the Government's proposed elected regional assemblies in the North of England; further notes the continuing splits in the Government over the powers that the proposed assemblies may be granted; regrets a similar lack of clarity relating to the projected costs of the proposed assemblies and of local government reorganisation; further notes that the Government's information campaign on elected regional assemblies fails to resolve any of this confusion; demands that the draft Bill, setting out in detail the proposed powers of elected regional assemblies promised by the Government, be published in good time to be debated by this House before rising for the summer recess and that Government time be provided for such a debate; and further demands that any referendums should be conducted by a system that restores the voters' choice to vote in person and in secret at polling stations on polling day, rather than by all-postal ballot.
  The motion is not about whether we are for or against the principle of elected regional government. The Government's amendment seeks to rerun those arguments in case they can win some support, but that is not what today's debate is about: it is about how the Government have pursued their policy. Whether we are for or against the assemblies is not the point. In fact, if I were for regional assemblies I would be extremely unhappy with the way in which the Government have been pursuing their policy—and there is every indication that the yes campaigns in the three regions and their supporters, including many Labour Members, are in utter despair over the sheer incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers. Perhaps, indeed, they have not even bothered to show up.
  Let us consider the history of the Government's policy on regional administration. Proposals for elected regional assemblies were first included in Labour's 1997 election manifesto, as Labour was committed to both Scottish and Welsh devolution and needed a policy to provide some kind of answer to the infamous West Lothian question, which is really the English question. The issue was fudged; the English were to be offered a sop. However, following the near disaster of the referendum on a Welsh Assembly, when only 50 per cent. of the electorate voted and barely half of them voted in favour, the Government lost their nerve on

  307
  referendums for regional assemblies in England. The proposals for elected assemblies were delayed, and it is only during this second term that the Government have returned to that agenda.
  Labour's agenda for constitutional reform has always been a mess. It is based not on any coherent overarching vision for the United Kingdom, but on a series of disjointed measures amounting to little more than a policy designed to cement Labour ascendancy in Labour strongholds. That is why there are to be three referendums in the north of England. The regional assemblies proposed for the north are based on the same principle, and on regional boundaries that were constructed by Whitehall for its administrative convenience, not because of any intrinsic sense of their identity. They do not represent real communities with a historical identity, like Scotland or Wales. That is why the Government's consultation exercise entitled "Your Region, Your Say" received such a derisory response. There were fewer than 8,500 replies from a potential 40 million English people, although the deadline was extended twice.
  Nevertheless, with the wrong concept of England's place in the United Kingdom constitution, with so-called regions that had been artificially created and with a complete lack of public enthusiasm, the Deputy Prime Minister proceeded with his White Paper on elected regional assemblies two years ago. From that document it was immediately clear that, unlike the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, English regional assemblies would be nothing but toothless talking shops. In almost every paragraph of the White Paper there is mention of "creating strategies", "influencing budgets" and "consultation with stakeholders". Nowhere do we see real devolution of power from Whitehall to regional government. The Government have made great play of the claim that regional assemblies will control hundreds of millions of pounds, but the truth is that a regional assembly would control less than 2 per cent. of public spending in any region. What sort of devolution is that?
  Even those who are campaigning for a regional assembly are complaining. In July last year Lord Rooker, a Minister of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, said in another place that regional assemblies would have
  "no new money, no new powers".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 757.]
  That is the benchmark of the policy.
  The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said:
  "The powers and functions of assemblies were set out in full in the White Paper."—[Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 347W.]
  That seems to be perfectly straightforward.
  Ann Winterton: Is not the situation much worse than that? Not only will there be no extra money or powers; in future, if a United Kingdom Government wanted to target further moneys at disadvantaged areas in the north-west such as Manchester or Liverpool, they would be unable to do so
  308
  because that provision would fall under state aid rules. That would have to go through the Commission, which would decide on it. That is another example of further powers being taken away from the United Kingdom Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend makes her own point in her own way extremely effectively.
  In December last year, it started to become clear that the Deputy Prime Minister regarded the policy set out in the White Paper as merely an interim negotiating position. A leaked minute from a private meeting with "yes for the north-west" and others in his Department reveals that he raised the issue of the Barnett formula and that he believed that
  "the introduction of regional assemblies would provide a great opportunity to open up the debate."
  How is that debate going? The Treasury quickly and comprehensively trashed the whole notion. In January, recognising the failure of the appeal of his proposals to the people of the north of England, the Deputy Prime Minister threw the Government's proposals into further turmoil. When questioned about the powers that an assembly would have, he said:
  "There are battles to be had between government departments on what is included. Those are battles I am prepared for."
  Perhaps the Minister will expand a little on those battles. What are they about? How are discussions going on the Barnett formula, or police authorities? On that same day, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "Some of our police authorities are just too small at the moment. Things are changing all the time and I know David"—
  meaning the Home Secretary—
  "has spoken about the need of maybe changing some police decision-making."
  I therefore tabled a question to the Home Secretary, asking what plans he had to place police authorities under the control of elected assemblies. But who should reply? Not the Home Office, but the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who is here today. Clearly, the Home Secretary had heard nothing of those proposals and, perhaps in panic, had passed the question to the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who replied:
  "The White Paper. sets out the powers of Elected Regional Assemblies."—[Official Report, 2 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 709W.]
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments suggests that he thinks that the proposed powers for the directly elected regional assemblies are not strong enough. Will he, therefore, support the battle to bring in stronger powers for the assemblies?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has confirmed that there is a battle going on; it is called a split, and I shall be talking a great deal more about it.
  The yes campaigns is urge that assemblies be given greater transport powers, so I tabled a question to the Transport Secretary The reply said:
  "The transport powers of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper".—[Official Report, 3 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 825W.]

  309
  So, after months of bluster and false promises about extra powers for regional assemblies, we are back to the hopeless White Paper that no one can sell. The Home Secretary, the Transport Secretary and the Treasury are clearly much better prepared for battles in Whitehall than the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I am going to make some progress.
  What about the Education Secretary? The Deputy Prime Minister went into battle again. In Manchester, at a public debate hosted by the Manchester Evening News in January, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the proposals in the White Paper were "not fixed in concrete", adding:
  "And there are obvious candidates like Learning and Skills Councils."
  The following day, he added at a meeting in Newcastle:
  "I certainly think that the Learning and Skills Councils should be answerable to the region rather than nationally."
  What could be clearer than that?
  Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister was shaping up for the mother of all battles with the Education Secretary, because when I asked the Education Secretary what plans he had to transfer powers and responsibilities to elected regional assemblies, the reply said, "None". My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) then wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister demanding clarification over the powers that the assemblies were intended to have. The reply said:
  "The draft Bill will reflect the proposals set out in the White Paper."
  Understandably wanting to clear up public confusion, my hon. Friend then issued a press release stating that the Government had clarified that the powers set out in the White Paper would be the powers that regional assemblies would have. However, that was immediately contradicted by an anonymous spokeswoman in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who said:
  "Nothing is definitely ruled in and nothing is definitely ruled out. The debate is still ongoing."
  In the meantime, the Education Secretary himself went north to explain that he opposed "major structural reform" such as handing the control of learning and skills councils to regional assemblies.
  The situation is a farce more ridiculous than anyone could have made up. The Education Secretary has come clean about where responsibility for the control of learning and skills councils will lie; will the Minister for Local and Regional Government now admit to this House that elected assemblies, if they come into existence, will not control learning and skills councils or police authorities? The Deputy Prime Minister might well be having "battles", to use his word, but in Whitehall, as everywhere else, his pet proposals for regional assemblies are met with abject apathy. He and his little vision are the contempt of his colleagues. The truth is that he has lost every single one of his battles.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend's point about the learning and skills councils is doubly important because, as he knows, they control the funding for all post-16 education, including sixth forms
  310
  in schools. The proposals to which he has alluded, if they came to fruition, would therefore hand to regional assemblies a significant proportion of the education powers currently wielded by local education authorities and central Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend accurately describes, that is centralisation within the region, not devolution.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: One person who could clear up any confusion that may exist in the Government is the Prime Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman have any quotation from the Prime Minister that sets out his view on elected regional assemblies?
  Mr. Jenkin: I must have missed that. I regret that I shall have to fail the hon. Gentleman on that, apart from the fact that, by convention, it is the Prime Minister who puts certain policies into his own White Paper. He represents a constituency in one of the regions concerned, and I presume that he visits it and attends public engagements there, but there is nothing on the recent record that shows any significant enthusiasm for these proposals.
  The only powers that have been added to those proposed for the assemblies in the White Paper are those that the Deputy Prime Minister continues to steal from local government. This is Labour's real agenda: centralisation within each region. We know from the White Paper that assemblies would suck up powers from local government over planning, housing and transport, and produce strategies in those fields as well as on waste, culture, environmental health and spatial planning, all of which are currently local government responsibilities in respect of which local government has not previously faced interference. The Government have made great play of the powers that have been handed to regional assemblies since the publication of the White Paper, such as fire and rescue services and planning, which are currently county and district based. However, that is just the taking of more powers from local authorities, another centralising measure. The key point is that this truly is fake devolution.
  There is significant confusion about the cost of regional assemblies and the reorganisation of local government. It is astonishing that just five months before the referendums are due to be held, the Government have still not given any clear indication of the likely cost of restructuring local government. Let me give the House not my estimate, but that of the leading authority in the country on this issue, Professor Michael Chisholm of Cambridge university. He estimates a cost to residents in two-tier local authority areas of at least £110 per resident. That is based not on optimistic ministerial predictions but on the hard evidence of past reorganisations.
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Past reorganisations?
  Mr. Jenkin: Yes, past reorganisations.
  Mr. Raynsford: Tory ones.
  Mr. Jenkin: Oh, I can hear the Minister sneering, but on his present form, and given the state of his own

  311
  Department, he cannot possibly be the judge of what is done well or badly. I prefer to rely on academic research. If I am wrong about past reorganisations, let the right hon. Gentleman name one local government reorganisation that has both hit the budget in terms of the cost of reorganisation and yielded the anticipated savings.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have the greatest of pleasure in responding to the hon. Gentleman's challenge. Of course, all the reorganisations took place under the previous Conservative Government. They certainly did not meet any targets, which was a result of their incompetence.
  Mr. Jenkin: How very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that he might be heading for some of the same experiences that he watched from the Opposition Benches. It is a sad thing when people cannot learn from the mistakes of others, let alone from their own.
  We have also yet to hear a realistic estimate of the cost of actually running an assembly. In the White Paper, the Government presented the figure of just £25 million a year, but what evidence is there to back such optimism? The London assembly has just 25 members and cost £60 million to run in 2003–04. That is three times the original Government estimate. An elected assembly would have between 25 and 35 members. Given that personnel costs tend to constitute the highest proportion of any organisation's budget, can the Minister explain how it is that a regional assembly with up to one third more elected members than the London assembly would have half the running costs of the London assembly?
  The Government are also completely incapable of justifying their estimate by giving a breakdown of the £30 million. Astonishingly, the Minister has admitted that there are no savings to be made from the abolition of the non-elected regional chambers. I asked him
  "what estimate he has made of the costs of abolishing regional chambers … where an elected assembly is established; and how those costs would be met."
  He replied:
  "It will be for the voluntary regional chambers to decide whether they should abolish themselves."—[Official Report, 8 March 2004: Vol. 418, c. 1228–9W.]
  [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has got it. The Government claim that elected assemblies are about reducing bureaucracy, but there could be two regional assemblies in every region. So many of the important questions surrounding the Government's regional agenda remain unanswered.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from the Minister, in which he said—presumably while trying to keep a straight face—that
  "the priority is for people in the regions to have all the information they need to make their choice and use their vote."
  So why will he not give us that information? What have the Government got to hide?
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Where is the Bill?
  Mr. Jenkin: Where is the Bill, as my hon. Friend asks? Unfortunately and predictably, the Government's so-called information campaign is about giving out anything but clear answers to all the questions that I have raised.
  The Government are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on an information campaign that does almost nothing to give the public real information on what the powers will be. It does nothing to inform them of the real costs, or to allay the confusion that surrounds every aspect of the debate. That campaign is not just a total waste of taxpayers' money; it is clearly intended to distort public opinion ahead of those referendums.
  We have taken counsel's opinion on the question of compliance with the guidelines in respect of the Government's information campaign. Not only does that campaign fail to inform the public; we are advised that the "Your Say" leaflets produced earlier this year are clearly intended to promote a yes vote in a referendum. They are therefore in breach of the Government's own guidelines on the work of the Government Information and Communication Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take them to court, then."] Unfortunately, this is not a legally enforceable matter. The guidelines are not statute, so they are not enforceable by a court of law. The basic conventions of those guidelines state that activities of the GICS
  "should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical; should not be, or be liable to misrepresentation as being, party political".
  They continue:
  "The emphasis is on the factual basis and exposition of Government policies rather than on partisan argument."
  I have in front of me a copy of the "Your Say" leaflet for Yorkshire and Humber. Those on the front cover with their thumbs up are smiling, and those with their thumbs down are straight-faced. It hardly seems logical for people to smile at the thought of paying a new regional council tax. However, that point is not explained in the leaflet.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will finish this point. If we look inside the leaflet, we find a series of questions:
  "Will the elected assembly make a real difference to your life?"
  The unequivocal answer given is yes. The next question is:
  "Would it represent the whole region?"
  The answer given is yes. A further question is:
  "Would the assembly work for the whole region, not just the cities?"
  The answer given is yes. Another question is:
  "Would an elected assembly work well with local government?"
  The answer given is yes. And finally:
  "Will elected regional assemblies reduce bureaucracy?"
  The answer given is yes.

  313
  The Government's guidelines on the GICS state that the Government must ensure that
  "the presentation of arguments and counter-arguments take account of the need to avoid criticism that public funds are being used to disseminate party political propaganda".
  Where are the counter-arguments?
  Mr. Raynsford Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: If the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question, I will give way to him.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can give the counter-argument that he himself will have read from the counsel opinion to which he referred. When asked to give an opinion as to whether the leaflets were tendentious and pursued party political grounds, the learned counsel whom the Conservative party consulted said:
  "In my opinion, however, the leaflets do not play on any association between the Labour party and the benefits of regional assemblies nor advocate the policy in favour of regional assemblies on party political grounds."
  Will the hon. Gentleman now with draw?
  Mr. Jenkin: No, I will not; I will continue, because the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. Where are the counter-arguments? The Government still have no idea what the constituencies of assembly members would be. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that people in Middlesbrough and Teesside fear that an assembly for the north-east would be dominated by Tyneside? Is he not aware that people in Northumberland fear that metropolitan interests would dominate the rural agenda? The Government's assurances that an assembly would represent the whole region are clearly polemical and tendentious.
  As for regional assemblies reducing bureaucracy, we need only look to the London assembly, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament employs more officials per head of population than any other Parliament in the world. The number of press officers has more than doubled since devolution—from 30 to 72; the number of Ministers has increased from four to 12; and the number of special advisers has increased from two to 11. In the three English regions, two thirds of the population of each region currently live under single-tier local government, so a regional assembly would certainly represent an extra tier of bureaucracy—of paid politicians and bureaucrats. This hardly matches the claim that elected assemblies will reduce bureaucracy. The Government have failed to spell out the arguments in favour of regional assemblies as advanced in these leaflets, and the arguments against.
  However, there is a subtle but highly significant distinction to be made between official Government policy—that regional assemblies should be established in those regions where the people have voted in favour of an assembly at a referendum—and the Government's intended outcome, which is a party political position: that people in the three northern regions vote yes in the referendums.
  314
  I sent our legal advice—from the leading chambers in this field—to the Cabinet Secretary, which is why the Minister has a copy. Today, I received Sir Andrew Turnbull's reply, which the Minister will also doubtless have. In it, Sir Andrew disputes counsel's opinion, from which the Minister has just quoted. Sir Andrew wrote:
  "The suggestion that such explanation should eschew the fact that the Government is in favour of regional assemblies seems rather artificial."
  That is not a very strong statement. He continues:
  "However, contrary to what seems to be suggested at paragraph 25 of the opinion, we do not consider there is a requirement for Government publicity to explain both the case in favour of regional assemblies and the case against it."
  If I may, I shall quote again from the guidance that the Cabinet Office is meant to enforce:
  "In such cases, subject matter, presentation and handling are again crucial, particularly when publicity deals with issues on which there is no consensus."
  There is no consensus. It continues:
  "The presentation of arguments and counter-arguments take account of the need to avoid criticism that public funds are being used to disseminate party political propaganda."
  Nothing could be clearer than that. That is the point of the opinion with which the Government disagree, so it is invidious and misl—I am sorry; I should not use the word that I was about to use. It is invidious and not correct for the Minister to claim the opinion in support of his position. It is clearly a criticism of the Government's position.
  Mr. Raynsford Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman will have time to reply in due course. I am sure that he is going to take a little snippet out of the opinion, but the fact is that he should explain why it was necessary for Sir Andrew Turnbull to dispute the legal opinion with which he was presented.
  How all that contrasts with the scrupulous way in which Donald Dewar approached the Scottish referendum in 1997! Nothing better demonstrates how Labour is at the heart of the corruption of our constitution. Sadly, there is no legal redress here, but it serves to underline how desperate the Government are to try to fix the results of these referendums.
  Lately, I have seen the new TV adverts, and they are even more biased than anything yet seen. If the Government believed in truth, fairness and properly informed debate, they would halt the information campaign now—but there is no hope of that.
  The latest twist in the web of confusion is over the conduct of the ballot itself. The Electoral Commission is due to deliver its report and recommendations on the recent all-postal pilots in September. However, in last week's debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) announced that if the Electoral Commission were to conclude that all-postal voting

  315
  was unsafe, the referendums would have to be postponed. Yesterday, the Minister for Local and Regional Government was reported as saying:
  "If there were to be a delay it would mean putting the thing back beyond a General Election."
  How convenient that would be for the Government. He added:
  "If there were to be a suggestion that some new regulations were required, then a delay would take place."
  That is what he said. That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seems like a foregone conclusion.
  Last year, reporting on the pilot schemes at the June elections, the Electoral Commission recommended changes to the legislation such as individual voter registration and an extension of police powers to arrest people at any location on reasonable suspicion of impersonation. That would require changes to legislation. After the postal pilots earlier this month, it is inconceivable that the commission would not issue similar, if not more stringent, recommendations in the report later this year.
  We know that the Electoral Commission would prefer the Government to wait until its report is published before laying the orders for the referendum in Parliament, although the Minister has sought to deny that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, stated quite clearly earlier this week:
  "The commission believes that there would be benefit in Parliament having available to it the Electoral Commission's evaluation reports on the June pilot before taking a decision on whether to approve the orders specifying the form of the referendum."—[Official Report, 28 June 2004; Vol. 423, c. 16.]
  Yet again, the Government have ignored the advice of the very commission that they set up to advise them. However, to appease their critics, they have thrown open the question of whether the referendums will actually take place at all.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: In praying in aid what the Electoral Commission may or may not be saying, how does the hon. Gentleman square what he said with the remark of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in this place last week:
  "I do not care what the Electoral Commission said."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1208.]
  Mr. Jenkin: It is quite clear. We did not support the establishment of the Electoral Commission. We think that these decisions should ultimately be taken by Parliament. The Electoral Commission is a quango, but a quango established by the hon. Gentleman's Labour colleagues to advise the Labour Government on policy. It is extraordinary that, having set up such a body, the Government consistently ignore its advice—and at taxpayers' expense.
  Irrespective of whether the referendums will actually take place, the announcement last week will have been of grave concern to those campaigning both in favour of and against regional assemblies in the north of England. As the Minister will know from his Department's
  316
  propaganda campaign, advertising space and leaflet printers have to be booked weeks in advance of publication. However, if there is no guarantee that the referendums will actually go ahead, how can the yes or no campaigns commit to contracts and liabilities for their forward campaigns? Will the Government underwrite those commitments, so that designated organisations will be compensated if the referendums are cancelled? Under what legislation would the Government have the power to do that?
  If the referendums are postponed after the official campaigns have been designated, will the Government confirm that they will not seek to recover the grant given to those campaigns? We know that the Electoral Commission has floated the idea of reimbursing the designated campaigns for expenditure incurred before they receive the grants, but would that still happen if the referendums were to be postponed before the grants were issued?
  What is the Government's real agenda behind all this mess? Is it merely to take account of a report from the Electoral Commission—a quango that they created but have so often ignored—or is it to use the Electoral Commission as a convenient alibi for cancelling the referendums, if it is convenient to do so? We know, as the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) pointed out, that the Prime Minister is less than enthusiastic about these referendums. After suffering a record humiliation at the local elections, he is no doubt even less inclined to receive another kicking—to use the Deputy Prime Minister's words—before the next general election.
  We know that many in the Government are opposed to holding the referendums. Andrew Marr of the BBC reported that three senior Ministers to whom he had spoken believed that the Government would lose all three. We know that the Labour Party is split on the issue. We know that Lord Haskins, chairman of the yes campaign in Yorkshire, has told Labour MPs in Yorkshire that the referendums should indeed be postponed. We have even had a Yorkshire Labour MP saying that the Prime Minister was "scared to tell John"—the Deputy Prime Minister—that he has to "pull the plug".
  The Deputy Prime Minister was due to meet Labour MPs in the three northern regions yesterday to discuss whether the Government should continue with the referendums. Well, what happened? Perhaps the Minister would like to inform the House of the outcome of those discussions because they clearly have a bearing on the public interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "It's tonight."] Oh, the meeting is tonight, so perhaps we will have a statement tomorrow. I will table a question to elicit an answer.
  It is all too clear that, if the Government look likely to lose the referendums by the time the Electoral Commission is due to report in September, they will cancel them. Perhaps the Minister will assure the House that whatever is decided will apply to all three referendums. It would surely be invidious for just one or two of the referendums to be allowed to go ahead because they were deemed to be politically convenient for the Government.
  Our position on the referendums is clear. The people in the north of England have been promised a referendum on regional assemblies. We should make

  317
  sure that that promise is kept. There are two simple steps that the Minister can take to reduce the confusion surrounding the Government's policy and to ensure the referendums are held on schedule.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify. I understood the Conservative position—it has certainly been expressed in the House—to be that the people of the north of England should not have a referendum in which they would be entitled to choose whether to have a regional assembly. Is the hon. Gentleman now insisting—if so, I welcome it—that they should have such a referendum?
  Mr. Jenkin: The simple fact is that the Government have announced that the referendums are going ahead, and the legislation has been passed A promise has been made to the people of the north of England, and it is reasonable for politicians to want to keep other politicians to their promises. If I may say so, I certainly understand if the right hon. Gentleman is joining some of the other yes campaigners in hoping that the referendum will not go ahead. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman himself whether he believes that the referendums should go ahead?
  Mr. Beith: I put a question to the hon. Gentleman. Is he now prepared to say that the people of the north of England should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want a regional assembly? The last time that question was addressed from the Conservative Front Bench, the answer was that they should not be given that opportunity. My view is that they should.
  Mr. Jenkin: This far down the track, a promise having been made to the people of the north of England that they will have their say, I say let the people speak.
  The Minister could reduce the uncertainty and confusion by taking two steps. First, the Government must publish the draft Bill detailing the powers that the elected assemblies would have, so that we could put an end to the endless battles in Whitehall, in time for debate in both Houses before the summer. Secondly, the Government must restore the option of voting in person at the ballot box for the regional referendums. That would not only obviate the need to wait for the Electoral Commission's report in September—there is one reason—but restore public confidence in the voting system for the referendums.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not believe that anyone should second-guess what the outcome of the Electoral Commission's work will be. However, one of last year's pilots in the May local government elections was held in my constituency. The report that was produced in July said that there was no difference at all between all-postal votes, any other form of postal votes or anything else. It seems likely to me that the Electoral Commission will give the go-ahead.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have already explained that the Electoral Commission is unhappy with the current state of the legislation on all-postal voting. I should have thought that the experience of the large-scale postal pilots would be as evident to the right hon. Gentleman as to everybody else: there were lots of problems.
  318
  A new problem is likely to arise in all-postal referendums: the possibility of massive vote harvesting. The Government must abandon the principle that ballot papers should be sent out in the post to anybody and everybody whether or not they have requested them. That is a recipe for electoral fraud, and it invites the misuse of those ballot papers. If interest and party—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) says, "If you can't win the vote, fix the electoral system," but it is his party that is fixing the electoral system. If ballot boxes were good enough for the Scottish and Welsh referendums, why are they not good enough for the people of the north of England? That is the tried and tested voting system that people want; they do not want new-fangled ideas.
  The danger of vote harvesting is that the unscrupulous will make use of the ballot papers of the disinterested. We know that apathy as regards elected regional assemblies is rife, and that turnout is likely to be well below 50 per cent. In that case, ballot papers are likely to be floating around in bins and skips all over the place. It is a recipe for chaos, confusion and mismanagement of the electoral process.
  Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, as I consider it an outrageous slur. Does he have any evidence to prop up that slur and the allegations he has just made? What possible objection could he have to an election turnout of more than 50 per cent.—not ballot papers in bins, but ballot papers counted?
  Mr. Jenkin: The Electoral Commission wants individual voter registration, which requires provision in legislation. In place of that, however, Parliament decided that for the electoral pilots there should be witness declarations of voter identity.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further simple step to reduce fraud would be for postal votes to be issued only to those people who request them? After all, that is the system at present.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fully agree with my hon. Friend; that is the only safe way to conduct elections. Without individual registration, and having no provision in legislation for the declaration of identity to be witnessed, there is no way that the authorities will be able to tell the scale of any fraud.
  England is the mother of Parliaments. The democratic institutions in this country used to set the standards for countless democracies throughout the world. The English constitution was the inspiration of Locke and Montesquieu—the philosophers who in their turn were the inspiration of the founding fathers of the American constitution. Our Parliament here at Westminster has established countless constitutions for new nations around the world, yet now, after centuries of nurturing and developing the world's benchmark for democracy, we are faced with constitutional chaos, which the Government have created in a remarkably short period.
  Earlier this month, we saw a collapse in public confidence in the voting system unprecedented in modern times. In the style of a dictatorship, the

  319
  Government declared the all-postal pilots to have been "successfully completed", and less than five months away from referendums on significant constitutional change, we are told that they may never take place. If they do, they are likely to be a farce.
  No wonder politics is becoming the despair of voters across the country. If the Government are truly interested in raising turnout at elections, they should look more closely at the way in which they conduct the government and stewardship of our constitution, rather than seeking short-term increases in participation through the use of voting gimmicks.
  2.24 pm
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes progress the Government is making in implementing its proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; 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; welcomes the decision to hold the referendum by all-postal ballot while noting the Government's preparedness to give a clear undertaking not to proceed with all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so; welcomes the Government's decision to have one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors, giving the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand, or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials; further notes the Boundary Committee's estimates of the savings from local government restructuring in regions which choose to establish an elected regional assembly; looks forward to the publication of the draft Bill which would establish elected assemblies, once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; and notes that the principal confusion about regional policy appears to be on the Opposition benches."
  The Opposition claim that there is confusion in regional government policy, but after listening to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) there can be little doubt in the Chamber that it is the Opposition, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, who are confused.
  When we last debated elected regional assemblies, on 11 February, the spokesman for the Opposition was the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and I am delighted to see him in the Chamber this afternoon. He had given, as is his wont, serious thought to the issue. In a speech in 2000, he said:
  "In its potential to restore some vigour to local democracy, and to offer a constitutional settlement, regional government deserves real consideration."
  Two years later, he added a further acute observation:
  "There is actually a case for regional devolution, and it is silly to pretend that that case does not exist. There are two arguments in favour of regional devolution. One is that there is a serious problem with representative democracy in Britain today. We have passed power out of the hands of people who are accountable … The second argument for regional devolution is that, at some stage, we have to address the problem of the government of England. I happen to be passionately opposed to the idea of an English Government."
  320
  The hon. Member for North Essex referred to the English Parliament; it was probably a slip of the tongue, so I hope that he will correct it. This is the British Parliament. I agree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon who is passionately opposed to the idea of an English Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: I said that England is the mother of Parliaments.
  Mr. Raynsford: When the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard tomorrow, I think he will see that his reference was to an English Parliament, but I leave him to make the subsequent correction.
  I shall continue quoting from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. He said:
  "I can think of nothing more destructive for the United Kingdom than a wholly imbalanced power centred in an English Government, faced with the powers of the much smaller nationalities in the United Kingdom. Devolution to regions of the United Kingdom can provide an answer to this problem."— [Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 318–19.]
  The right hon. Gentleman of course had some difficulties in reconciling his entirely sensible approach with the mindlessly negative approach that the dominant forces in his party had adopted on regional assemblies. How it must have reminded him of debates about Europe when he had comparable difficulties with the Eurosceptics. He sought to square the circle by arguing that he was not opposed in principle to regional devolution but that he could not support the Government's proposals because they did not give the regions sufficient powers.
  While that undoubtedly helped the right hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty of reconciling his views with his party's, I am not sure that there was any solid basis for claiming that the Tory party wanted more devolution to the regions. No doubt had he continued in his post, we would have seen proposals for extending the powers of elected regional assemblies and enjoyed a constructive debate about them. Sadly, he no longer speaks for his party and in his absence there have been no proposals—none—from the official Opposition to give more powers to elected regional assemblies.
  Mr. David Curry rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Curry: I had a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman might give way.
  I rescind not one jot of what I said. If we look to some sort of regional devolution to balance the distribution of power within the United Kingdom as a whole, it follows that there must be an analogy between the powers devolved to places such as Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales and those devolved to English regions. If that were to happen, sensible people would want to see whether it could be made to work. But that is not on offer. What is being offered to the English regions is a hollow echo even of what was offered to Wales, so sensible people will not want to follow a course that merely submits to the Government's agenda of pure tokenism.
  Mr. Raynsford: As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, he made a perfectly sound case for giving more powers to the regions and I put it to him that what is on offer to the English regions is broadly comparable to what was offered to the people of London who voted in favour of it and now have their city-wide authority, which fulfils most of the same functions that are proposed for the English regional assemblies. I hear what he says; if he is sincere in his objective, what representations has he made to his party to advocate greater powers for elected regional assemblies and why does he think that the current Opposition Front Benchers appear so lacking in interest in extending the powers of elected regional assembles?
  Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman will have observed the London elections and noted the turnout. He will also have noted the turnout at the referendum on whether to have a London assembly and the turnouts in Scotland and Wales even with the relatively substantial powers of the Parliament and the Assembly. What does he think the turnout would be for the Yorkshire and Humber regional assembly, on the basis of the powers set out in the White Paper, at the second set of elections to that assembly? Would it be above or below 10 per cent?
  Mr. Raynsford: The turnout at the recent election in London—the first re-election of the Greater London authority—showed an increase on the turnout at the previous such election. That may or may not support my case, but it certainly does not support the right hon. Gentleman's. We have a genuine and serious issue in encouraging turnout and participation in the democratic process, not just for the GLA or the Scottish Parliament, but for English local authorities and, indeed, for the British Parliament. The 59 per cent. turnout at the last general election is not something about which any of us can feel comfortable, so we have issues to address, but the intelligent and serious debate that I looked forward to having with him when he spoke on this subject for the Conservative party is very much the way forward; the current mindless opposition to proposals for regional devolution is not.
  Mr. Edward Davey: In answer to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Minister said that the powers on offer to the English regions are broadly similar to the powers given to the Greater London authority. I have to tell the Minister that that is completely incorrect. The GLA's powers over transport in relation to the roads that the Highways Agency used to maintain in the capital, buses, the London underground and the police are completely and utterly different. If he is now saying that those powers will be included in the draft powers Bill. that is a major statement, but if he is trying to say that the powers are broadly similar, he is simply incorrect.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill and he has taken a close interest in this issue, but I remind him that the powers in relation to economic development, the oversight of the regional development agency, strategic planning, public health and supporting the overall development of culture in the
  322
  area are all broadly comparable. I entirely accept that transport is an exception because London has its own unique transport body, Transport for London. That is not replicated in the English regions, but, under our proposals, they will have rather greater powers than the GLA in relation to housing capital allocations. Yes, there are some differences, which is why I used the words "broadly comparable", but I rest my case on the fact that, in terms of broad comparability, we are talking about strategic powers to govern the whole region, not becoming involved in day-to-day service delivery, which rests with the local authorities. We have followed that model both in London and the English regions.
  I want to pose a question to the hon. Member for North Essex who, in the absence of the elusive hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is speaking for the Conservatives now.
  Mr. Jenkin: The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not here is that, when she put herself forward for this debate, it was expected that the Deputy Prime Minister might come to answer for his policy. He did not have the courage to do so.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is particularly cheap. The Deputy Prime Minister has never had the slightest hesitation in speaking in the House and elsewhere in defence of his policy, but he is not always able to attend every debate. We work as a team, and I have spoken frequently on this subject and will continue to do so. I was simply observing the absence of the hon. Lady.
  Do the Conservatives want more powers to be devolved to elected regional assemblies or are they totally opposed to regional devolution? Answer comes there none. That is a classic illustration of the confusion at the heart of the Conservative party, and I fear that we will not get any clarification.
  Joyce Quin: Was my right hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the complete absence from the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) of any plan by his party to regenerate or empower the regions, and by the fact that he proposed no strategy whatsoever?
  Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives have nothing to offer. Indeed, they have an appalling track record in the line that they have adopted on devolution over the past seven years. They have got it wrong every single time that an important constitutional and democratic advance has been made in this country over the past seven years. They opposed devolution to Scotland. They were wrong. They eventually had to change their minds. They opposed devolution to Wales. They were wrong. They eventually had to change their minds. They opposed devolution to London. They were wrong. They eventually had to change their minds. Today, we have witnessed another U-turn, prompted by the rather sharp question from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). They previously opposed holding referendums in the north, but they now say that they want them. With such an appalling track record for changing their tune, who would trust what they have to say about any proposal for devolution?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I ask the Minister about something for which he is responsible and about which he is supposed to be talking today, which is not Opposition policy? On 5 May 2004, he gave me an answer that shows that the maximum chamber budget is £2.5 million in the north-west and that the rest of the budgets are somewhat less than £2 million. Will he say something about the elected regional assemblies' budgets? Are we talking about that sort of sum? He has almost spent such a sum on the campaign, let alone all the parliamentary time and political trouble that we are having. If the budgets will be of that order, what on earth are we all doing?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper and the literature that we have been publishing as part of the "Your Say" campaign, he would know that the money that will be deployed by the elected regional assemblies will be approximately £300 million for the north-east, approximately £700 million for Yorkshire and Humber and approximately £1.1 billion for the north-west. Those are the direct spending figures. In addition, there will be considerable influence over other matters. We are talking of substantial sums. He is wrong to draw a comparison with the current chambers, which are voluntary associations and supported by the Government to perform co-ordination functions in relation to regional strategic planning and to the work of the regional development agencies. Those roles are very different from that of elected regional assemblies.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad that the Minister gave those figures, because they are still tiny in comparison with what the Government offices for the regions control. Will he say something about the relationship between the elected regional assemblies and the Government offices? Will the assemblies have any control over those budgets, or will they still be controlled directly from Westminster?
  Mr. Raynsford: As has been explained on many occasions, some of the functions will transfer from the Government offices, but it is implicit in our proposals that service delivery should essentially remain a local function—the responsibility of local authorities—and it is right and proper that expenditure on items such as education should continue to be local. The amounts discharged by regional bodies will not be vast in relation to the overall sums spent in the regions, because much of that will be spent by local authorities. My understanding of the Conservatives' position is that they do not want powers to be taken from local authorities and handed to elected regional assemblies. We do not either. That is why we are distinguishing the strategic role of elected regional assemblies from the service delivery role of local authorities. The inevitable consequence is that large sums will continue to be spent in the regions by local authorities that are not within the remit of the regional assembly.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am glad that the Minister confirms my assertion that less than 2 per cent. of public money will be spent by regional assemblies. Will he also confirm that that money will be ring-fenced and subject to Government targets, as is stated in the White Paper—
  324
  unless he is changing that as well? Will he also bear it in mind that the alternative policy to setting up regional assemblies, which represent centralisation within the regions, is for Whitehall to give some of its powers back to local government, which is where people really feel those powers belong?
  Mr. Raynsford: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If he reads the White Paper, he will see clearly that we propose a single pot for the elected regional assemblies, not ring-fenced funds. Perhaps he would like to reflect on the fact that, once again, he has got his facts wrong. If he had bothered to do more research into what we are doing, he would recognise that we are engaged in reversing many of the centralising actions of the last Conservative Government. The new prudential borrowing regime, which has been introduced this year for local authorities, ends the pernicious regime introduced by the Conservative Government under which all local authority borrowing decisions were subject to central control. A little more humility on his part about the failures of the Conservative party in government would be appropriate.
  Alistair Burt: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way. I want to make some progress.
  A little more humility on the consistent failure of judgment that the Conservative party has shown on the regional issue would also be appropriate. The Conservatives have now been obliged to concede the case for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London authority. If devolved government is appropriate for the 15 million people who live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, why is it not appropriate for the 2.5 million people in the north-east, the 5 million people in Yorkshire and Humber or the 6 million people in the north-west?
  The policy of the Conservatives is confused and inconsistent. They opposed regional chambers, but now they support them. The regional chambers are now populated by more than 150 Conservative councillors—indeed, Conservatives chair two of them. Of course, they opposed the introduction of regional development agencies, but now we do not know what they think. In October 2003, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who is also sitting on the Conservative Front Bench, said:
  "we realise that business communities in many regions recognise that RDAs do a worthwhile job. I have talked to representatives of RDAs and told them that we would expect a Conservative Government to engage with them to consider how to address the issue of democratic deficit. We are not committed, as we were previously, to their outright abolition. We will engage with them."—[Official Report, 16 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 178WH.]
  Does that mean that the Conservatives would abolish RDAs or keep them? How would they address the democratic deficit? Would they engage with RDAs centrally or regionally? We look forward to hearing how the official Opposition intend to resolve those issues, because we have received no answers to date.
  The previous Conservative Government created the Government offices for the regions in 1994 at a time when they recognised the need for a regional dimension to the machinery of government. The Conservative

  325
  party is now not sure whether to discount its own legacy, as some of its Back Benchers clearly would like it to, because the UK Independence party claims that regional policy is a European conspiracy—we heard a touch of that earlier in the debate. What a sad example of the decline of the Conservative party from a party of government to a confused rabble, marching to the drum of the anti-European fanatics who increasingly determine its policy, and sacrificing principles and consistency for shameless opportunism. By contrast, the Government have shown a clear and consistent regional policy: to take power from the most centralised system of government in the western world and give it back to the people in Scotland, Wales, London and now the English regions.
  Mr. Curry: While the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing such a noble cause as devolution, will he give us an insight into whether the balance of funding review of local government is likely to give significantly greater power back to local government and rebalance the relationship between central and local Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good try, but he will know that our first responsibility after the completion of the balance of funding review will be to report to the House, which we will do. I cannot anticipate the results today.
  It is our responsibility to extend democracy so that decisions that ultimately affect the English regions are taken in the English regions by people elected by each of the English regions, and to create jobs, growth and a better quality of life for all our people.
  Elected regional assemblies will lead to more accountable regional government. They will take power from central Government, not local government, and give the people a new political voice. They will tackle the big strategic issues that need to be handled, and are already handled, at the regional level, such as planning for homes, land, jobs and transport consideration of the environment and the promotion of arts, sports, public health and public safety throughout the regions. Through elected assemblies, people will have control and influence over how significant proportions of central Government money are spent in their region. That represents a clear opportunity for devolution to the English regions, but it is up to people who live in regions to choose in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly. No region will be required to have an elected assembly if it does not want one—it is entirely a matter of choice. The Conservative party claims to support such choice until we come to proposals for regional referendums.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister confirm here and now that there will be referendums on elected regional assemblies this coming autumn?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal with that specific issue and give him the detailed answer that he wants. However, I would first like to cover other points that have been raised on the powers of assemblies and the way in which they will work.
  Mr. Pickthall: The Minister might know that I am a 100 per cent. supporter of regional government.
  326
  Unfortunately, the campaign in which we are engaged shackles that to changes to local government. How would my right hon. Friend advise me to deal with the situation in my constituency, in which the proposals for changes to local government that are consequent on the regional campaign are universally despised? I can almost guarantee that 74,000 electors in my patch will vote against regional government, not because of regional government itself but because of what is happening to their local authority.
  Mr. Raynsford: We think it is right to streamline existing two-tier local government structures where there is an elected regional assembly, to avoid the proliferation of bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend knows, we are continuing to consider specific proposals from the boundary committee for England that were submitted to us about five weeks ago, so we will not be in a position to give a definitive answer for a further week. However, my hon. Friend will know that his local authority has made substantial representations about the possible impact of the boundary committee's proposals on West Lancashire, which we are examining closely. He will understand that I cannot say more at the moment because we are in the consultation period, but we will clarify the issues when we lay the appropriate orders before the House.
  We believe in giving people a choice. The Conservative party claims to support choice, but does not believe in it. It does not believe in devolution. It is devoid of creative ideas and is opposing just for the sake of it. Conservative Members claim that there is confusion about the powers to be devolved to elected regional assemblies, but they have no proposals to clarify or extend their powers—they are simply making an opportunistic attack.
  Our White Paper made it clear that elected assemblies will have powers to make a difference in key areas such as jobs, planning, housing, transport, culture and the environment in the regions. Elected regional assemblies will set the economic development agenda for their regions and work with regional development agencies to enhance regions' competitiveness and economic performance. They will also have a powerful influence on quality-of-life issues within regions. Those were always key elements of our proposals for elected regional assemblies, but as we said in our White Paper:
  "the Government is keen to further decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes… There are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to assemblies as time goes on."
  Mr. Jenkin: The phrase from the White Paper that the right hon. Gentleman cites is simply code for saying, "We cannot agree in the Government what the powers of these elected regional assemblies should be, and we are still arguing about it." Our point is that there is a split in the Government on regional assemblies, and there is now a split on whether the referendums should be held at all.
  Mr. Raynsford: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman because he added nothing to the debate by repeating the entirely inaccurate allegations that he made in his speech.

  327
  It is important for the debate to have a proper and serious tone, so let me explain the three main new policy developments affecting assemblies' powers that have been made since the regions White Paper was published. First, the June 2003 White Paper on fire and rescue services announced that responsibility for fire and rescue services will transfer to a regional level in regions that choose to have an elected assembly. That mirrors the effective arrangements that already exist in London and will help to ensure that fire and rescue services are properly equipped to respond to the many new challenges that exist, not least those posed by international terrorism that require co-ordination beyond the level of existing fire authorities.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister repeated that regional fire authorities will be created where there are elected regional assemblies, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's business plan, which appeared earlier this week, says that regional fire and rescue structures would be imposed only where elected regional assemblies were created and
  "elsewhere to promote an effective regional dimension".
  Will the Minister confirm whether regional fire and rescue authorities will be imposed under any circumstances where elected regional assemblies have not been created?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that debated that at enormous length, so he knows perfectly well what the arrangements are.
  Mr. Hammond: That is different.
  Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not. My explanation is exactly the same as the one I gave in Committee, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten it. The clear commitment that we have given time and again is that where people vote for an elected regional assembly, it is right that there should be a regional fire and rescue service that is democratically accountable to that assembly, as is the case in London. Otherwise, regional management boards will be brought together by the existing fire and rescue authorities to deal with matters that need to be handled at a regional level, including resilience planning, anti-terrorist arrangements, procurement and so on. The hon. Gentleman knows all that—it is exactly what we have always said, and it remains our policy.
  Mr. Hammond: Is the ODPM business plan wrong when it sets an objective of delivering
  "regional Fire and Rescue Authorities in regions voting for an Elected Regional Assembly, and elsewhere to promote an effective regional dimension"?
  Are those words wrong?
  Mr. Raynsford: The wording is designed—and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty with this—to support the creation of regional fire and rescue authorities in areas where there is an elected regional assembly.
  Mr. Jenkin: That is not what the business plan says.
  Mr. Raynsford: Would the hon. Gentleman contain himself and listen to the reply that I am trying to give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge?
  Elsewhere, the aim is to have appropriate structures to ensure that things that need to be discharged at a regional level are so discharged. That has been explained time and time again. I know that the hon. Member for North Essex does not want to believe it because he has a conspiracy theory about regionalisation. He is wrong and, as on so many issues, the Opposition are showing that they do not understand the policy of devolution.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I was not here for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but people would be more convinced that the Government were in favour of regional governance if regional authorities were given the same powers in relation to regional fire authorities as the Welsh Assembly. A number of regional assemblies will cover areas bigger than Wales but will have fewer fire protection powers than the Assembly.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made that point in Committee. The model that we have broadly followed is the model used the London assembly, with the distinctions that I highlighted in response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). We envisage a strategic authority in the English regions. London is to all intents and purposes an English region, and it is appropriate that other English regions should have broadly comparable arrangements.
  I was speaking about changes to the fire service. We announced in February 2004 that we would strengthen the powers of elected assemblies in respect of regional planning. The third new development concerns the involvement of stakeholders—business, trade unions, the voluntary sector, faith communities, representatives of rural areas, young people and ethnic minorities, and other interest groups—in the work of elected regional assemblies. Following consultation, we concluded that elected regional assemblies should be subject to a duty to introduce proposals for involving stakeholders in their work. How they do so will be for them to decide—that is the nature of devolution—but they cannot ignore the concerns of stakeholder groups. That is all part of the new, more inclusive approach towards arrangements for governance that we are putting in place.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I should like to make progress as I have given way many times.
  From the outset, we made it clear that our proposals are designed to add value and minimise bureaucracy, which is why we have proposed small, streamlined bodies consisting of 25 to 35 members. At the same time, we made it clear that three tiers of Government below the national level—regional, county and district—are too many. We therefore insisted that if people voted in a referendum for an elected regional assembly in their region, that must be accompanied by unitary local government throughout the region, which follows the

  329
  pattern in Scotland, in Wales and in London. The boundary committee has now completed its review and set out options for unitary local government in Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Northumberland, Durham and North Yorkshire. The residents of those two-tier counties will have a say on their preferred option in the referendum, which is another advance in letting people express their preferences—something that the Opposition never did when they imposed wholesale reorganisation on local government in the 1990s.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: We know that there will be fewer local authority councillors in the new local government configuration proposed by the boundary committee, but can my right hon Friend estimate the number of councillors that we will lose?
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, that will depend on the proposed configuration, but as I said in response to our hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), we are not in a position to give figures until there has been a proper consultation on the committee's proposals. However, we will do so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) will know that the boundary committee's proposals involve a significant reduction of the existing 50 local authorities in the six northern counties to a total of between seven and 19.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. A few minutes ago, he mentioned regional planning, which is intimately connected to the issue of housing and regional housing boards. He knows that that is extremely controversial in Essex, where the Government's attempts to increase the amount of housing is a principal reason for the effective slaughter of the Labour party on 10 June. It even lost Thurrock, which it has held for decades. Why does the Minister think that the Labour party was slaughtered in Essex on that day?
  Mr. Raynsford: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because this is a debate about devolution and elected regional assemblies. To the best of my knowledge, he has not shown any interest in having such an assembly in Essex, so I should like to get back to the agenda and talk about elected regional assemblies in those parts of the country where referendums will take place.
  I should like to say a few words about the way in which the referendum is conducted. During the parliamentary passage of the Bill that enables the referendums to be held, many concerns were voiced about turnout, and we agreed that it was vital to do everything possible to encourage participation. We have, as hon. Members know, conducted an extensive programme of electoral pilots at local government elections that demonstrated very clearly the scope of all-postal ballots in achieving dramatic increases in participation, in many cases doubling the number of voters in traditional ballots. In its evaluation of the 2003 pilots, the Electoral Commission concluded that, subject to certain safeguards, all-postal elections should be adopted as the norm for future local government elections. Against that background, we concluded that it would be sensible to use all-postal balloting in the
  330
  three northern referendums. We announced our decision last autumn and it was welcomed by the Electoral Commission. That is the basis on which we have been proceeding, with the agreement of the Electoral Commission.
  Following the June 2004 elections, we held further discussions with the Electoral Commission, which once again will conduct an evaluation of the electoral pilots that must be completed by 13 September. In those discussions, the commission suggested that we delay laying the orders necessary to allow the referendums to be held until after its evaluation of the June pilots was published. We in turn pointed out that because of the specific commitments already given to Parliament about the referendum period and the provision of information to all electors, it would not be possible to hold the referendums this autumn if the orders were not agreed before the summer recess. In seeking a sensible way forward to try to meet both concerns, we gave an undertaking to the House last week, which I am happy to repeat today. To enable the autumn timetable to be met we need parliamentary approval of the orders in July, but we undertake not to proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2004 pilots produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for clarifying that safeguard, but when he and the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), gave that explanation to the House last week, there was no suggestion, as I recall, that the laying of orders went against the initial advice of the Electoral Commission. Why did Ministers not make it clear to the House that the commission had advised against proceeding with the laying of orders?
  Mr. Raynsford: The position is exactly as I have described. I had discussions about the matter with Sam Younger, who hoped that we would delay the referendums until after the evaluation. He said so on the basis of advice from his chief executive that it would be possible to hold referendums in autumn even if the orders were not approved by the House in July. I pointed out to him, after taking advice from my officials, that that was not the case. Our figures suggested that if there were a delay and the orders were not agreed by the House before Parliament rises in July, the later timetable would mean that the election period would straddle Christmas. It is not sensible for a referendum to be held in the last two weeks of December and the first week of January, and I explained to Mr. Younger that in the circumstances the sensible way forward was the one that we announced to the House last week and which I have repeated today. The orders need to be agreed to allow us the certainty to proceed, and to satisfy the timetable that we have pledged to honour. At the same time, we will not proceed if the report that the commission will publish on about 13 September makes it clear that it would be unsafe to do so.
  That seems to me the sensible way forward that balances both concerns: the concern to avoid unnecessary delay and prolonged uncertainty, which are not good things for people in local authorities affected by reorganisation, or in the northern regions that are

  331
  keen to get a decision one way or the other on elected regional assemblies. Prolonged uncertainty would not be in their interest. We do not see an argument in favour of unnecessary delay. We do see an argument for allowing an opportunity to take stock, consider the Electoral Commission's report and then act accordingly.
  Joyce Quin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the explanation that he has given. If, by any chance, the Electoral Commission said that it would be unsafe to proceed, would it be possible to go ahead with the autumn timetable under the ballot box system, rather than the all-postal system?
  Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend raises some interesting questions, but the situation is more complex. There are a number of possibilities. The hon. Member for North Essex suggested the possibility of a requirement for the individual registration of all electors. That would require legislation and would take a long time, so it would be impossible to meet the timetable. If there were some administrative changes to give greater safeguards against the possibility of fraud, those might be introduced in a way that allowed all-postal ballots to take place according to the timetable agreed. Equally, there might a case for reverting from an all-postal to a traditional ballot, but that would require different orders, and time would be needed to take them through the House.
  All those factors indicate that the sensible course of action is not to prejudge the outcome, but to allow an opportunity to reflect on the Electoral Commission's report, as and when it comes out, and to enable us to proceed as we originally proposed and as was agreed by the commission if it does not produce convincing evidence to suggest that it would be unsafe to do so. That is the sensible way forward.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has twice used the phraseology that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), used last week, saying that there would be a delay if the Electoral Commission declared that it would be "unsafe to proceed". That is a very high test to set. The right hon. Gentleman is reported in the Yorkshire Post yesterday as having said:
  "If there were to be a suggestion that some new regulations were required then"
  a delay
  "would take place."
  A suggestion that new regulations may be required is very different from a declaration by the Electoral Commission that it would be unsafe to proceed. Can the Minister tell the House which is the test that he will apply?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I was referring to exactly the point that I was making in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). The outcome will depend entirely on what
  332
  particular proposals—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question. I hope he will contain himself while I try to answer it.
  There are a number of possibilities. There could be suggestions that safeguards would require legislation or regulations. There could be suggestions that certain administrative arrangements might be necessary to enhance the security of the poll. I do not want to anticipate or prejudge the outcome of the Electoral Commission's report I want to be able to consider it thoughtfully when we have seen it and to reach an informed judgment as to whether or not there is convincing evidence o suggest that changes should be made—and if so, the necessary changes that ought to be made to the arrangements.
  Mr. Curry: Assuming we go ahead with a postal ballot, the right hon. Gentleman states, and it is stated in the Government amendment, that there will be one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors. In Leeds, Bradford or Sheffield, two or three square miles may well embrace 50,000 electors. In the whole of Craven in my constituency there are not 50,000 electors, so somebody could find themselves 40 or 50 miles away from the single ballot point. Will the right hon. Gentleman take sparsity into consideration and reconsider the proposal in the light of geography rather than population?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he will recall that the proposal was made against a background where the number of assistance and delivery points attracted criticism in the House when we debated the matter last week. In response to concerns, we have significantly increased the number of assistance and delivery points. It is never possible to provide a single point for the convenience of every community—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Essex like to intervene?
  Mr. Jenkin: Why does the Minister not provide the certainty that everybody wants by going back to polling stations, which offer a convenient location for everybody to vote in person and would provide certainty about the process and certainty that the referendums would take place? He will not do so because he knows that if he goes back to the ballot box system, which was good enough for Scotland and for Wales, the turnout will be a humiliation for him and the Government.
  Mr. Raynsford: Once again, I rather regret giving way. The hon. Gentleman has added nothing to the debate. He knows perfectly well that there is substantial evidence that all-postal voting increases turnout substantially. He may not want people to exercise their democratic rights, but we do. It is right that people should be given greater opportunities, but it is also right that people who expressed a wish for more assistance and delivery points should have their concerns met. That is why we have responded by increasing the provision of assistance and delivery points, while continuing with the recommendation that was

  333
  supported and endorsed by the Electoral Commission to hold the referendums by all-postal ballots in order to ensure the maximum level of participation.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said earlier that a postal vote should be available only to people who had applied for it. Upstairs in my office I have a letter of complaint from a constituent of mine whose mother received a two-page letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that could be only described as party political propaganda, saying that if she wanted an application form, that would be arranged for her so that she would be able to have a vote. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House do that, although I have never done it in my 21 years as a Member of the House. It is a lot safer for somebody to have a ballot paper sent to them through the post than to be prompted in the way that my constituent's mother was prompted down in Folkestone.
  Mr. Raynsford: The point that my right hon. Friend highlights is the Conservative party's extraordinary propensity to say one thing in the House and do something quite different elsewhere. The hon. Member for North Essex might do the House a service if he placed a copy of that letter in the Library of the House, so that Members could see how the Conservative party behaves in relation to postal voting.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am keen to get the Minister to be clear about the timing of the final decision on the date for the referendums. As I understand it, the Electoral Commission must, in law, report by 13 September on its review of the all-postal pilots last June. How soon after that do the Government intend to reply to the Electoral Commission and give their decision on whether voting in the referendums will be by all-postal ballot or at polling stations?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. He will know that the September parliamentary Session is due to come to an end on, I think, 15 September, which is why it would not be possible, as the Electoral Commission had hoped, for us to take orders through in September, after it had published its report. There simply is not time for that. The orders would have to be taken through the House in October, which would lead to the consequence that I described—a polling period over Christmas, which would be thoroughly undesirable.
  We aim to reach a decision as soon as possible after seeing a copy of the Electoral Commission's report. I cannot give a precise date at this stage, but clearly that would be our aim, and it is necessary that we do so, because a few days after that would be the point in time at which the Electoral Commission would agree the registration of yes and no campaigns, and the referendum period and process would be under way. So a fairly quick decision would be needed in response to the commission's report, and we would certainly endeavour to give that response.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not very regrettable that the orders are to be taken through the House by the end of next month and we will be voting on them without the
  334
  benefit of the advice from the Electoral Commission? When that advice is published, the decision will be made not in the Chamber or by anyone in Parliament, but by the Executive. That must surely be wrong.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend must not have been listening when I spoke earlier about the need to reconcile the two timetables. If he wants a long period of uncertainty in his region, what he is advocating might be the right way forward, because it would simply cause delay, but I do not think that his constituents and most people in his region and the other northern regions want a prolonged period of uncertainty. They want the referendums, which they have been expecting for a long time, to be held this autumn. That is our intention and we intend to keep to the timetable.
  Of course, different considerations apply to a referendum as against an election. The absence of candidates both eases the timetable for printing ballot papers and, in many commentators' view, greatly reduces the likelihood of fraud, as no one has a personal interest in being elected. We should not assume a straight read-across from what may or may not have happened in the June council elections to the autumn referendums. We should also bear it in mind that several of the allegations that have been made about abuse of postal ballots related to regions that did not have all-postal pilots.
  Having said that, we are absolutely committed to maintaining the integrity of the balloting process, and we want to look carefully at the Electoral Commission's conclusions in its evaluation of the June pilots before confirming that we will proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned. The commitment that I have given allows that, while at the same time avoiding what would otherwise be an inevitable delay in the referendum timetable.
  Mr. David Heath: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but because of the importance of ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, will he accept that it is the Department for Constitutional Affairs that deals with electoral matters, not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and it should be the Department for Constitutional Affairs that considers the Electoral Commission's report and responds to it, not the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Raynsford: The responsibility is shared between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has responsibility for national elections, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has responsibility for local government elections and for the referendums. However, we work closely with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), is here and we have worked together closely.
  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. We want greater prosperity, more growth, more jobs and more investment. Regional assemblies mean a new form of government—smaller, more focused, involving elected and non-elected stakeholders in decision

  335
  making; a new vision, strengthening the prosperity of the north; and greater democratic accountability. That will give the regions a greater sense of pride and a new political voice. Our principles for devolving power to elected regional assemblies are clear. A vote for regional government means more democracy, more growth and better government. That is the choice that we are offering the people of the north, but it is ultimately for the people of each region to take the decision in the referendums.
  The House should reject the Opposition motion and in doing so affirm its commitment to democracy, to devolution and to choice.
  3.12 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats come to the debate with a great deal of sympathy for the Government's regional devolution programme. We supported the paving Bill during its passage through the House; indeed, Liberal Democrats in the other place helped the Government with some constructive amendments that they accepted, which we believe have made the process far more acceptable.
  We also agree with the Government in their criticisms of the Conservative Opposition. In government, the Conservatives had little regional policy, and that is why many parts of our country suffered so badly under 18 years of Conservative government. We have heard today from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman that they still have no regional policy; they are still confused. The Minister quoted their former spokesman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who had a very different view from that of current Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. In previous debates, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has often spoken about the people of the north-east having an aspiration for self-government, but he has never elucidated how he would recognise and implement that. There is huge confusion on the core principle of regional policy among Conservative Members, so we must take their criticisms with a pinch of salt.
  The Government have acted on aspects of devolution and we have supported them with respect to Wales, Scotland and London. We did not agree with all the details; we thought that some aspects of devolution were far too limited and should have gone further. Nevertheless, it was a step in the right direction. Equally, the proposal to set up elected regional assemblies is weak—it is limited in the powers that are being devolved—but it is a step in the right direction, and it would be wrong not to give the people the chance to vote for that. If we got in the way of that, we would put back the potential for regional devolution many years.
  The Government are right to act on devolution, and we saw that today with the publication—
  Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrats in the north-west will fully engage with the yes campaign for a north-west regional assembly?
  Mr. Davey: We believe in devolution within our own party. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members laugh. They just do not understand that devolution is about pushing power down. The national Liberal Democrat party will not tell the regional Liberal Democrat parties what to say. The regional Liberal Democrat party in Yorkshire and Humber has had a conference and voted to support the yes campaign; the regional Liberal Democrat party in the north-east has had a conference and voted to support the yes campaign; and the regional Liberal Democrat party in the north-west is about to have its conference. I do not know what it will vote. I will not tell it which way to vote because it is its decision. That is what devolution is about. It is interesting that the Conservatives have not understood that. That goes to the heart of the debate.
  Mr. Beith: If the Conservative party had acted on the basis that there should be no devolution in political parties, its Members of the Scottish Parliament would have spent the first few years of that Parliament campaigning for its immediate abolition, which they did not do.
  Mr. Davey: As usual, my right hon. Friend puts his finger right on the button. The Conservative party is confused even now between its English party and its Scottish party.
  Alistair Burt Alistair Burt rose—
  Mr. Davey: I am keen to take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because I am sure that he is confused too.
  Alistair Burt: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman advances an interesting proposition about the devolution of party policy and the way it is put together. Is he honestly telling the House that his party has no national policy on whether it supports regional assemblies? If so, will he explain some other areas of devolution in party policy, because that might explain why leaflets in Liberal areas in different parts of the country give completely different stories in relation to a variety of policies?
  Mr. Davey: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Across the country, we campaign strongly on issues such as post offices, pharmacies, council tax, Iraq and many others. The hon. Gentleman is clearly absolutely confused. I simply say to him that it is quite in order for a national party to believe in elected regional assemblies, but to give the decision on whether to support that to the regional party. That is completely logical and it is called devolution.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The south-west is an interesting case in point. If Liberal Democrats in Cornwall argued for a Cornish assembly, would the hon. Gentleman support that?
  Mr. Davey: We have made it clear on many occasions that we believe that there should be a review of regional boundaries. We do not believe that the administrative boundaries of the Government office for the south-west constitute sensible boundaries for the south-west.

  337
  During the passage of the paving Bill we argued for a review of regional boundaries to cover the sort of point that has just been made.
  The Government were right to move on devolution and today we saw a report from the university of Sheffield explaining how the division between the north and the south has got significantly worse, despite efforts by this Labour Government to redress that. It has not been getting worse simply during the last few years, but for decades. When one stands back and tries to analyse why the trend has occurred, and whether it has something to do with industrial change or other economic forces, one sees that the fundamental reason why the problem has occurred in Britain but not in other western democracies is political centralisation. We are the most centralised country in the western world and because of that we have financial and economic centralisation, and all the forces of power in the country go into that central political power. Until we break that up, until we have regional devolution and have centres of political power across the UK, we will not see the reversal of that trend, which has been going on for decades. Such a change must be made if we are to tackle problems in the north. There can be other types of regional policy—indeed, we have seen them in the past. There have been economic incentives and grants, and the garden city initiative launched by Lord Heseltine in Liverpool, which did not work. Those types of regional policy did not work because they were not underpinned by political devolution. That is why the Government are right to take the direction they are taking, and why the Tories are utterly misguided yet again in opposing it.
  Mr. Heath: May I ask my hon Friend not to add credence to the concept of a single north-south divide? The divide is actually between London and the home counties, and the rest of the country. The west country is just as disadvantaged as the north and needs just as much the opportunities for regional government.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The north-south divide is a simplification. There are people in Kingston and Surbiton who would say that the constituency is homogenously prosperous, but it is not. Parts of the royal borough of Kingston, which is usually considered a prosperous area, are very poor. Of course, these debates are based on generalisations and simplifications, but there is still a general truth in the idea that there has been a north-south divide, with demographic and economic shifts, and that we need to reverse the trend through political action.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I am afraid I want to make progress.
  Although the Government are right to go down the path of regional devolution, there has been some confusion in aspects of the way in which they have handled the matter. I wish to deal with three of them in turn: first, the current debate about all-postal voting; secondly, the powers that the draft powers Bill may or may not contain; and, thirdly, the future course of devolution after the three referendums.
  338
  The Liberal Democrats support the general proposition that the referendums should be conducted with all-postal ballots, primarily because the problems that arise with such ballots in local elections will not arise in an event such as a regional referendum. The incentive for individual candidates to defraud the system and their ability to try to harvest votes—an issue mentioned by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—are much reduced because of the scale of the vote. Furthermore, the logistics of an all-postal ballot over a whole region are much simpler. Many of the arguments against all-postal ballots in local elections do not apply to regional referendums.
  Mr. Jenkin: I accept some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but there is a real problem in respect of vote harvesting. Turnout in the referendums is likely to be low, and there will be many multiple occupancy homes or blocks of flats where the mail is left on the doorstep. Large numbers of ballot papers may simply be left in that way, and it would be easy for any organisation to collect and use them. If such fraud occurs, its scale will be almost impossible to detect. What is to prevent an unscrupulous organisation or indeed an unscrupulous party—and there are one or two—from destroying the process by organising the use of unused ballot papers? There is a very serious danger that there will be enough such activity seriously to distort the result.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to stifle debate, but interventions must not be too long. We are rapidly running out of time. I am not being unfair to the hon. Gentleman, but the Front Benchers have taken an awfully long time so far.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex, because he made a serious point. Of course there remains the possibility of vote harvesting, but it is less likely to arise than in a local election ballot. That is my major point, but I am concerned that the Government, in the orders that they have laid before the House, are moving from including the declaration of identity on the all-postal ballot form. I know that the declaration was unpopular with some Labour Back Benchers, but we felt that it was one device for ensuring scrutiny and defending the integrity of the all-postal ballot system. The Government's proposals on alternative security arrangements seem flawed.
  Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Electoral Commission recommended that the separate confirmation and scrutiny of identity was not a particularly sensible way forward? Will he consult the Electoral Commission on the issue and assess its view?
  Mr. Davey: The Electoral Commission was keen on a voter registration system as the better way of proceeding. We are keen on such a system in the longer term, when it can be set up. In the meantime, before it is set up, as we and the Electoral Commission want, we think that the declaration of identity is the best interim proposal for guaranteeing the integrity of the postal ballot.
  The reason we are in this position and why we have to wait for the Electoral Commission's review of the June elections is that the Deputy Prime Minister did not listen

  339
  to the commission in the first place. All the problems that we saw on 10 June and in the run-up to the elections could have been avoided if he had listened to Sam Younger and his colleague on the Electoral Commission, and also listened to this House. This House and the other place were strong in setting out arguments to the Government and trying to get them to think again. The Government failed, and they caused the problems by doing so. As those problems have had to be reviewed and scrutinised, we now have to wait for a decision on the all-postal ballots and whether the referendums will occur. The delay is the Deputy Prime Minister's fault, and he should apologise.
  Andy Burnham: As we had three pilots—it was the nature of the exercise that they should be pilots—in the three northern regions, is there not a much better chance that the referendum process will run smoothly?
  Mr. Davey: There were four pilots, and they were very different beasts from what is proposed for this October.
  I am afraid that the problem is even greater than I have suggested so far. A lot of public confidence has been undermined by the shenanigans that we saw in the run-up to 10 June. Some members of the public feel that the all-postal ballot system is not secure, and they have less confidence in it as a result. That is a great shame, and it is something that the Electoral Commission and this House will have to consider. Such people may be wrong, and the Minister may say that the press have created a misperception, but it is still a fact that people feel that way. As we go ahead in trying to use all-postal ballots in events such as the referendums, we will have to walk carefully. There is some confusion in the way in which the Government have gone about conducting the process, and I very much regret that they were not more open with Parliament last week about the fact that the Electoral Commission had given advice on the matter.
  The other area of confusion is the powers that the elected regional assemblies will have. That is an important point in relation to whether the referendums occur. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, there is a suspicion—I am sure that the Minister will deny that this is the case—that the Electoral Commission report that will be published in September will be convenient for the Government, as it will give them a chance to think about whether they want the referendums in the first place, whether they can win them and whether their own party is happy to proceed with them. The reason they have got to that position is that they know that what is on offer in terms of regional devolution is weak. Even the devolutionists in their party are concerned about that. The Government must reflect carefully on that point before they publish the draft powers Bill. If they were to devolve many more powers, they would change the tone of the debate both within their own party and within the three northern regions. That would galvanise the referendum campaigns and allow the Government to proceed with the referendums with greater certainty and confidence after they receive the Electoral Commission report in October or November.
  Mr. Hammond: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that a new delay in the publication of the draft powers Bill is
  340
  slipped away in the last few lines of the Government amendment, which states that the draft powers Bill will be published
  "once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament"?
  The draft powers Bill will be published only after Parliament approves an order that has not been laid yet, and only three weeks of this Session remain.
  Mr. Davey: That will not be a problem because the orders setting the dates for the referendums will be published within the next week or two, and the draft powers Bill will be published before the recess. Will the Minister confirm that time scale?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to confirm that, as we have always stated, we intend to publish the Bill before the summer recess. The orders must be agreed first, because the referendums cannot occur without them, in which case there would be no need to publish a Bill for people to scrutinise. We have indicated our intentions and the sequence of events. I remind hon. Members that this is the first time that a Bill will be published to allow people to receive information about proposals before a referendum. That did not happen in Scotland, Wales or London, and the Government, who seek to give the public more information, have taken a major step forward.
  Mr. Davey: I am glad that the Minister has confirmed the timetable, and I hope that he will abide by his intention to publish the draft powers Bill before the recess. We discussed that issue in private, on the Floor of this House and in an exchange of correspondence when we considered amendments to ensure that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill went through both Houses. The publication of the draft powers Bill should launch enthusiasm for the referendums, and if the Bill contains more powers, it will change the tone of the debate.
  Today, the Minister discussed powers concerning stakeholders, fire services and planning. If those are the only extra powers over and above those mentioned in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" enthusiasm for the referendums will not be fired. Stronger powers, such as powers over the Highways Agency and other aspects of transport policy, should be devolved and included in the draft powers Bill. Powers relating to the Learning and Skills Council should be devolved, because they form a vital part of the economic development agenda in the regions. Powers over the many quangos that currently make up regional government should also be devolved.
  One argument for regional devolution is that it will make regional government accountable to the people. We currently have many quangos, particularly in the sphere of environmental policy. They already operate on a regional basis, and surely they are candidates to be accountable to elected regional assemblies. I hope that the Government will clear up the confusion on future powers for the regional assemblies when they publish the Bill in the next few weeks.
  Finally, boundaries are a key issue to which people keep returning, and the Minister may not be able to deal with it in his winding-up speech—I touched on it earlier. Outside the three northern regions, the boundaries of

  341
  which were not contested except perhaps in the case of Cumbria, huge contention exists about whether the boundaries set by the previous Conservative Government for administrative purposes make sense for political purposes. It is in the Government's interest to make it clear as soon as possible that those boundaries will be reviewed. If they want to roll out regional devolution across England—we believe that they should—they must do it with the wax and wane of the political culture in the different regions, but the administrative boundaries bequeathed by the Conservative Government will not allow that to happen. We know from debates in this House that the Government understand that point, and the sooner they clear it up, the better.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does my hon. Friend accept that a review of those boundaries is needed urgently? At the moment, fire authorities in those regions are establishing one control room for each region. We could end up in a situation in which the regional fire boundaries restrict the review of administrative boundaries.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That goes to show why the Government should have listened to us when we debated the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. If that review had taken place earlier, the Government would not have got into such a mess not only on fire services, but on other aspects of public policy.
  We will not support the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight, because parts of the motion are defective; that is why we tabled our own amendment. Furthermore, it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to criticise the Government about confusion on regional policy when they do not even have a policy and are internally divided. However, the Government cannot take my party's support for granted. We will argue, through the orders, the passage of the draft powers Bill and the referendums for more powers for regional government. If the Government do not listen, they will regret it.
  3.35 pm
  Joyce Quin: I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), whose commitment to regional government I very much welcome, although there were parts of his speech, particularly on postal ballots, that I shall attempt to refute.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to be as surprised as I was when I heard that the Opposition had chosen as their theme the confusion in Government ranks over regional policy. That is a classic case of motes and beams, as the Opposition have themselves been very confused over their regional policy. I will not repeat the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Minister advanced to demonstrate that. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned another aspect of the Conservatives' confusion—their view on whether referendums should be held.
  I, too, have noticed an element of confusion. At business questions last week the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) accused the Government of
  342
  rushing the regional government process, whereas the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has conceded that it was part of the Government's manifesto way back in 1997, and again in 2001. In fact, for many of us it has seemed a rather leisurely process—we are grateful that we have reached this point and hope that there will be no slippage in the timetable that the Government envisage.
  Mr. Hammond: Since we are all aware that the right hon. Lady does not intend to stand for re-election to this House, can she confirm whether she intends to stand for election to a north-east regional assembly should one be voted for in a referendum this autumn?
  Joyce Quin: I am not tempted to pre-empt the judgment of the people of the north-east in the referendum, but I have certainly said that given my long-standing commitment to regional government I would very much like to be involved in it. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not implying that I speak out of some kind of self-interest, because if he looks at my maiden speech to the House in 1987, he will see that I called for a regional government for the north-east at that time. He cannot accuse me of inconsistency, even if he does not agree with my views.
  I do not believe that the Government are confused on this issue, because they made their commitment to regional devolution clear from the outset. The White Paper was a good beginning, and they were right then to embark on a series of consultations in the regions, which, certainly in the north-east, were well attended and gave the Government further food for thought as to how the process might develop. Indeed, page 12 of the White Paper clearly stated that regional government is a process and that further powers would be likely to be devolved in due course. That is welcome.
  I hope that in their draft powers Bill the Government will strengthen the powers that are envisaged for regional assemblies. However, we must be honest and admit that these issues are discussed within Government. When I was a Minister, different views were expressed in different Departments about how many powers should be devolved in the general devolution process. I am sure that animated discussions are continuing, but I urge the Government, in view of their undoubted commitment to devolution, to press as far as they possibly can for additional powers, because the more powers the bodies are seen to have, the more obviously credible and relevant they will seem in the minds of voters when they come to cast their votes.
  However, I stress that what is on offer is a useful beginning and that creating a public, democratically accountable voice is important. When talking to colleagues from Scotland and Wales about the advantages of devolution, I have been struck by the fact that they do not initially speak of it in terms of the specific powers of their respective Parliament and assembly, but of the public debate that it has wrought in those territories about the needs, problems and opportunities there. That can be true for the regions of England.
  Devolution will help people in the regions to have better access to decision makers. When I was the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, I spent

  343
  a couple of days with the Scottish prison and probation services. I was struck by the way in which the scale of the operation in Scotland meant that one could get all the relevant people around the table and devise a common strategy. It is much more difficult to do that in England, with its huge population and large area.
  The devolved assemblies have shown especially to the business community but also to others that devolution can make decision making accessible to those who are affected by the decisions. That has also happened in London, especially in economic development and the involvement of the business community in the London assembly's decisions. They are useful examples on which we can reflect.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly referred to the work of academics in Sheffield on the continuing regional disparities in our countries. It is important to tackle that. Setting up a regional tier allows a focus on the distinct economic needs of our regions that has not previously existed. My region of the north-east has a higher proportion of manufacturing industry than other regions. Regrettably, it has a lower staying-on rate post-16 at school. It has a higher dependency on the European Union market than any other UK region—approximately 76 per cent. of our exports go to the rest of the EU. Wales comes next, with 71 per cent.
  Our regional economy has distinct regional features, which the one-size-fits-all economic policy from central Government to which we have become accustomed does not tackle. It is important to focus on the challenges and the ways in which regional government, with its single pot that will allow it to order spending priorities to some extent, can deal with them. Regional governments will consider many important issues.
  The Sheffield study shows the brain drain in the UK economy. It is staggering to examine the figures for the number of graduates who are trained in universities in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east but travel out of those regions to look for work. A brain drain is statistically evident from the Sheffield information and we should be perturbed about it and consider methods of tackling it. Although the Government's proposals are modest, they are at least an important step forward.
  Let me briefly consider the electoral system for the regional referendums. I urge the Government to continue to support all-postal ballots for those elections. I strongly disagree with the Liberal Democrats about that. The tactics that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of both Houses adopted were tantamount to sabotaging the all-postal pilots. I am dismayed that so little account was taken of the experience of some of us in our local areas. In Gateshead, some wards had experienced three consecutive years of all-postal ballots, with no requirement for a witness declaration and no evidence of fraud. It was also exasperating to read some of the press accounts of the process, because so much of the press seems to have assumed that this was the first experiment in all-postal ballots. It simply was not. Again, the press failed to look at the beneficial experiences of areas such as mine.
  344
  This time round, the experiment was less successful, because of the uncertainties that remained almost right up to the election date as a result of the way in which proceedings in both Houses had taken place, and because of the disincentive effect of the witness statement requirement. It was not that voters were dishonest; it was simply that some voters living on their own found the witness statement rather intrusive, given the fact that they had not had to cope with such a requirement in the previous three years. They also had to deal with two envelopes instead of one, and there was extra paperwork involved. We came across examples of people being unable to find their second envelope, so they could not cast that vote. This was not a helpful way forward. I agree with what the Minister said when he referred to the Electoral Commission's view of the process.
  This week I received a letter from a constituent saying that it was the first time he had not voted in an election, and that that was because of the witness requirement, which he found perplexing and intrusive. He has instructed me to raise with the Prime Minister directly the need to abandon that particular feature. Also, when I took a taxi from my home to Newcastle central station on Monday, the driver asked me why we had had to have a witness declaration in the recent elections when we had never had one before. He pointed out that the system had worked perfectly well before. It is frustrating that so little account was taken in the House and in the press of the experience gained from the very successful trials in my area.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that, in areas that did not have all-postal ballots, there has always been a requirement for a witness statement? In the rest of the country, they are not a new thing.
  Joyce Quin: I can confirm that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. When people have applied for postal votes, they have gone through that procedure. However, the sudden introduction of the requirement caused a great deal of confusion in an area that had successfully piloted all-postal ballots for three years without witness declarations. It also caused irritation, because some people felt that perhaps they were not now trusted with a postal ballot, although they had voted in that way without any difficulty in all the previous all-postal experiments.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there were indeed problems in her area? Her area has been all-postal for some considerable time, yet the turnout this time was 7 per cent. lower than at the previous local election. Can she also confirm that 18 public libraries had to be opened to take postal ballot papers because the ballot papers had been delivered late despite the fact that her area has been an all-postal pilot area for several elections?
  Joyce Quin: Indeed; I believe that the drop in turnout was related to the witness requirement, which had not operated in the past, and to changes that were imposed on the local authority at the last minute and which it tried heroically to deal with. On the hon. Gentleman's point about ballot boxes, the council has actually provided ballot boxes in libraries and other locations at

  345
  every all-postal election, so that—contrary to what the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said about people being forced to vote by post—people would have the option of going to their town hall or elsewhere to vote in person if they so wished. That is a very satisfactory way of doing things, because it allows people who want to vote in person the chance to do so. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  I would have liked to make many other points, but my time has run out. I shall conclude by saying that, while previous Governments have attempted with varying degrees of success to devise effective regional policies at national level, what the present Government are doing is perhaps unique. That is because they are endeavouring to combine an active national regional policy with an active policy of devolution of power, empowering the regions to make more decisions themselves in the light of their own needs, problems and opportunities. It is my strong belief that, in adopting such an approach, the Government deserve our full support.
  3.49 pm
  Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington. West (Joyce Quin), whose speeches are consistent and who has represented her area extremely well. She made a speech that indicates why the House will miss her when she eventually moves on and stands down. She gave a cogent explanation.
  Having listened to the right hon. Lady, to the Minister for Local and Regional Government, and to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), however, I am not persuaded. I recognise that there is a regional element to the United Kingdom and to its governance, but I am not persuaded that this is the best way to deal with the expression of regional opinion. I represent North-East Bedfordshire. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), I represent an area that has taken a decision not to have a referendum and not to be subjected to a regional assembly. I resent the petulant way in which the Minister dismissed my hon. Friend, who sought to intervene on the basis that we were not having a referendum for a regional assembly. We are either ahead of the curve in deciding not to do so, or behind it. It is our country, too, however, and our views on regional government are just as valid as anyone else's. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the way in which he dealt with my hon. Friend.
  I go back to first principles. What government is all about is providing the clearest connection between the voter and those who are elected. One of the problems that has emerged in our society is that people feel, for all sorts of reasons, that that relationship has become stretched and strained. They therefore become resentful of it. I am not convinced that adding this tier of representation will do anything to deal with that particular problem.
  My experience has been varied. As many Members of the House know, most of my life has been spent in the north of England, where for a number of years I represented Bury, North—a metropolitan area, where
  346
  all the services were provided through one form of unitary authority. For a period, I was also sponsor Minister for Manchester, Salford and other areas in the north-west, so I had an understanding of the work of the regional office and the regional programme, which the previous Conservative Government put in place. I would say to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who has probably not spent too much time outside his area, that the improvements made in Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle—the extraordinary growth and development in the late 1980s and 1990s, through a variety of programmes—have helped to make those cities the modern cities that they are today.
  Having come to Bedfordshire, I now have experience of parish, town, district, borough and county. I am not convinced that extra tiers of government necessarily make governance any better. I am not convinced that an extra tier of regional government will clarify for people what they expect from their regional assemblies and local authorities.
  I have not heard any real clarification from the Minister today. We do not know precisely what will be done by the assemblies. For instance, we did not get an answer as to whether learning and skills councils will be taken under the control of the regional assembly, as the Deputy Prime Minister apparently wants, or not, which appears to be the preference of the Department for Education and Skills. Which is it to be? Until those things get answered, constituents in the areas affected are entitled to understand—
  Mr. Dhanda: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Alistair Burt: Only once, because a lot of Members want to speak.
  Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. He makes the point about the various tiers of government, and says that adding one would only make things worse. He also describes some of the real developments in the north-west, where there have been unitary authorities. Does he not agree that by taking out the district and county authorities, as this structure will do, and having a single unitary authority, we are reducing the number of tiers of government by having a regional assembly?
  Alistair Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not mine. My point was that the activity of a Government who were really interested in those cities, combined with the local authorities that were there, made sure that the investment took place and that changes were made that produced the modern cities that we see today. Regional government was not necessary to achieve that.
  What evidence is there that larger, more regional tiers of authority deliver better services, and that, were they not there, things would be worse? In my experience, we had the creation and then abolition of the Greater Manchester council, which the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) will remember well. When the abolition of that council, which covered a wide area, was proposed, there were complaints from politicians that services would deteriorate and that

  347
  nothing would ever be the same again. From the population, however, there was not a peep. As far as I am aware, when the council was abolished there were no proposals to bring it back. If those who represent the unitary metropolitan authorities in the area wish to do so, the House would like to hear from them. In any case, I do not think it can be proved that better services are delivered when a tier of authority covers a wider area.
  When the European constituencies changed from single-Member to regional, was there any evidence that constituents identified more closely with those who represented them? No. Most of us have just been through the horrific experience of the European elections—going around with candidates in areas where they were barely known, and where there was no relationship between them and the electors. The percentage of people voting in those elections has continued to fall. I see no evidence that the regional relationship has improved the relationship between voters and those for whom they vote. A Labour MEP in the eastern region, Eryl McInally, resigned her seat before the elections, citing as one of her reasons the lack of connection between the region and her electors. I think that the same problem is likely to occur in regional assemblies and governments.
  It is tempting to believe that a Government known for their centralising and rather authoritarian tendency have found a new way of casting some of their problems on to the proposed assemblies. Most of us would agree that one of the most difficult things with which our local areas deal—by and large we do not deal with it, for which we are grateful—is planning. We know of the problems that planning generates. The Government have asked Bedfordshire to take 51,000 extra houses by 2021. The local authorities have been bypassed; this is a Government decision. At least that means that the Government will ultimately be responsible, and that electors can express their opinion at the ballot box. Regional assemblies, however, will prove convenient to the Government, who will be able to slip proposals over to them. The real accountability for decisions will move, and the Government will not take the hit that they deserve to take.
  It is a convenient dodge to move the planning function from those who are most responsible for it at local level, and who know most about it. If the Minister suggests in his winding-up speech that there will be no such dodge, I shall be very interested; but most people think otherwise. We cannot imagine that a Government who have been as centralising and authoritarian as this really want to hand anything down. They talk of powers moving from the centre to local government. Chapter 4 of the White Paper suggests that regional assemblies will have responsibility
  "for issues such as investment and regeneration, improving housing and public transport and developing tourism."
  It claims that
  "functions are generally not being taken from local government, which will continue to focus on local service delivery and community leadership".
  Most of those functions are handled at local level, but most local councillors want to make decisions rather than being responsible only for delivery, which is what they have become over the years.
  348
  What will happen surely, is that the regional bodies will make the decisions and expect the delivery to be handled by local councillors. What, then, is the point of local councillors? And if all regional assemblies are to do is have influence with others, what is the point of being on a regional assembly? The assemblies will have power, but if they take power from anywhere it will come not from here but up from local level.
  I could be completely wrong about regional government, of course. I might have been carried away by my own party's policy and my experiences over the years. I could be alone in my view. I took the precaution of asking the Deputy Prime Minister, through a written parliamentary question, how many letters he had received from individuals supporting an elected east of England regional assembly. I wanted to test my opinion. Had I got it terribly wrong? Did thousands of people think differently?
  The eastern region—consisting of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and the jewel in the crown, Bedfordshire—has a population of 5.4 million. Can the House imagine how many of those 5.4 million people rallied to the side of the Deputy Prime Minister by writing to him in support of his proposal for a regional assembly? One. One individual, out of 5.4 million, thought that what the Government were coming up with was a good idea. In all fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the light of that response the ODPM decided not to propose a referendum on an elected assembly in the eastern region.
  That is marvellous, but the hunt is on. Who was that one person in the six counties? I am announcing today a search to find that one individual in the six-county area who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it a relative? Is it a friend? Who it is we do not know, but there are a lot of Labour MPs in that area, and they obviously did not write in. Whoever it was, we need to find them.
  The serious question is this: at the end of the day, will regional assemblies and regional government provide what the people are asking for? Will there be one more policeman on the beat because of a regional assembly, one more nurse in a ward, one more bus on the road or one more train on the track? We all know the answer. There will be more politicians, more money and no answers to the problems that people want solved. That is why regional assemblies are a bad idea, whether in Bedfordshire, which has already said no, or in other places, which I hope will say no very soon.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer: May I first say how much I have enjoyed the consultation meetings that the Government have carried out in the north-west, where their objective is to give information? I enjoyed debating with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government in front of the St. Helen's chamber of commerce. As ever, he was courteous and knowledgeable, and we had a good debate. We argued and disagreed, and my right hon. Friend put his points forcefully, as he regularly does. but that was not an information-giving session. Similarly, it was not an information session when the Deputy Prime Minister

  349
  came to Manchester and used the opportunity to show his knowledge of expletives in response to my view. The Deputy Prime Minister was being passionate, as he always is, and that was clearly not a cool, information-giving session.
  I have listened carefully to the debate. I recall a great deal about the 1980s, when I suppose my party went a little mad and the electorate noticed and did not vote for us very much. When I listen to this debate, I think that the party has gone a little mad again, but that no one has really noticed. When I sit down and coolly analyse what we are offering the people of the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber, I realise that we are telling them, "Yes, you can pay more council tax. You will get no more money—no more resources will be reallocated from the centre, but you will have the costs of running a new regional assembly and the costs of a local government reorganisation. You might even, if you are foolish enough to vote for a regional assembly, have a body that the Government will not cap if it decides to impose unlimited council tax." The White Paper says explicitly that the Government are considering removing their own right to cap regional assemblies.
  That is a particularly unattractive proposal to put to the people, and it is certainly not regional government. My right hon. Friend the Minister made a mistake when he talked about regional government. What is on offer is regional assemblies. The Government offices for the north-west and the other Government offices will carry on delivering their business, and the regional assemblies will have no control over them. There will not be regional policy. Virtually every penny that will be spent by the elected regional assemblies will have come, via some path such as a quango or a more direct route, from local government.
  I never thought that I would sit here with Conservative Members, some of whom were part of the Government who took those resources and powers from local government to put them elsewhere, and listen to my own Government saying that they will not give those powers and resources back to local government but will give them to a regional assembly.
  Deep in the heart of this debate there is a lack of a real concept of what local democracy and local government are about. Regional assemblies certainly do not constitute an improvement in democracy. People elected to such assemblies in the north-west will represent a third of a million people—in some cases, nearly 7 million people—and replace elected councillors.
  What would a real regional policy look like? A real regional policy requires active discrimination and intervention in favour of those regions that have suffered from economic and social disparities. I do not have time to go through the figures on income, death and morbidity, which are far worse in the regions than in London and the south-east, but to deal with such issues we need to intervene and to transfer resources. Yet nothing in this package transfers resources to the north-west or elsewhere. In fact—Opposition Members will not agree with this—our national policy is really a regional policy for the south-east. On looking at the real causes of regional disparities, one finds that huge quantities of money are being spent in the south-east disproportionately on transport and cultural issues.
  350
  In the north-east, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) talked about, 6p is spent per capita on cultural services such as museums and art galleries, yet the figure for London is £10 per head. Is that fair? Could it possibly be one reason why we have the economic and social disparities that these proposals will do nothing to address?
  We need to put civil servants and resources into the regions. I welcome the BBC's decision, announced today, to put some of its resources into Manchester and the regions, but why has it taken so long? The BBC has introduced two new television channels and three new radio stations, but now, because it is under pressure as a result of a number of mistakes, and because it wants to review the licence fee, it is saying, "Yes, we remember the regions and we will look to provide some support."
  Andy Burnham: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of regional disparities, but surely a no vote in a referendum in the north-west would send the message that we are happy with the status quo and with London domination of our public life and resource allocation. Even if the proposal is not everything, as the Liberal Democrats are suggesting, surely it is better to accept it and build on it.
  Mr. Stringer: People would conclude from a no vote that we had rejected a proposal that offers no improvement on what is currently on offer; in fact, it offers something worse. The pressure that Members can bring to bear on various issues would in fact be diminished if we had a regional assembly. The case for more money would not be made any better. The Government would say, "We've not given you any more money and we've given you very few powers, but you can get on with things now." The arguments that we have been advancing will be dismissed and we will be told, "Go to your regional assembly and deal with such matters there." That is my worry.
  The other argument, following the line of thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is that a regional assembly will provide one powerful voice that the Government will listen to. I do not accept that either, for one simple reason. My right hon. Friend the Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and other Front Benchers know the various facts and figures, but there is nothing new here. For whatever reason, the spatial distribution of expenditure as determined by the Government is staying as it is. They would learn nothing new as a result of having a regional assembly. As has been suggested, it is much more likely that there will be a greater disarray of voices, rather than one voice.
  Let us consider what will happen if the regional assembly's policy disagrees with that of Liverpool, Blackburn or Manchester. Is the leader of Liverpool city council—currently a Liberal Democrat—going to say, "We think that your planning policies for Liverpool are right"? Of course not. They will go to the Government with a completely different story, and I do not blame them. The same is true for Manchester. An extra voice is created and local government resources are centralised. It makes it easier for the Government to say

  351
  that the regional assembly says one thing, Chester says another, somewhere else yet another—so the Government will carry on doing what they want. I do not accept the arguments in favour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh understands.
  I shall conclude, because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute. When the figures on how much money goes into London and how much into the regions are discussed, it is sometimes said that London is subsidising the rest of the country. I find that offensive. It would be good for London if less were spent on things that could be done elsewhere in the country. Every time we look for a new amelioration—affordable housing, London weighting and so forth—we are subsidising congestion. It makes life in London more difficult and life in the country more difficult. What we need is a fairer balance that would enable London to do what it is best at—it is a great world city, a financial capital of Europe and has an enormous amount going for it—but that would even out the money to help the regions. That would be better both for London and the regions. I do not believe that what is on offer deals with the fundamental problems of the regions.
  Joyce Quin: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend when he makes the case for central Government to take regional issues seriously and take regional needs into account in the allocation of spending, but it is not an either/or issue. Surely it is possible to have an elected regional assembly while also having an active national regional policy adopted by the central Government.
  Mr. Stringer: That brings me back to my earlier point about whether having a regional assembly amounts to a step forward. I know that many Government Members genuinely believe that it is a step forward, but I believe that it is more likely to prove a step backwards by cementing into place unjust spending patterns. That is why I have come to the conclusions that I have outlined.
  I often see my hon. Friends asking for extra support, but it is difficult to get the Government to respond to regional issues. Let us consider the Government response to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee report on regional disparities. Every time a suggestion was made, the Government basically said that they had national priorities rather than regional ones.
  I often raise airspace policies with the Government. We know that the skies over London are congested and that there is capacity in regional airports, so we could open up the skies and more aeroplanes could use those airports. That does not happen because of vested interests in the south-east, which is where civil servants and the headquarters of BAA are based. At the present time, Pakistan International Airlines could run services from Pakistan via Manchester to New York, but it is prevented from operating that flight by the vested interests of the south-east.
  Andy Burnham: Can I put this further point to my hon. Friend? I understand his argument about why it may be harder to secure resources in the regions, with the Government perhaps saying, "There is your regional assembly; now get on with it." However, the experience
  352
  of London clearly shows the opposite. Since the Greater London authority was set up, we have seen, for example, the Olympic bid and congestion charging. London's issues have become national issues—housing shortages for key workers is another example—and under the GLA we have probably seen resources brought into London rather than taken away.
  Mr. Stringer: I know quite a lot about the decision to make an Olympic bid. It was a decision taken by the GLA and the Government, which Ken Livingstone supported only afterwards. It was wrong that everyone else was excluded. London has been doing well because the central Government are putting more money into London than Ken Livingstone can spend, as he told the Select Committee at a recent hearing on the congestion charge.
  I do not support the Government's proposals, because it will be bad for the Labour party when they are rejected. I hope that the Government will not hold the referendums but if they do, I am sure that the people of the north-west will reject them.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. David Curry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester Blackley (Mr. Stringer) who ran one of the great metropolitan cities of the United Kingdom and knows a great deal about what he was telling us.
  This morning, I picked up The Daily Telegraph, which is not something I do lightly, and saw a curious map in which greater Grimsby appeared as a London suburb. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) may be perturbed by that revelation. I was relieved to find that I was just outside the band of London influence, but the map served to concentrate the mind on some of the real regional development issues that we should consider. We should be testing the regional assembly proposals against such an assembly's capability to address some of the issues that we all acknowledge.
  I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about the assemblies. That is familiar territory. The Government's proposals for new political structures are irrelevant to most of the development needs of the English regions and I cannot think of a single criterion for regional development that would be met by the existence of an assembly, or of anything that could be delivered that could not be delivered without one.
  I recently attended a debate in the Baltic Exchange—unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) has left the Chamber—and looked down at the river. When I worked in Newcastle, there was dereliction on both sides of the river. There has been an amazing regeneration in that area, and it has been delivered without a regional assembly. Indeed, with a regional assembly, it would probably have cost twice as much, gone heavily over budget and taken three times as long to deliver.
  What is the key marketing purpose of the regional assemblies? The weaknesses of the proposals have been well rehearsed. Even with whatever last-minute enhancements the Government are likely to come up with, there will be a new tier of government for most of the people in the three regions where single-tier,

  353
  metropolitan authorities exist already. Members of the assemblies will lack any mandate of the sort understood by Members of this Chamber.
  The assemblies will not replace existing bodies. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has just said, the Government offices for the regions will not disappear and will not be subservient to regional assemblies. Indeed, regional assemblies will have to refer to the Government offices for the regions for authorisation to do most of what they want to do—even to make nominations to regional development agencies. They will be unable to nominate anyone without reference to the Government, so the tutelage of the Government offices for the regions will remain.
  Furthermore, despite the three additional points to which the Minister for Local and Regional Government referred, the amount of public expenditure that will come directly within the purview of the assemblies will be less than 3 per cent. of public expenditure in the regions. That is small beer by anybody's standards. If those bodies are so vital and will open the doors to so many opportunities, it seems almost criminal of the Government not to extend that remarkable opportunity to people in the south-west, for example, who would no doubt jump at the chance to write their own destiny—to use the enthusiastic words of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley said, the key point is that the Government propose no rebalancing of expenditure. Let us compare public expenditure per capita in the north-east with that for Scotland, and then consider income, or wealth, per head in those two regions. They are in inverse proportion, because of the famous Barnett formula. If I were in the north-east and felt that my regional assembly would enable me to address that imbalance and that I would gain some of Scotland's advantages, I might be tempted. However, I am not tempted, because no one has mentioned that. Occasionally, over cups of tea around the country, the Deputy Prime Minister has mumbled about what a terrible thing the Barnett formula is, but I am not aware that any political party is seriously committed to redressing its injustice, which seems to be increasing.
  The Government are confused about their wider regional agenda. There are proposals for regional assemblies in some areas and for unitary councils. The Government made a mistake when they said that there could be regional government only with unitary councils. Large parts of Europe have much more local government than us. Local councils are much, much closer to the people—for example, in France about 2 per cent. of the entire population are elected in some shape or form—so we should be cautious about galloping towards the idea that size always means efficiency. Sometimes, for democracy, we might have to pay a little price in efficiency just to be closer to the people. Sometimes, the Government's proposals might appear terribly logical, but they are counter-intuitive in relation to the democratic process.
  The Minister is tempted by the idea of unitary authorities, although I have no doubt that he will reaffirm his commitment that, if the vote is no, the unitary proposals die. The Government have proposals for city mayors and prescribe various mechanisms for
  354
  the management of our local authorities, but they are bound by the enormous gendarmerie of inspection and control that the Government have erected.
  To return to a question that I asked the Minister, it is interesting that the balance of funding review is due virtually this month, before Parliament rises for the summer. If the Government are serious about decentralisation, no doubt there will be bold proposals to return business rates to local councils. I believe in doing that: it does not involve the danger or spectre that the business community believes it would. There is a lot to be said for buying the business community into the democratic fabric of local communities. I do not imagine that that will be included in those proposals. I suspect that we will see a bit about business paying more because its percentage has been decreasing. We will probably see a bit about regional banding. We will probably hear one or two remarks suggesting what could happen sometime in the future and that perhaps we ought to keep in sight local income tax, but I would be amazed if anything fundamental happened in that review.
  What would be my personal formula? I think that executive mayors are a good idea. I would like to see the great cities of the north run by executive mayors and demanding more powers. A personality is very important to give direction and to project a city externally. Whether or not we like the present Mayor of London or approve of his policies, we cannot deny that he has projected a personality about London in his period as mayor of that city.
  We need to consider the regional development agencies. I am sympathetic to the idea that skills at any rate ought to be combined with the discharge of major economic development functions. Perhaps those in the RDAs are the people to do that, but they have tended recently to become too diverse in their activities. They need focusing on the core economic development issues, so that they do not spread themselves too widely. I would like them to be called back to order in that regard.
  In my region and, indeed, in the north-west, the universities are a colossal asset. There are some world-class universities, and they are co-operating closely to create almost a trans-Pennine university campus that will attract investment and research facilities. That is the region's greatest asset. If we address the skills issue, which is obviously at a lower level, we will have the education infrastructural framework that we need. I should like the trans-Pennine links to be developed. I am not convinced by the Government's proposal to stretch an arm up towards the north-east, right through the Vale of York. I do not see the logic in that; I would much rather remain with the trans-Pennine core, as an effective development area.
  We need improved transport links, but not just in the region; what really matters are the transport links to London. There is no point in pretending that London does not exist or in regretting the dominance of London in our national life. People want to get to and from it quickly. The more easily they can get to London, the more likely they are to establish their business out of London.
  Not least, we need to assert the cultural identities of cities. Sport and cultural activities have been demonstrated to be powerful regenerators of our cities.

  355
  People identify a city by its cultural and sporting activities, as well as by its business climate and culture. Those roles are best performed by cities. Our culture has grown out of an urban culture. Our civilisation itself has tended to grow out of our cities. Cities are the motors for regional development and they are not readily compatible with the sort of regional assemblies that the Government are talking about. The assemblies are an irrelevant distraction. They enable nothing, they facilitate nothing, they invigorate nothing, and quite frankly, it would be better if they were nothing.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I see I have been left with one minute in which to speak, despite the fact that I had a long and interesting speech to make—too bad. Let me make one point in the 60 seconds available to me. The whole issue has become over-personalised because people associate the regional agenda with the Deputy Prime Minister. Leaflets circulated by the Conservatives in my area do not condemn Labour's regional assemblies, new Labour's regional assemblies, or even Blair's regional assemblies, but read, "Say no to Prescott's regional assemblies".
  If my party is serious about winning the referendums, I wish the Prime Minister would make his position clear. His current position is rather opaque and I do not think he is convinced by the idea at all. The Deputy Prime Minister has set the agenda, but that has alienated the opinion not only of a lot of Opposition Members, but of some Labour Members. The Deputy Prime Minister will be speaking to my colleagues from the three northern regions in about 35 minutes.
  The regional assemblies are a complete diversion, and I agree with the thoughtful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). I fear that having been given a good kicking by the electorate on 10 June, we will get another good kicking in October. Before I entered the Chamber for the debate, a colleague from the House of Lords said to me, "Gordon, we are inventing new elections to lose." That is our problem.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) managed to speak, albeit briefly.
  Conservative Members support the principle of decentralisation—moving decision making to the lowest appropriate level based on coherent accountable units close to the people affected by decisions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out earlier, the Government's proposed elected regional assemblies will not represent a genuinely decentralising measure. In the words of Lord Rooker, there will be "no new money" and "no new powers" will flow to them. They will suck powers up from local authorities instead of down from central Government. We are already seeing that happening with housing, planning and fire and rescue services.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, we are being offered expensive and largely toothless talking shops with more politicians, more
  356
  bureaucrats and more red tape. Decisions will be made further away from people, rather than closer to them. The assemblies will have no new powers other than those sucked up from local authorities. They will represent more big government that will spend more precious taxpayers' money without delivering a single extra doctor, policeman, teacher or social worker, and without offering real solutions to the genuine issues arising from the massive structural economic change that has occurred throughout the three northern regions over the past two and a half decades.
  Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that regional assemblies will lead to more politicians. With the abolition of county councils, can he be absolutely sure that that will happen? Surely the proposal would lead to fewer elected politicians.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman knows that the north-east, for example, is already overwhelmingly made up of single-tier local authorities, so an assembly would impose an additional tier of government.
  It is little wonder that outside the narrow confines of the political class, the Deputy Prime Minister's obsession has signally failed to grip the imagination of the people who are supposed to be enthused by it. It is little wonder that the evidence points to a growing sentiment in all three northern regions, especially Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west, that the proposed extra tier of government is simply not the answer to the regions' problems and that the Government's proposal reflects Labour's tired philosophy that more government equals better government, and that constant change equals progress.
  As is so often the case, Labour is hedging its bets. Ministers talk about the importance of allowing the electorate to decide whether to have regional government in referendums, but they have already embarked on an agenda of reallocating responsibilities and functions from local government to regional forms of government, irrespective of whether elected regional assemblies come into being. The Government's amendment congratulates them on their endeavours to ensure that the electorate are well informed about regional assemblies. In truth, however, it is the Government, in the name of spreading clarity, either deliberately or through incompetence, who have created confusion and uncertainty about the extent of the powers, responsibilities and costs of elected regional assemblies.
  The Minister's typical response to any criticism is to wrap himself in the mantle of democracy and proclaim that he merely wishes to allow the people in his selected regions to have a choice. It is clear that that commitment to choice is subordinate to Downing street's fear of another debacle on the scale of 10 June and the parliamentary Labour party's blind panic in the face of looming defeat and the damage that the Deputy Prime Minister's agenda could do to its chances at the general election. The champions of democracy proclaim that the people must decide, but it is apparent that they will only be allowed to do so if it is to Labour's electoral advantage.
  Our debate has demonstrated that if the people are to decide, they must have clear and accurate information about the question that is put to them; they must be

  357
  allowed to express their decision through a fair and effective voting system and they must know the costs of the proposals that they are asked to judge. They are entitled to honest and impartial information, not Government propaganda. The Government appear to be distancing themselves from the holding of referendums before a general election, but if they go ahead it is clear on the available evidence that the last thing they are seeking is an objective test of the mood of the population in those three regions. They are instead attempting to manipulate the process with all the powers at their disposal to achieve the outcome that they desire.
  I fully recognise the Minister's problem—with just four months to go, in the analysis of the British Chambers of Commerce, there is a
  "lack of interest in and awareness of the prospect of elected regional assemblies."
  The more people know about elected regional assemblies, the less they like the idea. It will be difficult for the Minister to rise to the Deputy Prime Minister's challenge of delivering a yes vote in the regions and achieve a turnout that gives some credibility to the whole process. He is torn between those two objectives, and his efforts to increase turnout are likely to pull against his objective of securing a yes vote. Sadly, in his pursuit of a resolution to the dilemma, the principal victims are clarity and transparency. Genuinely open and informed debate has been sacrificed to his overriding need to achieve a yes vote on a half-reasonable turnout. That is the opposite of the genuinely democratic process advanced in ministerial propaganda and the self-congratulatory Government amendment.
  The soundings exercise was intended to determine whether there was any genuine interest in the holding of a referendum. It was not objective, and was conducted at the discretion of the Deputy Prime Minister, who managed to determine on the basis of 833 positive responses from a population of 5 million in Yorkshire and Humber that there was a desire to hold a referendum in the region. The electoral system itself gives rise to problems. The Minister conceded early on that the Government would not impose elected regional assemblies on people if turnout was "derisory", although he has resisted all attempts to pin down what constitutes such a turnout. The Government therefore concocted the idea of all-postal referendum ballots in the hope that that would achieve a turnout that was not derisory. They are therefore in the absurd position of seeking to lay orders for an all-postal ballot before the post-mortem on the 10 June fiasco is complete. They have had to build in a reverse gear to enable them to cancel or postpone the ballots if the Electoral Commission report is damning or if it suits them to interpret it in that way.
  There is a perfectly good solution at hand—it was identified by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) in an early intervention—that will allow certainty about the date of the referendums, will prevent the result of the ballot being tinged by doubts about the integrity of all-postal voting, and has the benefit of being familiar to the electorate at large. It is the traditional system of ballot box voting, but the Government will not adopt it because they want to keep open the option of backing out of their commitment to the referendums if they decide later in the year that it is electorally advantageous to them to do so.
  358
  Having fudged the consultation on the level of interest and rigged the balloting system, the third prong of the Deputy Prime Minister's approach has been a propaganda campaign at the taxpayers' expense under the guise of information dissemination—a total waste of money, pushing a dud idea to an indifferent audience without even, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) described to the House, paying lip service to making an attempt at a dispassionate presentation of the arguments. The Deputy Prime Minister has been running around the country sowing confusion and obfuscation in all directions and, every time he is challenged, retreating behind the mantra that the powers will be as per the White Paper, only to sally forth the next day flying more kites and creating more confusion and doubt.
  The truth, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex pointed out, is that there is a battle royal going on within the Government. Despite the big talk earlier of interdepartmental battles to be waged by big John, it seems that it was little Jeff who was right all along—at the end of the day, there will be no new powers and no new money.
  Will the Minister confirm to the House, as many hon. Members have asked him to do in his winding-up speech, that the draft Bill will be published before the end of the Session, and that it will contain precise powers and not be structured simply as an enabling Bill, so that when the electorate go to the polls in October they are clear as to the powers and the costs of the regional assemblies if they vote for them? Will the Minister further confirm that the Bill will published at a time and in a manner that enables a debate to take place in Government time in this House and the other place, ideally before the recess, but if not in the September session, so that the important issues that will be raised by the detail of the draft Bill can be fully debated and reported in the regional press? Only in that way will the democratic process be properly conducted to the benefit of the country and the whole of its electorate.
  4.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Phil Hope): The debate should be renamed. It has not shown confusion in the Government's regional policy, but it has shown a great deal of confusion in the Opposition's regional policy. They voted against Scottish devolution, and then had to accept it; they voted against Welsh devolution, and then had to accept it; and they voted against the Mayor and the Assembly in London, and then had to accept it.
  The Opposition opposed regional chambers, in which there are now 150 Conservative councillors sitting in active support. The Opposition opposed regional development agencies but now want to engage with them, although I am not sure what that means. We discovered in the debate today that although the Opposition opposed the referendums in the first place, they now insist that they take place—a damascene U-turn if ever I saw one. They do not seem to want more politicians but they oppose unitary structures. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)

  359
  seemed to suggest that up to 2 per cent. of people in this country should become councillors. That would be about 1 million councillors—rather too many, I think.
  Mr. Curry: I was merely pointing out that the United Kingdom is relatively light on elected representatives, compared with almost every other country in the European Union, so we should not be frightened by the idea that we have people to represent the citizen, rather than always assuming that the only way to go is towards fewer councils covering larger areas.
  Phil Hope: Opposition Front Benchers complained throughout the debate that they do not want more politicians at regional level. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
  The Opposition's attitude to regional policy is as confused as the membership of their Front-Bench team. It is one of our favourite pastimes on the Government Front Bench to try to guess which of the eight members of the Opposition Front-Bench team will bother to turn up at various debates on regional government. I led a debate on the Northern way in the Regional Affairs Committee, at which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) represented the Conservatives—in fact, he was the only Conservative present.
  The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is one of the sponsors of the motion, cannot be present. We understand that she is in Birmingham campaigning in the by-election. I hope she reminds people there of her commitment to reintroduce the poll tax, and the shadow Chancellor's proposals to cut £57 million from Birmingham city council's budget if the Conservatives were ever to return to power.
  The Liberal Democrats have their own internal confusions, which we have heard about today, so there is no change there. More worrying is the proposal of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that we should have a boundary review. Nothing would delay elected regional assemblies more than having a boundary review. The consultation would result in inordinate delay.
  As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, this debate, as highlighted by the Sheffield university report, is all about bringing economic development, democracy and accountability for public spending to the regions. It is about developing regional policy.
  The first generation of regional policy was essentially the ambulance work of getting Government help to the regions in the early 1930s. The second generation, in the 1960s and 1970s, was all about large capital and tax incentives, about which we heard something this afternoon, to get people to locate in the regions. Both those approaches were inflexible and top-down. Neither did enough to close the gap between areas of high unemployment and areas of low unemployment—regional disparities, as the Sheffield university report shows, continue to grow.
  360
  We are now in the third and new generation of regional economic policy measures that seek to strengthen the indigenous sources of growth in the regions.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is now on some interesting territory. He, like me, supports the Greater London authority, which is, in effect, a city region. If a city region model is appropriate for London, why should it not be appropriate for conurbations such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester?
  Phil Hope: The report shows the value that the core cities give to economic regeneration in the regions, but the point about the Greater London assembly, which was made in today's debate, is that it provides the model for the regional assemblies for the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire and Humber. It has been particularly successful in standing up for London, and we want similar assemblies to stand up for the northern regions, to attract investment, to create democratic accountability and to sponsor the regional economic growth that is so important.
  We are committed to a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change and devolution. We have been transforming this country from what it was in 1997—one of the most centralised in the western world.
  A number of different points have been made about powers. I cannot go through all the details, but it was interesting how in today's debate even Front-Bench spokesmen, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and others on both sides of the argument were all saying that what we want is stronger devolution; we want more powers and more spending to be devolved to the regions. This is the start of that exact process. This is the opportunity for those regions to grab back central Government's power, to stand up for themselves, and to start this process, going forward into this third generation of regional economic development, which both sides of the House appear to support—even my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who seemed to be arguing for more discrimination for the north. This is not about discrimination; it is about handing power back so that people in the north can have the resources and the powers that they require.
  Time is running out, but I assure the House that we will be introducing a Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government said in his opening remarks. We are on course to publish it in July once the dates for the referendums have been set, and we will ensure that those votes will be held in a postal referendum because the people deserve the opportunity to have their say, and postal voting, as we have seen from the experience in June, increases turnout. We have made the commitment not to proceed with all-postal referendums, as planned, if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so. That is the proper reaction of a Government who are committed to encouraging participation in the democratic process, but who are equally committed to protecting the integrity of the balloting process as well.

  361
  Opposition Members made a number of points about the information campaign, and we even had a quote from a QC on which the Tories waited a lot of money. Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, has replied to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, saying:
  "I am entirely satisfied that the Your Say campaign does not break any of the principles set out in either the legislation or the guidance."
  The Government have made a clear commitment and the regional development agencies have already achieved much in boosting the regional economies. It is time to go further. We believe that elected regional assemblies can further improve regional economies, offering democratic joined-up government and a new perspective, vision and opportunity to the regions. The Opposition's motion is incoherent and backward looking. It reflects the confusion of a party that has got it wrong in every devolution debate in the past decade and that would deny the people of the northern regions a choice.
  It will be for the people of the regions to choose in a referendum whether they wish to have a regional assembly. Our policy for elected regional assemblies is about choice—a choice for the people, and a choice to provide a better future for the north.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 320.

  Division No. 209]

  [4:45 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gale, Roper (N Thanet)

  Baldry, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodman, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grayling, Chris

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Gummer, rh John

  Brady, Graham

  Hague, rh William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond Philip

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Burnside, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Burt, Alistair

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Cameron, David

  Howard, rh Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clappison, James

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Conway, Derek

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Curry, rh David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Loughton Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  McIntosh Miss Anne

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  362

  Maude, rh Francis

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Norman, Archie

  Syms, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Trimble, rh David

  Pickles, Eric

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Redwood, rh John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Ruffley, David

  (Macclesfield)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hugh Robertson and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allan, Richard

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Caton, Martin

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Baker, Norman

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Best Harold

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blackman, Liz

  Cotter, Brian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Breed, Colin

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Brennan, Kevin

  (Copeland)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davidson, Ian

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, rh John

  Burnham, Andy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burstow, Paul

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Cairns, David

  Doran, Frank

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  363

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lammy, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Etherington, Bill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Linton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Gilroy, Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hancock, Mike

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harvey, Nick

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Holmes, Paul

  Mole, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moore, Michael

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Moran, Margaret

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, rh John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Kidney, David

  364

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Purchase, Ken

  Straw, rh Jack

  Purnell, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ward, Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Sheridan, Jim

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Short, rh Clare

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spellar, rh John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Gillian Merron and

  Stevenson, George

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes progress the Government is making in implementing its proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; 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; welcomes the decision to hold the referendum by all-postal ballot while noting the Government's preparedness to give a clear undertaking not to proceed with all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so, welcomes the Government's decision to have one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors, giving the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand, or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials; further notes the Boundary Committee's estimates of the savings from local government restructuring in regions which choose to establish an elected regional assembly; looks forward to the publication of the draft Bill which would establish elected

  365
  assemblies, once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; and notes that the principal confusion about regional policy appears to be on the Opposition benches.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, Solicitor-General's Question Time takes place tomorrow at 12.20 pm. I was in the Lobby earlier and have just received a letter from the Solicitor-General's secretariat to say that my question has been transferred. I appreciate that the transfer is not your responsibility, but such short notice is surely a discourtesy not only to me but to the work of the House of the Commons. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General is responsible for prosecutions, with which the question deals, yet she has transferred it. Will you advise me on that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, he has registered his concern, which will now be on the record.

Business Deregulation
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
5.1 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the decision of the Government to replace 'deregulation' with 'better regulation' and condemns its failure to deliver deregulation for British business; is alarmed that the Government is unable to quantify the number of new regulations generated since 1997; deplores the fact that the total cost of major regulations to business approved since 1998 now exceeds £30 billion, and notes with concern the negative consequences this is having and will have on small businesses in particular; further condemns the Government's decision to agree to a European Constitutional Treaty that will extend the legislative competences of the European Commission; calls on the Government to take urgent measures to reduce the burden of domestic and European regulation on British business; and further condemns Labour MEPs for voting in the European Parliament in favour of the Agency Workers Directive and the extension of the Working Time Directive in the UK.
I draw to hon. Members' attention my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I have given the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry notice that I cannot be present for the winding-up speeches, and I am therefore disappointed that she has chosen not to turn up and focus on such an important subject. It is yet another example of her refusal to come to the House for a debate in Opposition time. She was not present when we held an Opposition day debate on post offices. As ever, the Government pretend that they need put up a Secretary of State only when a member of the shadow Cabinet is present. That is nothing to do with them. I am the Secretary of State's shadow and she should be here because business deregulation is a major issue for the future competitiveness of this country. There is a lack of will on the Government's part to take that seriously.
I welcome the debate, on Conservative initiative and in Opposition time, on the vital topic of business deregulation. If previous Conservative Administrations had not clearly understood and acted on the importance of setting business free, Britain would remain the sick man of Europe rather than being one of its eminent models of flexibility, at least until recently.
However, it is already clear that the 21st century global economy will be unrecognisable from that of the latter half of the 20th century. Liberalisation of markets through the World Trade Organisation, the enlargement of the European Union, the birth of the tiger economies, the prodigious rise of China and India, which compete not only on the basis of low wages but on high skills—each has 750,000 graduates every year—are all factors that drive up competitive pressures as never before.
Against such a background, it is time to audit the Government's actions—or, more accurately, inaction—on deregulating business since 1997 and to examine the implications of their policies for our productivity growth and competitiveness. I shall highlight the Conservatives' political will and practical, deliverable programme in government to identify and reverse the drivers of over-regulation of British business, which has suffered under the Labour Government.

367
In the 2001 manifesto, the Labour party made the following commitment:
"We will cut the time small firms spend on dealing with regulation".
That followed the Prime Minister's pledge in 1998:
"Where regulations or alternative measures are introduced, this should be done in a light touch way".
In the light of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for a political debate based on reality rather than myth, I hope that the Minister—I had hoped it would be the Secretary of State—will acknowledge that the evidence suggests that, far from decreasing the amount of time that UK businesses, large and small, spend dealing with red tape, the Labour Government have increased it by an average of six hours a week per employer.
A CBI survey from the end of 2003 showed that 95 per cent. of UK businesses—an incontestable statistic in any survey—confirmed that they were having to spend more time dealing with red tape than they were five years ago. The most recent KPMG survey of small and medium-sized enterprises found that
"complying with regulations and red tape"
was the single issue of greatest concern, eclipsing other worries such as skills shortages, the rise in insurance premiums, and pension scheme deficits. In fact, the burden of regulation, which particularly and disproportionately affects small businesses, is now getting so out of control that a Select Committee report from the other place, published earlier this year, on the accountability—or rather, the lack of it—of regulators includes the following evidence from a group of financial advisers:
"The FSA handbook is vast and almost incomprehensible—the only way to look at it is via the search engine on the FSA website as apparently if printed out it would stand nine feet high".
It is dispiriting—if not surprising, against such crushing regulatory odds—that a fortnight ago, HSBC cut 3,500 jobs from its British work force, taking the total of UK job losses to 7,500 over the past 12 months. HSBC blamed the £200 million extra cost of new financial regulations.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In the light of the important points that my hon. Friend has just made, would he agree that one of the things that particularly irritates businesses—especially small businesses, including many in my own area—is that when they try to ask the relevant Government Department legitimate questions about regulations, they are often told that they have to look at the Department's website? Many small businesses do not have the time or the facilities to spend hours looking at Government websites. The Government have an obsession with this. Does my hon. Friend agree that the point that he has just made particularly concerns small businesses?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right. His understanding of the position is accurate. Naturally, I am glad that there is a website for people to visit; in many ways, that is progress in itself. At the same time, however, this shows the Government's lack of experience and achievement in customer service, given
368
that the taxpayers money—businesses' money—is being used to provide a service to the very businesses that feel let down by the Labour Government on the ground that the information is not being produced in a customer-friendly way. A recent survey showed that only 17 per cent. of businesses recognised the schemes that were available to them from the Department of Trade and Industry. Furthermore, the Secretary of State herself has said that many of the schemes are not a useful use of taxpayers' money.
I was a former FTSE 100 manufacturing industrialist and small business operator before I entered Parliament five years ago, so I understand that a certain level of regulation will always be necessary. I also know from my experience of actively doing business in more than 10 countries on the continent that some EU legislation, particularly in relation to the internal market, has been positive in working against protectionist practices on the continent.
However, speaking from the perspective of someone who has had to comply with, rather than produce, business regulations, I see two things very clearly. First, it comes as no surprise to me—although it may to Ministers, who have no direct experience at the sharp end of business—that, as the Government have increased the time businesses have to spend dealing with red tape by more than 200 per cent. since 1997, as the last week's Peninsula survey confirms, there has been a corresponding reduction in productivity growth. That growth rate is currently barely more than half of what it was between 1993 and 1997.
Secondly, if an extra £30 billion has been placed on UK businesses since 1998—as the latest British Chambers of Commerce burdens barometer has calculated—it was inevitable that UK competitiveness has plummeted from fourth place in 1997 to 15th place today, as the World Economic Forum rankings testify.
Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I have declared my interests in the Register.
Is it not the case that 600,000 manufacturing jobs have already been destroyed under this Government, many of them by excessive regulation and taxation? They have been destroyed by the very Government who came to power saying that they were going to be good for manufacturing. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. No one is more assiduous than he in standing up for the interests of the wealth-creating and risk-taking part of our economy.
I mentioned the example of HSBC. Things have been tough for manufacturing for some time, however, particularly given the globalisation of manufacturing. Many have gone out of business that need not have done. The Government, through their control and command, have placed on those businesses regulations that have been both burdensome and unnecessary, to seek to achieve changes of behaviour that winning businesses would in any event have adopted for themselves. That is not a position that the UK can afford to be in.

369
David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, is absolutely correct when he says:
"Business is being held back by administrative costs and burdens. The great strength of the UK economy is its flexibility and if we are to successfully compete globally we must maintain this flexibility."
Precisely for that reason, I have recently written twice to the Secretary of State, asking her to censure, and distance herself from, Labour MEPs who have voted on more than one occasion to scrap the UK opt-out from the 48-hour working week component of the working time directive, worth at least £9 billion a year to employers. Likewise, they have voted in favour of the temporary agency workers directive, which the CBI says would cost up to 160,000 jobs if implemented in the UK.
I regret to say that the Secretary of State has not answered either of my letters—and even worse, she has not bothered to turn up today. Until she is prepared to admit that the behaviour of her MEPs is unacceptable, she and her team will have to accept the charge that she and they are dangerously relaxed about the loss of UK plc's hard-won flexibility, against which she fought tooth and nail in opposition and on which the Liberals would only ever have an opportunity to chunter, as they would not understand the position—[Interruption.]
As we are no doubt about to be reminded—as the Liberals seek to say things from a sedentary position, which is where they are best left—the Government have taken superficial action to reduce the burden of regulation against UK business. On the surface, it is difficult to reconcile the various taskforces and eye-catching initiatives launched since 1997 with the fact that the Financial Times recently carried an editorial in which it asserted that this Government are so ideologically enamoured of regulation that it has become "the new Clause Four". Businesses effectively regard increased regulations as taxes by another name.
This Government's failure to take substantive action to deregulate, and their stubborn commitment to over-regulation, is explained by three factors. First, there is the natural inclination of a Labour Government to big government state interventionism. That has shown no sign of abating under nannying new Labour. According to the House of Commons Library, in the six full calendar years of Labour Government, the number of regulations passed total 23,322. On average, that is 3,887 per annum or 14.95 regulations every working day. That is up 53 per cent. on the number under the last Conservative Government.
Secondly, there is the burgeoning bureaucracy that naturally accompanies a big state. That bureaucracy is now so unaccountable that the Better Regulation Task Force recently admitted that it does not even know how many regulators there are—not "regulations", as it is misprinted in the Order Paper, although it does not know how many of those there are either. That is precisely the problem: it does not know what the cost of regulation is as a proportion of GDP.
Thirdly, on top of those domestic factors, there lies the superstructure of a centralising European Commission, whose legitimacy is not derived from a direct democratic mandate but a technocratic imperative to legislate and to regulate.
370
The combination of those three—an interventionist Labour Government, an out-of-control bureaucracy and a power-hungry European Commission—amounts to a hurricane-force storm of over-regulation, which the UK may not have the means to weather in the new, ferociously competitive global economy. That nexus of circumstances has created a serious structural presumption by this Government in favour of regulating in response to any given problem. In a context like that, the Government's initiatives to promote so-called better regulation are tokenistic and ineffectual.
Take regulatory impact assessments, for example. When they sign off an RIA, Ministers are required to assert that the benefits justify the costs. That, however, is a very different proposition from saying that the benefits must outweigh the costs. Justifying regulation is a considerably more subjective and ideological exercise than an objective measurement of estimated financial costs and benefits, which, incidentally, reveals that in 2002–03, the recurrent costs of regulation recorded in RIAs were almost 10 times the recurrent benefits.
Regulatory impact assessments are potentially useful instruments, but they are used neither effectively nor efficiently by this Government. That is demonstrated by a recent parliamentary answer that I received from the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, who is in his place, on the subject of the costs to business of regulation:
"Information in relation to the estimated benefits and costs to business is provided in the regulatory impact assessment and is best read in the context of each individual RIA."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1319W.]
Reading the estimated impact on business of regulation on a case-by-case basis is the worst strategy that could be adopted. If the problem of over-regulation is ever to be confronted successfully, it will be essential to replace that short-sighted approach to so-called better regulation with the more dynamic approach to deregulation pursued by an incoming future Conservative Government. That would represent a significant culture change, as it would involve assessing regulations by reference to their cumulative impact on business—in other words, in their totality, a favourite Labour word, rather than in isolation, and having regard to the actual drivers of regulation as well as the existing stock of statutory instruments.
I have given my full support to an excellent ten-minute Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who is present. It would require the independent post-auditing of regulatory impact assessments and their independent assessment in the first place. That would help to ensure that the collective costs of regulatory impact assessments did not outweigh the benefits.
Earlier this year I launched a business deregulation panel to advise me on practicable policy recommendations from a business perspective, on the basis of an analysis of what we have identified as the five principal drivers of over-regulation. They are the EU—of course—gold-plating, Government policy, administrative creep, and compensation culture. That analysis has been published in a pamphlet by the Conservative Research Department policy unit, and is available on www.conservatives.com/policies. I have a copy here.

371
The business deregulation panel consists of representatives from the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, as well as the economist Ruth Lea and senior figures from the business world including Martin Barrow, Malcolm McAlpine, Lord MacLaurin and Sir Paul Judge. I shall announce the Opposition's policies on deregulation in more detail following its recommendations, between now and the general election.
Let us look at the Government's record on business deregulation. The so-called flagship initiative overseen by the Cabinet Office is the regulatory reform action plan. It consists of 650 so-called deregulatory measures. I say "so-called" because, for instance, one was the creation of the new super-regulator Ofcom. There is, by the way, no implementation timetable: consequently almost two thirds of the measures remain unimplemented.
In his pre-Budget report statement in December 2003, the Chancellor announced 147 regulations for reform or removal that would be incorporated in the regulatory reform action plan. It subsequently emerged that only 25 per cent. of those 147 deregulatory measures—according to Ernst and Young—related to tax and red-tape issues affecting business. In fact, I recently received a parliamentary answer on the subject from the Financial Secretary, who conceded that
"Among the measures to reform there were several measures with direct benefits for business".—[Official Report, 17 June 2003; Vol. 422, c. 1045W.]
So from 147 business deregulation measures, we are down to "several". In any case, given that the Government introduce an average of 15 regulations every working day, it has taken only about 10 days to replace the repealed regulations, even if they all related to business—which they clearly did not.
Another regulatory reform action plan of which the Chancellor speaks smugly was produced by the European Commission in 2002. The Commission's plans formed the basis of the joint initiative on regulatory reform announced earlier this year by the Chancellor and Finance Ministers of Holland, Luxembourg and Ireland. Here is the problem: at the heart of Government, the Treasury insists
"The scope of this programme includes reform or removal of existing legislation which is in force".—[Official Report, 27 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1727W.]
However, the Commission's text is 100 per cent. clear:
"Our aim is not to deregulate or to interfere with the executive's or the legislator's prerogatives, and certainly not to restrict the Community's freedom of action".
Perhaps it was the Chancellor's pique at being thwarted by the Commission that prompted him to tell the European Scrutiny Committee in April:
"it is unacceptable that 50 per cent. or more of regulations come from the European Union".
Let me repeat that, for it is an astonishing admission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer believes it is "unacceptable" that 50 per cent. of regulations come from Europe. Where has he been for the last six years? He is not an innocent victim, but the Chancellor of a Government who, since 1997, have implemented more
372
EU directives than had been implemented in the whole of the last quarter of a century. In that case, why on earth does he want to sign up to the new EU constitution, when it has emerged that the Government's own legal advisers admit that it will give European judges powers to erode the flexibility of the UK's labour laws via the charter of fundamental rights?
It is truly a bizarre spectacle. The Chancellor says that the level of regulation from the EU, which has cost British businesses £25 billion since 1998, is unacceptable, although he will happily sign up to a constitution that will extend the EU's legislative competences. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister says that "no one will support" an attempt to renegotiate the treaties that have transferred precisely those competences to the EU. In the Blair myth-making world, supinely and irresponsibly reflected in the Government's amendment to our motion today, which tries to claim that the debate is about being in or out of the EU, does that mean that the Chancellor wants to be out of the EU, or just out of his present job and into his next-door neighbour's?
The Chancellor's blundering admission also puts the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and her representatives today, as she is not present—in an uncomfortable position. It is the Secretary of State's habit to label as an extremist anyone who highlights the negative economic impact of Brussels legislation on British business and calls for a corresponding reduction of such legislation and legislative powers. They are no such thing. I hope that British business has taken note of the outrageous insult it is to all those risk-taking, wealth-creating business men and women that the right hon. Lady sees her job as getting in their way, rather than getting out of their way. It would be helpful if the Government and their Whips had not sought to peddle complete untruths in their amendment, which seeks to suggest that the Conservatives stand for withdrawal from Europe. That is the precise opposite of what is on the record, and of our policy.
Signing the EU constitution would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's failed attempt to deregulate British business, given the already inordinate and disproportionate costs to UK business from EU-derived regulation. Recent research by the Conservatives in the House of Commons Library found that more than 60 per cent. of legislation is now European in origin. More than 80 per cent. of regulatory costs to British business since 1998 have resulted from Acts of Parliament that implement EU directives. That finding is astounding, but equally so is the fact that no one in the Government has ever bothered to establish for themselves that four fifths, or £25 billion, of the £30 billion cost of regulation to British business comes from Brussels.
Of course, some of the cost of overregulation is a result of the overzealous implementation of European directives into UK law—the phenomenon known as gold-plating. That appears to be another area of profound confusion for the Government. The Foreign Secretary recently told the CBI that
"we must ensure that we do not impose extra burdens on British business by 'gold-plating' EU legislation when we transpose it into our national law."

373
Meanwhile, the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently informed me in a parliamentary answer that the Government explicitly reserve the right to gold-plate, when he stated that "Cabinet Office guidelines" include
"options that could go beyond the minimum necessary to comply with a European directive … particularly where the original directive is unclear"—[Official Report, 30 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1319W.]
If directives are unclear, surely that requires earlier action to amend or forestall them. We should stop them in their tracks, not, as the Government prefer, gold-plate them just in case.
The problem of gold-plating is compounded by the Government's failure properly to scrutinise directives in the first place. An independent report on gold-plating recently commissioned by the Foreign Office states:
"During negotiations on a Commission proposal for a Directive, the UK is often represented by a junior officer with no legal training or experience, who attends meetings in Brussels without support, in particular full-time legal support".
That situation is clearly unacceptable, and a future Conservative Government would take urgent measures to ensure that the British representative was appropriately senior and authoritative, and had the appropriate legal backup, to ensure that the UK representation at that vital early stage in the regulatory process was more effective—not least, that it could head regulation off.
The substantial facts about Labour's failure to deregulate business are glaring. Deregulation is for Labour Members a word like "constitution"—they whisper it, or fear to use it. We will shortly hear much rhetoric about better regulation and regulatory simplification, but those are smoke and mirrors: mechanisms, processes and structures that seem to do everything but reduce the amount of regulation coming out of the conveyor belt of Westminster, Whitehall and Brussels. A case in point are the regulatory reform orders, which one of the Secretary of State's predecessors described as
"a powerful and flexible tool to strike down or change unnecessary or over-complex regulation"
when they were created in 2001. Between 2001 and 2003, the Government passed 12,450 new regulations. How many regulatory reform orders did the Department of Trade and Industry introduce in that time? One. That would be comic, were the issue not so serious.
When Labour Members speak, they will tell us that previous Conservative Governments regulated. Of course they did, but they did so half as much as this Government, averaged out on an annual basis. In case there is any remaining doubt that the Conservatives are the only party to take business deregulation seriously, let me say that the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has already made it clear that a future Conservative Government would include sunset clauses wherever possible in new regulations originating in the UK, would seek the return to our national control of the matters covered by the social chapter and would seek a genuine application of the principle of subsidiarity by returning powers from Brussels in much the same was as, for example, the current Dutch Government suggested earlier this month that they would like to do. Indeed, the contrast between
374
the Dutch Government, who recently submitted to Brussels a list of 2,500 EU regulations for removal, and this Government, who sent the European Commission only a vague letter mentioning just 13 directives as "priorities for simplification"—as we know, that does not mean deregulation—was extremely telling. That shows how seriously the Dutch, and how weakly the British Government, treat the subject of over-regulation of business.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that when we in the Treasury Sub-Committee visited the Netherlands, we met at the Dutch Finance Ministry a director of legislative burden who had a staff of 17, and who was charged with reducing the administrative and regulatory burden by 25 per cent. over four years? They were getting on with it; why cannot our Government?
Mr. O'Brien: I am delighted to hear of that experience. Of course, to change the culture of politicians and those who work in Whitehall, we need to incentivise them to be deregulators and to recognise that it is only the wealth-creating side of the economy— business—that gives our democracy the choices that we rightly demand and need. So it is absolutely critical that we make sure that the Government put in place the proper incentives to achieve such a change in culture and management. It is clear that such incentives are woefully lacking, because of the lack of political will on the part of this Government.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman not give at least some credit to the Government for their successes in the field of deregulation? I am thinking in particular of the statutory audit of companies. In 2000, the turnover limit was lifted to £1 million a year, thereby exempting some 150,000 companies from the requirement to have a statutory audit. This year, the limit was raised to some £5.6 million, thereby exempting a further 70,000 companies. Surely measures such as statutory audits are much more cumbersome and onerous than many of the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Mr. O'Brien: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman's views and experience, and I am very glad that this Government have sought to follow the trajectory adopted by the previous Conservative Government. Of course, value thresholds must be revised in order to keep pace with events. In a prosperous economy such thresholds will not last for long, which is what we would wish for such businesses.
More importantly, we should set against such considerations the various measures introduced in recent employment relations legislation and through the implementation of the information and consultation directive. As a result, exemptions do not apply all the way down the chain of companies. Such measures have to be taken into account in determining the real costs to business. We need to consider the resulting effect on management time, distraction of attention and confusion, along with a lack of access to appropriate information and to quality, affordable professional expertise.

375
Such issues need to be set against the point that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) rightly makes, and we need to consider them as we examine our approach to deregulation, rather than picking out a single element. A Government who are neither familiar nor comfortable with the idea of the risk-taking, wealth-creating side of the economy will inevitably try to regulate it to fit in with their own culture. That is in contrast with the Conservative party, which understands that a democracy is best underpinned by—and is most likely to deliver quality of life, confidence, security and prosperity for its citizens through—a well-supported but ultimately undistracted business community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) introduced a ten-minute Bill to allow individuals or businesses adversely affected by proven gold-plating to force the Government to delete unnecessary provisions, or to revalidate them through primary legislation. Like the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, this Bill is a powerful potential weapon against the over-regulation that has been completely ignored by the Government, despite the fact that we have sought to be constructive by introducing such measures.
Mr. Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. I am delighted that he is against gold-plating, which is a very serious problem. But has he noticed that through the draft constitution, the EU will have a much more wide-ranging power to legislate directly, through both primary and secondary legislation? In some cases, commissioners will be able to put through secondary legislation with no reference back to elected politicians. Does that not mean that under the constitution—if it is accepted, and if the British people are foolish enough to vote for it—we will have gold-plating with knobs on from Brussels across the board?
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who will have heard the points that I made in precisely those terms earlier in my speech. I fully support his analysis.
The real issue, of course, is very much part of what happens in Europe today. I have had considerable experience of businesses trading across Europe and I know that businesses recognise a difference of approach. We know that one of the merits of our Anglo-Saxon culture—seen in America, Australia, Canada and here—is that common law helps to provide greater opportunities for flexibility and competitiveness. That stands in stark contrast to the more natural committee-based, codified continental system, which is incremental. Once one starts something, one tends to have to come to some result; one cannot simply draw a line in the sand and say that something is not proper or relevant for legislators and regulators to be involved with. We should enable businesses to be set free so that they do not have to worry about that. The EU constitution is precisely the worst example of that type of trajectory, which will over time cause businesses grave difficulty and a reduction in their competitiveness.
376
Equally, we will focus on the spring—if I can coin that word—or underlying culture of regulation. Rather than opposing the tide of statutory instruments on an individual basis—clearly we do that from time to time in the Committee Corridor, but it would be an exercise worthy of King Canute against the incoming tide of regulation under Labour—we believe that a far more strategic approach is to tackle the drivers giving rise to the statutory instruments in the first place. Hence, as I mentioned earlier, the business experts whom we have appointed to our deregulation panel are, as we speak this evening, examining ways of reversing precisely those drivers of regulation.
Finally, I want the Department of Trade and Industry to act as a champion for business, not be the arch-regulator-in-chief against British business. What on earth was the Department doing when productivity growth was sliding away and the UK's competitiveness was falling from fourth to 15th place in the global rankings? It is not as if the Department were starved of resources: its budget actually went up from £3 billion to £8 billion over the same period, not least to promote and service all its burgeoning regulations on business.
The truth is that the Department simply used its bloated resources to intervene on markets, draft regulations and create new quangos. In that sense, overregulation is an inevitable consequence of big government, which is one of the reasons why the Conservative party has always believed that the state should be small, the people should be big, and businesses of all sizes should be set free to prosper and grow. Over-regulation is the single biggest long-term threat to our future competitiveness in the global economy.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly so late in his speech. He has made several references to financial services regulation and to an earlier Conservative Government. I am sure he recognises the importance of financial services regulation, so does he not feel ashamed at the lack of regulation that led to a number of very unrewarding outcomes for people who should be have been better protected by that Conservative Government?
Mr. O'Brien: In financial services, there will always be a degree of regulation, as there has been under previous Administrations of all colours. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to draw that rather partisan comparison when he supports a Government who have presided over the complete debacle over Equitable Life, which has affected so many of our constituents across the country. He should be careful to reflect on what motivates good behaviour and true management judgment. The last thing that underpins such behaviour and judgment are regulations which, although necessary to some degree in the financial services industry, are so extensive and tight that they remove the motivation to do the right things. We end up with stripped liability. It is not worth it. Everyone lives under threat, rather than benefiting from opportunities, though protections for consumers should be in place.
It is not as if I am alone in saying all this. Anatole Kaletsky recently noted in The Times:
"The consequences of over-regulation will be played out over decades, rather than months or years."

377
In other words, the fact that the economy has not yet fallen apart at the seams is an abject argument for the Government to make, even if it is their habitual response, because we are still trading off the relative competitive advantage created by the labour market reforms of previous Conservative Governments. That is one of the principal reasons why we have been fortunate enough to enjoy a sustained cycle of growth for the last 12 years.
I am pleased that, as a result of that 12-year cycle of growth, the number of new business registering for VAT was 175,800 in 2002—the last year for which figures are available—though I note that that is 6 per cent. down from 1997 when Labour came to power. No doubt the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will repeat her spurious claim that
"in the 1990s, you needed 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations to create some businesses. Now the figure is one form for many sole traders; and five forms for private companies".
Of course, businesses such as those that clean asbestos needed those 28 steps and under current procedures they still do; licences and regulation are necessary when dealing with possible hazards. However, when I started companies in the 1980s and up to 1997, they were started by filling out—yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, you've guessed it—five forms. Where is the progress? Yet another bit of Labour spin squashed.
The Labour spin doctors may also want to clarify the discrepancy between the claim made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in a Labour party press release earlier this month that it
"now takes an average of one day to start a business … in the UK"
and the Chancellor's more sanguine claim—amazingly—made earlier this week, that
"it takes 24 days to set up a business in the rest of Europe but … seven days in Britain".
Who should we believe—the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Sadly, probably neither: perhaps the Government are missing Alastair Campbell after all.
The crucial test for the Government is whether British business will be prospering, innovating and expanding in a decade or more. Over-regulation is a poison that takes time to feed through the economic system—we need only look at Germany for an example of that—and there is only one antidote: a party committed to small government and big people, and a Government who get out of business's way—the next Conservative Government.
5.36 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's commitment to better regulation and enterprise, which has contributed to the UK becoming one of the best locations in the world in which to start and run a business; welcomes the recent independent endorsements of the UK's light touch regulatory environment; applauds the deregulatory initiatives brought forward since 1997 which have contributed to a significant decline in the total number of regulations imposing a cost on British business; rejects outright the allegations claiming that the regulatory burden on business now exceeds £30 billion; supports measures taken to improve the regulatory environment
378
for smaller businesses such as the removal of statutory audit requirements for small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of two specific commencement dates for employment regulations; congratulates the Government on signing up to the new European Constitution which promotes competitiveness and flexibility and which will ensure that national governments have new powers to scrutinise EU regulatory proposals; notes with concern proposals put forward by the Opposition which would damage Britain's relationship with Europe to the detriment of British business by withdrawing the UK from the world's largest common market; recognises the Government's constructive stance on the Agency Workers and Working Time Directives where it has maintained a position that promotes both fairness and flexibility; and calls on the Opposition to examine its own European policies which are consistently flouted by its own MEPs and Party members."
I am pleased that the Opposition have given me this opportunity to report on the Government's achievements in providing the best regulatory and economic framework for businesses to develop and thrive in this country.
Listening to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and other Opposition Members, anybody would think that UK business was doing badly. Is it not about time that the Opposition began talking up our business success and the economic climate that has helped to create it? In that climate, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years, historically low levels of interest rates and the highest employment rate in the G7—higher than any other major EU economy. The UK is the only country in the G7 to have continued positive growth in gross domestic product since 1997. In fact, the first quarter of 2004 saw such growth in the UK for a record 47th consecutive quarter.
Mr. Redwood: Can the Minister tell us why in her view more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Britain since Labour came to power?
Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, manufacturing has faced a difficult and challenging time over the past few years, not least due to the international situation, but I find that question hard to take from somebody who was a member of the Government during a time when boom and bust and record interest rates led to the decimation of our manufacturing jobs and many other jobs besides.
David Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend, like me, enchanted by the picture painted in that deep blue crystal ball that reveals Elysian fields where small and medium enterprises graze and run free of business regulation? Has she set against that the record in the black book, as evidenced by an outgoing Conservative Minister in 1997 who acknowledged that the Conservatives were rather adept at regulation? He said then that they interfered with almost every aspect of business and social life. He is the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I shall return, briefly, to the Conservative record.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, I want to make some progress.
The economic climate is the reason why 115,000 new businesses opened for trading in England and Wales in the final quarter of 2003, 9 per cent. higher than the

379
figure for the same quarter in 2002. It is why employment is at a new record level and why in February this year the International Monetary Fund upgraded the 2004 growth forecast for the UK to 3.1 per cent. from 2.4 per cent. What a contrast to the boom-and-bust years of the 1980s and early 1990s. It is not only Ministers who are saying that—it is confirmed by research on the global picture.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury should realise that we can quote KPMG surveys as well, particularly given that, in February this year, a KPMG survey showed that the UK has the lowest business cost structure among seven European countries. Globally, the UK came third, after Canada and Australia, among the 11 industrialised countries studied. It is the Conservatives who are determined to talk down our economy and our country.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for graciously giving way. Will she please explain to the House why 600,000-plus manufacturing jobs have gone under this Government? We all know that the Conservative Government made a bad mistake in 1990 and paid a very dear price for it. This Government have now made a whole series of dreadful mistakes for manufacturing. Will she explain why, and what is she going to do about it?
Jacqui Smith: I began to explain. Those in a Government who presided over 673,000 manufacturing job losses in just one year in the 1980s are in a difficult position from which to lecture us, but we have recognised the challenges faced by manufacturing. That is why we produced the first ever manufacturing strategy two years ago, and it is why were are investing—for example, through the manufacturing advisory service—in services that have provided getting on for £50 million-worth of value added to our manufacturing companies. We recognise the challenges that manufacturing faces, but unlike the Conservatives we will not sit on our hands and watch our manufacturing jobs being destroyed.
I do not underestimate the concerns of business about bad regulation and the cumulative effect of regulation—I shall say more about how we are responding to them later—but we need a more sophisticated analysis than we received from the hon. Member for Eddisbury. Dare I say that we need more honesty about the role of regulation? The Government do not apologise for taking action to ensure decent pay and conditions for our people. Did the national minimum wage cause the job losses that Conservative Members claimed it would? No, it ensured that bad employers could not undercut good ones, provided an incentive to work and protected millions of people—the majority of them women—from poverty pay.
Regulation has a key role to play in stimulating competition, creating a level playing field, improving our environment and establishing minimum standards to prevent rogue practices. Regulations such as those that tackle bribery and corruption and those that combat late payment in commercial transactions support and protect good businesses.
380
I was extremely pleased to read an acknowledgement of our commitment on better regulation in the Better Regulation Task Force's annual report, which was published last week and stated that the DTI
"has put a great deal of effort into its work on better regulation."
Of course, the Conservative party, which now cloaks itself in the flag of deregulation, was not always so unkeen to regulate. That is why it introduced 3,334 statutory instruments in the House in 1994. Were they all bad? Were they all unnecessary? Of course, the Conservatives did not do a very good job of deregulating when they had the chance. Those are not my words, but the view of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). In 1999, when speaking about deregulation, he said:
"We kept trying, we never really succeeded."
We are trying, and we are succeeding.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister is obviously right to say that the last Conservative Government did not make enough progress—we have accepted that—and she quoted part of the Better Regulation Task Force report that came out the other day, but did she look at the summary at the start of the report, where David Arculus said that he wants to see more use of alternatives, which is not yet the Government's first instinct? He also wants culture changes to be made a reality and more delivery on deregulation. If the Minister goes through the report in more detail, she will see that there is still a long way to go.
Jacqui Smith: Of course, David Arculus pointed out the especially good reputation and actions of the Department of Trade and Industry, but I do not disagree with his analysis. I shall talk later about the action that we are taking to find alternatives to regulation.
Regulatory impact assessments undertaken over the past six years have shown that the burden on business is decreasing. More than 90 per cent. of regulations impose no cost on business whatsoever, and although Conservative Members happily try to juxtapose a whole variety of different statistics about the Government as a whole and the DTI specifically, that is the important figure that we need to remember. We need to highlight the action that has been taken.
Conservative Members talk about employment regulation, but this Government introduced regulations to streamline the employment tribunal system and established dispute resolution as an alternative to employment tribunals. We eliminated most of the administrative costs of the working time regulations, and regulations on the national minimum wage and parental leave have a light touch.
Brian Cotter: Would it be useful to supplement impact assessments with an annual report from the Government on the cumulative effect of regulations introduced over the previous year? That would be a useful way of assessing the annual impact of regulations on businesses.
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. My hon. Friend the Minister for

381
Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers tells me that there will be an annual statement on employment rights. However, I am wary of the suggestion proposed in the ten-minute Bill to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury referred that we should introduce a few more assessments of our assessments. We would reach a situation in which we undertook regulatory impact assessments on regulatory impact assessments, but that would neither deregulate, nor cut bureaucracy.
The DTI is helping businesses to adapt to changes to employment law in practice. We have limited the introduction of all new domestic employment regulations to two commencement dates per year: 6 April, the start of the tax year, and 1 October, when the minimum wage is revised. We are consulting on whether to extend that approach and the areas in which it could be done.
Since January 2000, under the vigorous leadership of my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, the Government have undertaken several measures to reduce the burden of regulations on small businesses. Employers with four or fewer employees are now exempt from requirements to provide access to stakeholder pensions and to deduct pension contributions. We have increased the company law thresholds for small and medium-sized enterprises to the maximum possible under EU law, thus doubling the amount of investment eligible for first year capital allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred to this year's increase in the audit exemption threshold, but to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, I hardly think that an increase in the threshold from £1 million to £5.6 million represents a standard form of annual uprating—it is a major increase. Of course, the increase in threshold benefits a further 69,000 companies over and above the 820,000 that are already exempt, and that measure alone is expected to save companies £94 million a year.
We have modernised and simplified value added tax and cut corporation tax. Such actions explain why an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of EU countries in January 2004 showed that the UK had almost the lowest administrative costs and the fewest regulations for entrepreneurs in the EU. That picture is confirmed by business leaders. Earlier this year, Charles Dunstone, the founder of Carphone Warehouse, stated:
"I have to say as we run businesses in 11 European countries, there is no doubt in my mind that the UK is the easiest place to run a business as far as regulation and red tape is concerned".
However, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out, we need to find alternative solutions to regulation, which is why, in our approach to corporate governance, we regulated where necessary to bring transparency to directors' pay, but we took take a non-statutory approach, on the whole, to the problems caused by the Enron and WorldCom scandals. The DTI initiated Derek Higgs's work on the role of non-executive directors and the Financial Reporting Council commissioned Robert Smith's report on the role of audit committees. Their recommendations were included in a combined code produced by the FRC that has already made a significant difference to the effectiveness of audit committees and non-executive directors.
382
The Enterprise Act 2002 includes many key instruments for deregulation, including codes of practice, which were approved from the Office of Fair Trading. They provide a non-statutory but nevertheless effective means of offering more consumer protection, particularly in used car sales; car repair and servicing; credit, including debt management and credit repair; funerals; travel; estate agents' services; and direct marketing. Regulatory reform is therefore a priority. International surveys show that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of such reform. The World Bank's "Doing business in 2004" included the UK in the 10 countries—out of a total of 130—with the least regulation.
We are not complacent. Regulatory reform is a priority and the regulatory reform action plan published in December 2003, to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury referred, includes over 650 deregulatory measures that apply across Whitehall. We have already delivered on 300, including simplification of the capital gains tax regime; reduced tax and regulatory burdens for small businesses when starting up; a VAT simplification package; and amendments to maternity pay, benefiting an estimated 10,000 employers. The Government have laid more than 24 regulatory reform orders before Parliament, 17 of which are already on the statute book.
The DTI has led the way on better regulation, including the setting up of the vehicles industry policy and European regulation group—snappily titled VIPER—which brings together a range of businesses involved in the automotive industry and allows an earlier and more robust consideration of policy options. In an independent survey, VIPER stakeholders gave the group a ringing endorsement. That approach to consultation is now being extended to the chemical, construction and retail sectors. We will, however, go further, which is why, in the Budget in March, the Chancellor announced a review of inspection and enforcement by Philip Hampton to identify what the Government can do to ease the burdens faced by businesses, and why we have announced new measures for strengthening the scrutiny of major regulatory proposals, including a panel chaired by the Prime Minister whose members include David Arculus, chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, and William Sargent, chairman of the Small Business Council.
The motion refers to the disadvantages of Europe and European regulation—a matter that the hon. Member for Eddisbury raised, as Conservatives are wont to do. I wish to highlight the importance of raising the European game on better regulation, but first it is worth responding to the Conservative myths about the constitution. In our negotiations on the constitution we got what we wanted on the economy. We rejected tax harmonisation, protected our energy interests and achieved the right legal status for the charter, which is to be based on principles, rather than rights that could undermine our own national practice. The EU constitution will not result in more regulation, as it gives more power to national Parliaments. It is about enlargement and reform and will increase the opportunity for our businesses to operate in a bigger trading area than the US and Japan combined, as EU trade accounts for some 3 million UK jobs. It provides

383
a strong base to pursue our agenda. The UK is a strong voice in Europe for competitiveness and competition and for better regulation. We are leading the campaign for regulatory reform in Europe. We are making that commitment a reality, working with the Irish, Luxembourg and Dutch presidencies, which all share our aims.
We are leading the work on better regulatory impact assessments, including assessment of the impact of new proposals on Europe's competitiveness. We are calling for more engagement with stakeholders and for further simplification, taking our regulatory reform programme into Brussels and working with the Commission and European partners. That is on the agenda for the European Council now. We did not need to wait for the new constitution to do that.
We have shown what we can do through active engagement, particularly with regard to the REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—proposals on the chemical industry. By engaging actively and focusing on the need for light-touch but effective regulation in a crucial area, we have already reduced the cost to industry by more than €10.5 billion, working with business in the UK and across Europe to challenge the Commission's proposals. We are still on the case, looking for streamlining and simplification, and working with business to improve the environment for us all.
The Government are committed to ensuring that we have light-touch regulation, that administrative burdens are kept to a minimum and that existing regulation is kept under review. Regulatory reform remains a priority. Today we have had the chance to outline some of the progress that we have made. The debate has also given us the chance to challenge the view that regulation is never necessary. There are times when we will take action to protect the vulnerable, defend the environment and promote fairness at work. By so doing, we will support and protect good businesses, build a competitive framework for enterprise and continue the economic success that we have delivered in the past seven years.
5.57 pm
Malcolm Bruce: I listened carefully to the 35-mintue speech from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), which was delivered at considerable speed. I assumed that it would contain some radical, innovative proposals, but it amounted to a rant, devoid of any serious practical proposals.
Perhaps we should all acknowledge that regulation and deregulation is a difficult area. Often, when businesses complain about regulations and are asked to spell out how we should deal with them, they are unable to be specific or they cite regulations that we would not want to get rid of. For example, the chambers of commerce include in their deregulation proposals the asbestos regulations, but we know we must deal with those. We should all recognise that we need better regulation and, yes, less regulation.
The Minister mentioned the Better Regulation Task Force, and she is entitled to take comfort from its proposals that are supportive of the Government.
384
However, there are other proposals from the taskforce to which she did not refer, but which contain a mechanism that is valid—that we should apply a principle of new for old. In other words, new regulations should lead to the termination of old regulations, there should be an attempt to limit the number of regulations, and wherever possible, regulations should have sunset clauses so that they expire. If they have to be renewed, they have to be rejustified and the debate is reopened.
We welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has said that it will be a priority for the UK presidency of the European Union to promote deregulation. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will watch with interest to see how the Government take that forward, and we would be willing to feed constructive suggestions into that process, given that European regulations account for 40 to 50 per cent of all regulations in the UK, as the Better Regulation Task Force identified.
The Government's track record has not been fantastically successful on some of the more important EU regulations. The Government have tended to come in late and try to resist the regulations, rather than being an organic part of the shaping of them. I cited in our amendment the directive on fridges, end-of-life vehicles and electrical and electronic goods.
On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker—it may be a matter for the administration of the House—the Table Office would not allow me simply to say that we were concerned about the fridges regulation, but required me to refer to:
"the chaos of the UK application of European Council Regulation No. 2037/2000 requiring the removal of ozone-depleting substances from refrigeration equipment".
The Table Office required two lines in place of the word "fridges", which may be indicative of an attitude of mind that pervades t he House and is perhaps shown by some civil servants. We need to accept simpler expressions.
Mr. Redwood: In the Liberal Democrats' interesting proposal to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, which Department, if any, would then become responsible for deregulation, and which Department, if any, would go to Brussels to try to prevent some of these measures going through?
Malcolm Bruce: If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will deal with that. I assure him that it is a significant part of what I want to say.
While I am on the subject of regulations, it is interesting to note that when EU regulations are being translated into British regulations, usually through the House and statutory instruments or other mechanisms, an analysis has shown that the UK has on average 334 per cent. more words than the second most wordy member state in the EU. In other words, all our regulations turn out to be infinitely longer than those that apply in any other member state. It does not follow from that that we are necessarily more regulatory; it may be that we are more explanatory. But it suggests that there is evidence of our adding detail to regulations, which our competitors in other member states do not do, and that needs to be considered carefully to ensure that we are not loading burdens on ourselves that the EU does not require us to. Ministers should be pretty

385
watchful of civil servants who see some of these regulations as an opportunity to piggyback some of their favourite schemes that they were never able to get past Ministers when they were free-standing proposals for domestic legislation. That is a serious issue, and one reason why we need to deal positively and proactively with regulations.
Conservative Members' difficulty is that they have a general opposition to regulations and a general complaint that they add costs, but they are much less able to specify which regulations should be got rid of. That is not a cheap gibe. All of us would genuinely like to find ways to simplify regulations or to get rid of those that do not work. It behoves Conservative Members to come forward with specific proposals.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In addition to the points that I made about the culture that needs changing in order to resist the cumulative effect of regulations, which is what businesses really resist—naturally enough, examples do not flood in because people cannot be seen to be offside with what are generally regarded as health and safety measures, and so on, a reputation that they would not want—surely scrapping the horse passport regulations would be a good start for all those involved in the horse business, which employs many in my constituency for a start.
Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mr. Bellingham: It will penalise my sister's two ponies.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a personal connection. We may be able to do something about horse passports, although I do not know enough about that, but I do not think that that will transform the British economy overnight. We need practical proposals, and we need a mechanism for ensuring that they are properly evaluated. All of us have an interest in that. The question we need to ask ourselves is, given that a certain amount of regulation is required domestically for health and safety matters and even legitimate social matters, and for other reasons, and there are EU regulations that have to be incorporated into domestic law, how do we do that more simply and cheaply than we are? We all have an interest in bringing that about and we all need to ensure that the mechanisms are improved.
Looking back on the Conservative Government's record, I can find just as many quotes from the latter part of the 1990s complaining about Government regulations and the difficulties faced by businesses struggling with all those regulations—
Brian Cotter: My hon. Friend has been talking about the Conservatives' record. Does he agree that their current record is also worth mentioning? For example, their appearances at the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform was limited in the 2002–03 Session. The party has three Members serving on the Committee, but two of them have not attended it at all in 16 sittings. The Committee has had the opportunity to question Ministers, Departments and civil servants on nine occasions, but two Conservative Members have failed to turn up, while the other one has attended on less than 50
386
per cent. of occasions. That is an example of how the Conservatives are not doing in practice what they say they are going to do.
Malcolm Bruce: That is very interesting. I know that my hon. Friend is an assiduous attendee of the Committee. If Opposition Members have good ideas or believe that what the Government are doing is fundamentally wrong, the very least they can do is turn up, explain why and put their views on the record. If they do so, they may even have some chance of influencing what happens. [Interruption.] The trouble is that the Conservatives have never got used to the idea of opposition—perhaps the Liberal Democrats have more experience of it—but they will have to do so, as they will be in opposition for a long time.
As Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition introduced the immigrant workers requirement, which put an obligation on employees to be responsible for finding out whether anybody whom they employed was an illegal immigrant. The onus was on them to prove otherwise. That was a pretty mischievous measure in every sense, and it was very burdensome. I remember that employers complained bitterly about it, but the Minister who was responsible for the policy is now the Leader of the Opposition who says that he does not think that businesses should be overburdened with unfair and unreasonable regulations.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked me about our proposals for abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry. Of course, they are controversial, but we genuinely believe that there is a strong case to be made. Historically, the Department existed partly because we had a major manufacturing base and partly because there was a very large publicly owned sector. We have now privatised most of those businesses, and while there are regulatory responsibilities, there are no longer direct investment or management responsibilities and the manufacturing industry has declined.
In passing, I should say that I share the concerns about manufacturing, as I believe that an economy of the size of that of the UK needs a manufacturing component in order to be balanced and effective. Two issues need to be recognised. The first relates to the great days of Mrs. Thatcher, who I think is on record as saying that she did not care whether it was goods or services, as long as they added value. Secondly, we have to be realistic about the world in which we are operating and look at what is happening in China, India and the new Europe. It is very difficult to maintain a competitive manufacturing industry unless it is at the cutting edge, but it is not all bad news. Although we may be losing jobs, we are not losing business in all cases, as we are maintaining some core leading-edge businesses. Some of the jobs may not be great, but the added value is still significant.
Without the sort of direct Government input to which I have referred, do we need a Department that has a budget in excess of £6 billion and a staff of more than 10,000? Our conclusion is that not only do we not need the Department, but it is instinctively regulatory and is cumbersome and bureaucratic. There is an infinite variety of taskforces and working parties. I am not suggesting that nothing that comes out of them is of any value, but I have talked to many businesses that have

387
concluded that many of the activities in which they are engaged are a substantial waste of their executives' time. One major company—I shall not name it—told me recently that it has now said that it will not send executives to such discussion groups at the Department, because it does not feel that doing so serves any useful purpose. The company said that it used to send people to the meetings partly because it hoped that something constructive might be achieved, but more out of a fear that if they did not go, its competitors would gain an edge.
That is one of the problems with many of the business assistance schemes, although it is interesting to see how the debate is developing. I saw a rather ironic article in yesterday's Financial Times suggesting that Digby Jones was about to launch a campaign of business men for bureaucracy, which would be battling to save the bureaucrats of the DTI on behalf of the business community, whereas it said that the Liberal Democrats were keen to get rid of them. That was a slightly ironic juxtaposition.
Many businesses say, "The process of applying for regional selective assistance or any other form of grant is long drawn out, cumbersome and time consuming. We may have to employ private consultants to make the case effectively, and we may not get the money in the end." Many other businesses complain that the money goes to their foreign competitors, which set up in this country and compete with British businesses that do not have access to the same grants. We conclude that it would be better if none of those schemes existed. in which case people would not have to waste time bidding and could get on with running their businesses in a competitive environment.
If such activity has a role, it is in the regions, where the business community, councils and regional development agencies have local knowledge and understanding and, given more flexibility and less central control, might deliver a better result. That is our case, which is worthy of serious consideration. We accept that it will be criticised, but we do not make it lightly, because we have thought it through and discussed it widely.
The debate is very short, so I shall quickly respond to the right hon. Member for Wokingham. A deregulation Minister should be appointed, with specific responsibility to examine all regulations and ask, "How can we do without them, simplify them, get rid of them, apply a sunset clause or exchange them for new regulations?" Such an appointment would not get rid of all regulation, but it would have a dynamic, because lower, lighter and better regulation would become an active, rather than reactive, process.
I shall address the part of the Conservative motion that relates to European regulations. The hon. Member for Eddisbury acknowledged that many of the single market regulations benefit business. If there were no single market, single market regulations would not exist, and we would need to develop products to meet the requirements of every member state, so every product would need 25 specifications to satisfy all the markets within the European Union. The single market regulations fit all countries, which must be beneficial.
388
That does not mean that the regulations could not be simpler, better or farer, but they must exist if the single market applies.
We have taken evidence from Norwegian and Swiss businesses, which say, "The reality is that we must accept those regulations willy-nilly if we want to trade with the European Union," which they do, "but we have no say in shaping them and arguing our case, other than by bilateral discussion with the European Union." Switzerland has major food companies, pharmaceutical companies and industrial companies that trade across the European Union. The honest truth—this is an interesting point that Conservative Members should engage with and, if they are genuinely in the debate, will engage with—is that many in the business establishment in Switzerland are seriously concerned about Switzerland's detachment from the European Union. Their personal nightmare is Turkey becoming a member of the European Union while Switzerland is not, which would not be in the Swiss national interest.
Mr. Redwood: Surely all one needs for an effective single market is the Cassis de Dijon judgment, which states that if a product is of merchandisable quality in one country, it should be deemed to be of merchandisable quality in another. One does not need to set out how to make a tyre, steering wheel or windscreen in regulation.
Malcolm Bruce: That is a nice, neat hope and belief, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that all negotiations on the single market are designed to ensure a fair and level playing field. This is not the time or place to debate whether Britain should be in or out of the single market and what effect that might have. All I am saying is that as long as regulations in the single market affect businesses in the United Kingdom, an early, proactive intervention to help shape regulations and to argue the British case is far better than leaving an empty chair. The Conservative Government were not present to argue the case, and the UK had to accept the outcome at the end of the day. That policy did not serve the national interest then, and it will not serve it in the future.
It would perhaps be better if all hon. Members acknowledged that regulation and deregulation are complex issues, and that none of us has the complete right answer. It is unreasonable to pretend that we can sweep away a load of regulations with no downside effects.
At the same time, we should never be complacent. We need to find mechanisms to get rid of unnecessary regulations, to make regulations that are justified and renewed through sunset clauses, and to play a proactive role in reducing and simplifying regulations as much as possible. I maintain that a smaller Department for deregulation instead of a large Department for dreaming up new regulations would be in the better interests of British business.
6.15 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I draw the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.

389
In the 25 years of my business career and my 18 years serving on the boards of major British companies, I do not think that there has been a single year in which the burden of regulation has lessened. Throughout that period, business has complained about the growing problem of regulation. Lucy Neville-Rolfe of Tesco has said that the burden of regulation has increased every year since Gladstone, and I suspect that she is right. It is equally true that business men and the enterprise community will always complain about Government and regulation—that is as natural as farmers complaining about the weather. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that this is a complex subject that is not easily resolved by simple banalities or through a deregulation committee or even a better regulation taskforce, but what is new about today's situation is the volume of regulation, the way in which it is enforced and the context in which business operates.
First, there can be little doubt that there has been an acceleration in business-affecting and employment-affecting regulation over the past seven years. That is not merely a political debating point: it is a fact. It is a matter of counting regulations and assessing the Government's own regulatory impact assessments, which I shall discuss later. It is also a function of Europe and, in this country, of the development of a claims culture and changes in the legal system. Consequently, regulation that is designed to be light-touch and to have a benign effect often has a much more pernicious effect on the workings of business.
Secondly, there has been a major change in the competitive environment in which British business operates. We now operate in a far more global market in which the regulatory effects and burdens on businesses in Korea, Singapore and Thailand have a significant effect on the profitability and investment prospects of British business. We need to face the fact that nice-to-have legislation may result in fewer jobs and a lower quality of life for our own people.
Thirdly, the business culture of this country has changed. The days when people went to work just to earn a daily crust, when it was the priority to protect employees from poor employers, and when there were widespread problems of bad employment have largely been eroded, although not entirely. Of course, to be competitive in today's British business world, management and employers have to provide a better-quality working life for their employees, because that is part of the way in which companies compete. The whole nature of business regulation therefore needs to adapt to reflect that context by rewarding and encouraging the successful, not trying to hold the best companies back in the interests of mitigating the downside effects of a few poorly managed ones.
Regulation is a chronic problem that is in the political system, and unless solutions are designed to be systemic they will not succeed. The regulation of business is driven by the popular tide—it is the popular thing to do. Ministers are unlikely to be promoted for doing nothing. They are unlikely to be promoted for introducing deregulatory orders, but are likely to be promoted for getting new legislation on to the statute book. Legislation is tangible, but costs are diffuse; nevertheless, they are borne by British business over time. It is hard to withstand the pressures of the popular
390
media for new legislation, even though the long-term effect on the economy, and therefore on business, can be detrimental. It does not matter whether the legislation deals with maternity rights, minimum pay or pensions. All such legislation is understandable, and often benign, but the cumulative impact is death by a thousand cuts.
The House is not divided by the recognition that regulation has been and is a problem. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been forceful in identifying the burden from which British business suffers in inspection and the overlap of enforcement regimes. He is committed to a sector-by-sector review. The House is divided on understanding that the problem cannot be solved by rhetoric or good intentions but lies deep in the political system; resolving it is fundamental to the competitiveness of the British economy.
The problem is becoming acute. Of course, some of the cost of regulation is unquantifiable, but the Government measure most of it. The Minister for Small Business and Enterprise claimed that the British Chambers of Commerce calculation of £30 billion of cumulative extra cost was invalid. He may want to deal with that in more detail when he replies, because he knows that the BCC calculation is none other than the simple addition of Ministers' assessments of those costs through regulatory impact assessments.
It is fair to say that the cost is cumulative and not annual, but it is equally fair to point out that it is a gross cost, which does not take benefits into account. It does not do that because, in 75 per cent. of cases, Ministers could not be bothered to quantify them. It is therefore hard to do that, but costs of —30 billion add up to a substantial reduction in the profitability of British business and in investment. That also means a substantial reduction in profit and therefore in corporation tax revenue for the Government—probably some £8 billion that could be spent on employing new health and safety inspectors or, even better, on schools, hospitals and public services. The effect on profitability, business and the public sector is tangible.
Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, with good intentions, Britain and/or the EU imposes much higher environmental standards on our business, we could end up with the opposite of the desired effect when the business closes in Britain because the costs are too high and transfers to somewhere with practically no environmental standards? We thus lose the jobs and get more environmental degradation.
Mr. Norman: My right hon. Friend makes a profound point. We operate in a global market and there is no point in exporting quality jobs that become low-quality jobs elsewhere in the world.
It should not be a matter of debate between us whether regulations have increased under the Government. There have been 23,322 new regulations. A substantial proportion of them have come from Europe, but the figure represents an increase of 53 per cent. on the number of regulations that the previous Government introduced. That constitutes acceleration and a chronic problem, which needs to be tackled. The Minister for Industry and the Regions prayed in aid the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. However, the same report that she cited stated that flexibility in the UK had been steadily eroded by ever-increasing regulation.

391
We are worried not only about the additional costs that regulations entail but about their long-term impact on the effectiveness of British business and our competitiveness in world markets. The Minister for Small Business and Enterprise has some weeks of experience of the business community and he knows that regulation also reinforces the power of big business. The small shopkeeper cannot afford the cost of regulation.
When I was chief executive of one of the largest supermarket chains in UK, we could employ a department of bureaucrats to handle any new regulation—whether it was new labelling or new food safety standards, we could handle it—but the individual shopkeeper could not compete. Regulation reinforces the power of the large enterprise at the expense of the small; it creates a barrier to entry.
The lobbying culture and the need for businesses to protect themselves against Brussels and the Government also reinforce the power of the large enterprise. British Telecom can afford to employ a regulatory department of more than 100 people to work with Ofcom, which in turn employs 800 expensive people to try to administer sector regulation. That opportunity is simply not available to the small technology company endeavouring to compete.
Secondly, the effect of regulation is to reduce our effectiveness in the growth of new industries. Although we are seeing a better performance in the British economy today than in some of our European competitors, we are not seeing comparative success against the far east or the United States in the new industries such as information technology and biotechnology. The test of whether we are developing a future capability is in our competitiveness in those industries.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about big business versus small business. Does he agree that a way of dealing with this issue would be for very small businesses to use more of the exemptions available to them, and to target those benefits and tax exemptions at micro-businesses, because the unit costs of dealing with regulations are much higher for those businesses?
Mr. Norman: There is a role for exemptions for small businesses, and we have seen some, in the form of the audit exemptions, for example. I believe that they can be taken much further, both in the framing of the regulation and in the way in which it is enforced. At the same time, however, we need to recognise that competitiveness is not just about small businesses, and that creating peculiar regulatory thresholds of size cannot be anything more than part of the answer.
The third impact of regulation that I want to draw to the Minister's attention is the way in which it affects business on the inside. All regulation reinforces the position of the internal bureaucrats in British companies. I do not mean that in a disparaging sense; I mean that regulation results in the burgeoning of internal compliance mechanisms in human resource and health and safety departments, for example. This
392
involves people spending their career trying to prevent others from taking risks or working too hard, or to prevent enterprises from taking on new employees without thinking very hard about it. Those people are reinforced by regulation, and that has a determining effect on the nature of the enterprise culture.
A final point about regulation that is often missed by Ministers is that it erodes the productivity of the public sector, which is the fastest growing employment sector in Britain today. It is also the sector with the lowest productivity growth. A lot of the regulation being introduced has a greater effect on the public sector than on the enterprise sector. A good example of that is the Employment Relations Bill. I heard the Secretary of State refer in a speech on that Bill to provisions on consultation being provisions that would help to protect trade union member in the private sector. She omitted to mention the fact that more than half the trade union members in this country work in the public sector. What the Government are really doing is passing regulations to cover their own management failures. One thing that they could do to address the problems of poor employment practice, demotivated employees, high trade union membership and sclerotic workplaces would be to create a better management system for the public sector, which is where poor management practice in Britain is largely concentrated. Sir Peter Gershon, the Government's own adviser, has said that regulation now
"threatens the government's most cherished goal—improved public services".
The problem of regulation is serious and it is deepening, but the Government's response to it has been ambivalent. Of course, we have heard about the regulatory reform proposals. The hon. Member for Gordon may be aware that I sit on the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform. I was there yesterday, I obviously did not make much impact, but never mind. We welcome the regulatory reform proposals that have been made. It is encouraging to know, for example, that there are to be reforms on sugar beet research. Reforms relating to the museum of London also came through recently, and they are entirely welcome. However, we should not kid ourselves that this is an adequate solution. It is like standing in the path of an avalanche armed with a toothpick, and it simply will not address the problem. It is the system that is creating burdensome regulation, and it is the system that requires radical surgery.
I am referring not only to new regulation but to the archaeology of old regulation. We still have on the statute book an Act from, I think, 1928 that limits the quantities in which shops can sell flaked breakfast cereals. We are still restricting the weights in which bakers can bake loaves of bread. We still require shopkeepers to get a licence to sell game if they want to sell a shot pheasant. That is all completely antiquated. We are creating layer on layer of overlapping regulation, and there is no process in the system for unpicking the history and removing legislation that is often completely out of date and no longer relevant to today's business environment.
In addition, we are world beaters in enforcement in this country—we have thousands of enforcers. I challenge the Minister to name a single inspection or enforcement department that has diminished in

393
employment numbers under this Government. Whether in the Health and Safety Executive or the Food Standards Agency, there have been additional enforcers, whose full-time occupation it is to go around harassing business. That sometimes brings about beneficial change. The fact that the numbers have increased on every count, however, indicates what business is spending its time doing and what it must face.
I wanted to come to the question of solutions. The Liberal Democrat spokesman talked about sunset clauses, and I want to raise some other issues. First, I ask the Minister to address more seriously the question of regulatory impact assessments. At the recent British Chambers of Commerce seminar, which he was sadly unable to attend, it was declared that RIAs, for the purpose of deregulation, were the only show in town. I have some sympathy for that view. Currently, it is one of the things that can be done early on to bring transparency to the effect of regulation on business. The Prime Minister said 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".
The Government have made that claim, and it is up to them now to deliver.
Yet today, RIAs are totally inadequate, and, as the Social Market Foundation has said, they are
"crafted with as little information as possible".
A high proportion of them, as I have already said, do not even attempt to quantify the benefits, and there are numerous examples of the costs being completely miscalculated. For instance, the RIA for the Employment Relations Bill estimated a £43 million annual cost on business as a result of the Bill. It then failed utterly to quantify the benefits, but said that it could amount to hundreds of millions of pounds over 10 years. Hundreds of millions of pounds over 10 years could well be substantially less than the cost. There was no attempt to calculate the cost, and it was treated in a manner that can only be described as frivolous. Incidentally, that is not just a problem for Ministers; it is a problem for the House. When the House assesses regulations, it is entitled to have an objective assessment of the costs and benefits of that regulation. It is an insult not to provide it.
Equally, the extension of the working time directive to junior doctors was assessed as having a cost of —26 million. The pilot studies in NHS trusts alone have cost more than £50 million. It was simply an absurd and laughable under-estimate, and again illustrates that the Government are failing to take RIAs seriously. There are many other examples.
The Government's recent response was to say that they have set up a ministerial panel of regulatory accountability—a Cabinet Sub-Committee chaired by the Prime Minister. That is entirely welcome. Mysteriously, however, we are not entitled to know whether it has ever met, whether the Prime Minister has ever turned up, and what issues it is likely to consider. It is therefore entirely understandable if people conclude that it is just a piece of candy floss or protection, to hide the fact that the Government have no intention of taking RIAs seriously. The solution is to have them externally audited, either by a Government department independent of the legislators, or by the private sector. That could be done in cases of substance, or where there
394
is a significant hurdle. It would solve the problem and would restore an immense amount of legitimacy to and confidence in business regulation.
I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman that sunset clauses have a role to play—but they are not a panacea. We need to be careful if we bring legislation back to the House every few years, as there is always the opportunity for Ministers to add to it and make it even more regulatory. There should be a systematic mechanism for removing legislation from the statute book. Perhaps some form of House of Lords regulatory reform Committee would be able to do that, and, as part of its role as a revising Chamber, make proposals for deregulation.
We need a much better mechanism for scrutiny of European legislation. That should not be a partisan matter, but one that can be agreed throughout the House. There should be a higher threshold for all the petty claims and tribunals with which companies have to deal. Benign legislation introduced for good reasons and designed to protect employees is now being used in a vexatious manner. We also need a mechanism enabling small businesses to appeal against disproportionate enforcement of legislation, which is threatening their livelihood and goes far beyond the original purpose of the legislation. Such constructive proposals will begin to address a systemic problem. We continually churn out too much regulation, which is disproportionately enforced.
The Department of Trade and Industry says:
"The UK remains a middle ranking enterprise economy. It does not possess an entrepreneurial culture to the same degree as the USA."
I agree heartily with that, and I think that regulation has a great deal to do with it. We must recognise that the problem is not superficial. It is not a question of establishing a reform committee or a better regulation task force; it is a question of finding a systemic solution to a chronic problem. Only in that way can we create a truly enterprising society.
6.36 pm
Brian Cotter: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that this is a serious issue, and not one that is easy to address. Indeed, it involves many different issues. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) talk about small shops, given his background.
Regulation has a disproportionate impact on small businesses, in comparison with larger firms. Small business people still often say that the Government do not understand their needs. As I have said before, I think that Ministers should consider a scheme whereby they and civil servants could be seconded to small firms—as has already happened with large organisations. Even a week working in a small shop or garage would educate them enormously about the problems experienced by small firms.
Small businesses feel that there is not enough consultation, and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business feel the same. They feel that they are sometimes not involved early enough in consultation about regulation, especially when it comes to regulatory impact

395
assessments. As others have said today, it is important to ensure that such assessments are accurate, but we should also ensure that they are carried out at an early stage and published before primary and secondary legislation is presented to Parliament. Liberal Democrats feel that it would be better for them to be conducted independently than to be conducted by Government or civil servants, so that independent views could be obtained.
Any way in which the Government could reduce the burdens on small business and on business in general would be welcome, but let me echo the point made about inspection of small and other firms. Some 350 inspectors have the right of access to business premises. When the Liberal Democrats suggested that there should be a single inspector, we were asked how a single inspector could possibly understand all the different regulations and all the different aspects of regulation. That in itself is a damning indictment, suggesting that there are so many regulations that no single person could understand them. We still think that it would be better to have a single gateway inspectorate rather than 350 inspectors, all of whom must trundle through business premises.
In the short time that I have left, I express concern to the Ministers that the Small Business Service, which my party welcomed when it was introduced and which has done some useful things, has got slightly off track. In our understanding, it was to be an independent organisation—very much the grit in the oyster—to raise matters with Ministers from the outside. The Government have made the mistake, which we would put right, of making the Small Business Service part of the Government, rather than allowing it to be detached and able to say to them, "Hold on—we're representing business, and as the champion of small business we don't think that this regulation should go forward. We don't think that the Government are addressing the situation properly."
My party has many tangible proposals to put forward, including on the Department of Trade and Industry. We welcome debates of this nature as opportunities to put forward those points and to try to influence the Government and get changes made that will benefit business.
6.40 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members' Interests.
We have had an excellent debate, and a lot of ground has been covered in a short time. We have heard from several Members who are highly qualified on the subject. Does excessive regulation matter, does it destroy wealth and what are its consequences? My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) came up with one very important point on the UK's declining competitive position, when he referred to the World Economic Forum ratings in which the UK has fallen from fourth place in 1998—when we were behind just Singapore, Hong Kong and the USA—to 15th place now, behind many European countries including Holland, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden. That was one of the most revealing points made this afternoon.
396
We should examine declining UK productivity. Average productivity growth in the UK fell from 2.5 per cent. in the period between 1994 and 1997 to 1.6 per cent. in the period between 1998 and 2002. Average productivity growth in this country continues to trail that in the United States by a significant margin. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury was right to address that situation and make his serious points.
On the other hand, the Minister for Industry and the Regions, although she had some good points, was rather complacent. It is a great pity that she denied the figures from the recent report of the British Chambers of Commerce. That report, "The Burdens Barometer", calculated the combined cost of new regulations since 1997 and concluded that that figure had reached £30 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) pointed out, those calculations derive from the Government's regulatory impact assessments, so for the Government to question those figures in their amendment is quite extraordinary.
The Minister was rather self-congratulatory on the wider economy and the overall unemployment situation. She can afford to be in some ways, for example when considering the 600,000-plus new jobs created in the public sector since 1997. However, as various hon. Members have pointed out, that is exactly the same figure as the number of jobs lost in manufacturing. Surely the growth in public sector jobs at that rate is simply not sustainable.
The Minister should be asking how much better the small and medium-sized enterprise sector would be were it not for the growth in regulation. The BCC report found that 85 per cent. of the 3,500 members surveyed stated their belief that their businesses would be more profitable were it not for increases in red tape. How much more corporation tax would have been raised if those businesses had indeed been more profitable?
The Government surely should be asking what will happen if the economy starts to slow, house prices slip back, equity release dries up, the jobs bonanza in the public sector becomes a distant memory and fuel prices go up. In those circumstances, the one remaining bright spot in the economy should indeed be the small firms sector—but not if it remains very heavily overregulated.
As I said, we have heard some excellent speeches, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) was right to refer to gold-plating. In fact, we had a rare experience this afternoon. Two Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen on trade and industry contributed to this short debate, but we are none the wiser as to what they would do with the Department of Trade and Industry. What they had to say was fascinating but flawed. Which Department would really stand up in government for wealth creation, enterprise and small businesses? To be honest, their ideas just do not stack up.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, who has huge experience in business and is always listened to with great respect. I was particularly interested to hear him make a simple but often overlooked point—that regulation, red tape and burdens always have a disproportionate effect on small and micro-businesses. He drew on his experience of

397
running very large FTSE companies to point out that they have rafts of employees and managers who spend all their time looking at regulations, red tape and burdens, and who can deal with the associated pressures in a way that small and micro-businesses and sole traders simply cannot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells was right to point out that we should look not at how well we are doing compared with some of our European competitors, but at our wider global competitors. He was also right to point out that we need to look at the archaeology of some of the older regulations on the statute book—and to look very seriously at sunset clauses.
What should the Government do, and what would we do if we were in office? Well, we would stop legislating in many of these areas. For a start, we would have no more employment Bills and we would reduce the size of government. In 1997, the DTI budget was £3.06 billion; in 2003 it was just under £8 billion. In 1997, there were 9,302 staff in the DTI; by 2004 there were 11,474. Huge chunks of industry have been moved to the private sector. The DTI should be doing much, much less, but doing it far more effectively and much better. We feel very strongly that large government equals bureaucrats, which equals more interference, which in turn equals more regulation.
What else should the Government be doing that they are not? They certainly ought to ensure that their regulatory impact assessment regime is working properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out, there is a cultural problem. Good rules count for very little if Ministers and officials trim evidence to fit policy conclusions that they have already reached. I urge the Minister and the Under-Secretary to look carefully at what David Arculus said in his executive summary. He does praise the DTI for some of its work, but as I pointed out in an intervention, he makes it equally clear that there is a long way to go:
"Good practice needs to become common practice",
and there is a need to
"make culture change a reality."
The Government need to "deliver on deregulation" and to
"pay attention to paperwork burdens."
That report needs to be read in full.
What else should the Government do? They need to make some serious progress on Europe. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) is one of the best DTI Ministers we have had for a long time. He is indefatigable, and he has undiminished enthusiasm and a lot of energy. He goes round the country championing the cause of small businesses, but he does so with one arm tied behind his back because of this Government's obsession with Europe.
Only a Government obsessed with Europe would have given up and thrown away our hard-fought opt-out from the social chapter. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition was 100 per cent. right when he said recently:
"Reinstating the opt out from the Social Chapter will be a key priority for an incoming Conservative Government."
398
Without that, whoever is the Minister with responsibility for small firms, he will have one hand tied behind his back.
My conclusion is simple—we need to change what is happening in Europe, to change the culture in Whitehall, to deliver smaller and better government that gets off the back of business and enterprise, and to reverse the compensation culture. That is impossible under Labour. Labour Ministers, however well intentioned, will not succeed, because what is required is a change of Government.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): This has been a good debate, with a number of thoughtful contributions. However, my hon. Friends have noticed a disturbing trend among Opposition day debates. The Opposition called a debate recently on third-world aid and fair trade, demanding that we do more and spend more. They halved overseas aid and now demand the opposite. They wanted a debate on schools, demanding that we do more and spend more, but they axed 48,000 teachers during their Administration and now demand the opposite. They condemn us for our successes and offer no contrition for their failures.
Today, the Opposition have excelled themselves. They picked a subject on which their record could not be more embarrassing. In fairness, I cannot in all honesty claim that they are not the world experts on this subject—not with 51,699 regulations passed by the last Conservative Administrations. Indeed, it was in 1992 that John Major gave the verdict on all the 35,496 regulations passed by Tory Governments since Baroness Thatcher became Prime Minister. That year, as Prime Minister, he told his party conference:
"It takes 28 regulations, licences or certificates just to start some businesses."
He promised a bonfire of regulations and his deputy, now the noble Lord Heseltine, promised to take an axe to the red tape—keeping up his Tarzan image, no doubt. For five years, they toiled and toiled. What was the verdict on the 16,203 new regulations produced in that golden twilight of their reign? It was:
"We passed volumes of new rules and laws interfering with almost every aspect of business and social life."
So said the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) in 1997.
What is the position in Britain today when starting a company? The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) asked me to clarify that. I can tell him that there is no more need for 28 licences and certificates. Someone can set up as a sole trader in the UK in a day and for less than £25. We have moved from having one of the poorest records, in 1992, to having one of the best in Europe now.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned the raft of lawyers, a point with which I have considerable sympathy. He said that he had been associated with businesses that employed many lawyers who could process regulations, but that small businesses could not afford lawyers. I say to him and the House that I do not want anyone to have to employ lawyers. I want the large corporations to be able

399
to devote their resources to marketing, product design and the sales success that is making British business great.
It is important to acknowledge that, last year, 465,000 people started a business—the highest number in the history of the Barclay survey and up 19 per cent. on 2002. That is 465,000 new businesses. A decade ago, 422,000 jobs were wiped out in manufacturing in a single year of Tory misrule—our record of success, their record of failure.
Now, of course, the Conservatives have a new formula: the Howard nostrum and the quack cure for regulations, freshly imported from Florida—sunset clauses from the sunshine state. How many sunset clauses did they introduce? None. Sunset clauses were rejected by Baroness Thatcher as unworkable.
The Conservatives rail against gold-plating regulations. We heard a few examples during the debate, but the best is from the former leader of the Tories in Europe, Lord Plumb, who said:
"The way the meat directives were implemented destroyed respect for the regulatory system as a whole."
They forced the closure of small abattoirs and cost thousands of jobs. That was in 1996. The culprits were his Government and their over-zealous interpretation of Brussels law.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) mentioned the tendency for Britain to use more words, reflecting a recent study from the British Chambers of Commerce. However, the BCC should listen to its sister organisation, the German chamber of commerce, which produced a report in January blaming the German Government for their lack of clarity in transposing EU directives; fewer words left companies with vague legislation and no guidance. The very copping-out of directives that was advocated by the hon. Gentleman—although no longer, I hope—was rejected by Baroness Thatcher and every Prime Minister before or after her.
Our charge is clear. The Conservatives did not learn from their mistakes, but we did. We were as horrified as industry about the burdens that the new chemical directive placed on business, so we amassed the evidence and presented it to the Commission. The Prime Minister enlisted the support of the Presidents of France and Italy. We told the EU Competitiveness Council that the directive was not on. The result was that parts of the draft directive that would have cost industry £6 billion a year were dropped.
I reject the figure of £30 billion given by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. The real cost of administering the regulations is only a fraction of that. We make no apology for our legislation for decent wages, paid holidays and reasonable time off for family matters.
It is only fair to look at the situation before 1997 and contrast it with what is happening now. There was no Small Business Service to fight for business; we created and funded it. There was no Small Business Europe taking the fight on regulation to Brussels; we created and funded it. We created the Better Regulation Task Force to tackle gold-plating. We created the small firms impact test and "Think Small First", and we require lawyers to focus on the impact on small businesses before drafting regulations.
400
We set a target of 12 weeks' minimum consultation for all regulations and 12 weeks for implementation. We created a panel of 1,000 small businesses to advise Government officials drafting regulations. We took the lead in the EU's better regulation action plan. We forced the Commission to bring in impact assessments of proposed legislation. We created the regulatory reform action plan. We require regulatory impact assessments and the Prime Minister has created a Cabinet Committee on RIAs, which he chairs. Now, we have common commencement dates for key regulations, and that is welcomed by all representative bodies for industry.
The regulations that we have introduced, such as those on late payment, have helped to cut the time for settling accounts from 49 days in 1997 to 41 days, while the European average remains 50 days. Everyone accepts that the vast majority of the Government's so-called regulations have almost no impact on business red tape. Nearly four in 10 statutory instruments are on temporary road closures and similar measures.
I end by offering the House a straight choice. Do we want the business climate of 2004 with the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 40 years, the lowest mortgage rates for nearly 50 years, the lowest level of corporation tax in history, the longest period of sustained growth for more than a century, the largest number of people in work in our history and record numbers of people starting in business? We have avoided the recessions that hit the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Italy and most other industrial economies during the world downturn.
Or, do we want the climate of a decade ago—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided. Ayes 114, Noes 320.

Division No. 210]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, rh James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Collins, Tim

Baron, John (Billericay)

Conway, Derek

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James (Beverley)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Curry, rh David

Blunt, Crispin

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brady, Graham

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Fallon, Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Flight, Howard

Burns, Simon

Forth, rh Eric

Burnside, David

Francois, Mark

Burt, Alistair

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Butterfill, Sir John

Garnier, Edward

Cash, William

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Goodman, Paul

Chope, Christopher

Gray, James (N Wilts)

401

Grayling, Chris

Paterson, Owen

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Pickles, Eric

Greenway, John

Portillo, rh Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gummer, rh John

Redwood, rh John

Hague, rh William

Robathan, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Hawkins, Nick

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hendry, Charles

Roe, Dame Marion

Hermon, Lady

Shepherd, Richard

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Simmonds, Mark

Hogg, rh Douglas

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Jack, rh Michael

Soames Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spicer, Sir Michael

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Spring, Richard

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Swayne, Desmond

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lidington, David

Tredinnick, David

Lilley, rh Peter

Trend, Michael

Loughton, Tim

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Viggers, Peter

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Waterson, Nigel

Mackay, rh Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Maude, rh Francis

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Wilshire David

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

(Macclesfield)

Norman, Archie

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Ottaway, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Page, Richard

Mr. John Randall and

Paice, James

Mr. David Ruffley

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Breed, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Brennan Kevin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Allan, Richard

Allen, Graham

Brown. Russell (Dumfries)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Browne, Desmond

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Bruce, Malcolm

Bryant, Chris

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Buck, Ms Karen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burgon, Colin

Atkins, Charlotte

Burnham, Andy

Austin, John

Burstow, Paul

Bailey, Adrian

Byers, rh Stephen

Baird, Vera

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Baker, Norman

Caborn, rh Richard

Barnes, Harry

Cairns. David

Barron, rh Kevin

Campbell, Alan (Tynermouth)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Benn, rh Hilary

Caplin, Ivor

Bennett, Andrew

Casale, Roger

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Caton, Martin

Best, Harold

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Betts, Clive

Chidgey, David

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blunkett, rh David

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Clelland, David

402

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hutton, rh John

Cooper, Yvette

Illsley, Eric

Cotter, Brian

Ingram, rh Adam

Crausby, David

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cruddas, Jon

Jamieson, David

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

(Copeland)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Denham, rh John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dhanda, Parmjit

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dobson, rh Frank

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Doran, Frank

Khabra, Piara S.

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Kidney, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Edwards, Huw

Lammy, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Lepper, David

Etherington, Bill

Leslie, Christopher

Ewing, Annabelle

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foulkes, rh George

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Llwyd, Elfyn

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Love, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Gidley, Sandra

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gilroy, Linda

MacDonald, Calum

Goggins, Paul

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

MacDougall, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Grogan, John

Mclsaac, Shona

Hain, rh Peter

McKenna, Rosemary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McNamara, Kevin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McNulty, Tony

Hancock, Mike

MacShane, Denis

Hanson, David

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McWalter, Tony

Harvey, Nick

McWilliam, John

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Healey, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heath, David

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Stephen

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hesford, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Meacher, rh Michael

Heyes, David

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hinchliffe, David

Merron, Gillian

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Michael, rh Alun

Holmes, Paul

Milburn, rh Alan

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Miller, Andrew

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mole, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Moore, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Morley, Julie

Morley, Elliot

Mountford, Kali

403

Mudie, George

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Soley, Clive

Olner, Bill

Southworth, Helen

Organ, Diana

Spellar, rh John

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Squire, Rachel

Owen, Albert

Stevenson, George

Pearson, Ian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Picking, Anne

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Straw, rh Jack

Plaskitt, James

Stringer, Graham

Pollard, Kerry

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Stunell, Andrew

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pound, Stephen

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, David (NW Leis)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pugh, Dr. John

Thurso, John

Purchase, Ken

Timms, Stephen

Purnell, James

Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

Quin, rh Joyce

Trickett, Jon

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Rammell, Bill

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rendel, David

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Rooney, Terry

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ward, Claire

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Watts, David

Ruane, Chris

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Ruddock, Joan

White, Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Salmond, Alex

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Salter, Martin

Willis, Phil

Sanders, Adrian

Winnick, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wishart, Pete

Sedgemore, Brian

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Shaw, Jonathan

Woodward, Shaun

Sheerman, Barry

Worthington, Tony

Sheridan, Jim

Wright, David (Telford)

Short, rh Clare

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wyatt, Derek

Singh, Marsha

Younger-Ross, Richard

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Margaret Moran and

Jim Fitzpatrick

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 261, Noes 153.

Division No. 211]

[7:16 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Alexander, Douglas

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Allen, Graham

Atherton, Ms Candy

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Atkins, Charlotte

404

Austin, John

Gerrard, Neil

Bailey, Adrian

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Baird, Vera

Gilroy, Linda

Barnes, Harry

Goggins, Paul

Barron, rh Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Beard, Nigel

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Grogan, John

Begg, Miss Anne

Hain, rh Peter

Benn, rh Hilary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Best, Harold

Hanson, David

Betts, Clive

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Blackman, Liz

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Healey, John

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Hendrick, Mark

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hepburn, Stephen

Bradshaw, Ben

Hesford, Stephen

Brennan, Kevin

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Heyes, David

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Browne, Desmond

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Bryant, Chris

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Burgon, Colin

Hopkins, Kelvin

Burnham, Andy

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Byers, rh Stephen

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Cairns, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Illsley, Eric

Caplin, Ivor

Ingram, rh Adam

Casale, Roger

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Caton, Martin

Jamieson, David

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Jenkins, Brian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & chryston)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Clelland, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Coaker, Vernon

Keeble, Ms Sally

Coffey, Ms Ann

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Connarty, Michael

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Khabra, Piara S.

Cooper, Yvette

Kidney, David

Cousins, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Crausby, David

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Lammy, David

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Lepper, David

Davidson, Ian

Leslie, Christopher

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Denham, rh John

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Love, Andrew

Dobson, rh Frank

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

McAvoy, Thomas

Doran, Frank

McDonagh, Siobhain

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

MacDonald, Calum

Drown, Ms Julia

McDonnell, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

MacDougall, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Edwards, Huw

Mclsaac, Shona

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McKenna, Rosemary

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

McNamara, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

McNulty, Tony

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Mactaggart, Fiona

Flint, Caroline

McWalter, Tony

Foulkes, rh George

McWilliam, John

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Mahon, Mrs Alice

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

405

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleton)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheerman, Barry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Sheridan, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Meacher, rh Michael

Singh, Marsha

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Skinner Dennis

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mole, Chris

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Morgan, Julie

Smith. John (Glamorgan)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mountford, Kali

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Southworth, Helen

Mullin, Chris

Spellar, rh John

Munn, Ms Meg

Squire, Rachel

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stewart Ian (Eccles)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Straw, rh Jack

Olner, Bill

Stuart. Ms Gisela

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Owen, Albert

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Picking, Anne

Taylor, David (NW Leis)

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Thomas Gareth (Harrow W)

Plaskitt, James

Timms, Stephen

Pollard, Kerry

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Trickett, Jon

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tynan. Bill (Hamilton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Purchase, Ken

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Purnell, James

Ward, Claire

Quin, rh Joyce

Watts, David

Quinn, Lawrie

White, Brian

Rammell, Bill

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Wicks, Malcolm

Raynsford, rh Nick

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Winnick, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Rooney, Terry

Woodward, Shaun

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Worthington, Tony

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Wright, David (Telford)

Ruane, Chris

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Ruddock, Joan

Wyatt, Derek

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Salter, Martin

Margaret Moran

NOES

Allan, Richard

Breed, Colin

Amess, David

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Arbuthnot, rh James

Browning, Mrs Angela

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bruce, Malcolm

Baker, Norman

Burns, Simon

Baron, John (Billericay)

Burnside, David

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Burstow, Paul

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

Beresford, Sir Paul

Butterfill Sir John

Blunt, Crispin

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Cash, William

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Brady, Graham

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Chidgey David

Brazier, Julian

Chope, Christopher

406

Clappison, James

Maude, rh Francis

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Collins, Tim

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Conway, Derek

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Moss, Malcolm

Cotter, Brian

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Cran, James (Beverley)

Norman, Archie

Curry, rh David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Ottaway, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Paterson, Owen

Pickles, Eric

Djanogly, Jonathan

Portillo, rh Michael

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Ewing, Annabelle

Pugh, Dr. John

Fallon, Michael

Redwood, rh John

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Rendel, David

Robathan, Andrew

Flight, Howard

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Forth, rh Eric

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Francois, Mark

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Roe, Dame Marion

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gidley, Sandra

Salmond, Alex

Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

Sanders, Adrian

Goodman, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Simmonds, Mark

Grayling, Chris

Soames, Nicholas

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Greenway, John

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Grieve, Dominic

Spring, Richard

Gummer, rh John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, rh William

Stunell, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Swayne, Desmond

Hancock, Mike

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Harvey, Nick

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Heath, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hendry, Charles

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hermon, Lady

Thurso, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Trend, Michael

Hogg, rh Douglas

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Holmes, Paul

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Viggers, Peter

Jack, rh Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Jenkin, Bernard

Watkinson, Angela

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Whittingdale, John

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wiggin, Bill

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Willis, Phil

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

Wishart, Pete

Lilley, rh Peter

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Young, rh Sir George

Loughton, Tim

Younger-Ross, Richard

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tellers for the Noes:

Mackay, rh Andrew

Mr. David Ruffley and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to better regulation and enterprise, which has contributed to the UK becoming one of the best locations in the world in which to start

407
and run a business; welcomes the recent independent endorsements of the UK's light touch regulatory environment; applauds the deregulatory initiatives brought forward since 1997 which have contributed to a significant decline in the total number of regulations imposing a cost on British business; rejects outright the allegations claiming that the regulatory burden on business now exceeds £30 billion; supports measures taken to improve the regulatory environment for smaller businesses such as the removal of statutory audit requirements for small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of two specific commencement dates for employment regulations; congratulates the Government on signing up to the new European Constitution which promotes competitiveness and flexibility and which will ensure that national governments have new powers to scrutinise EU regulatory proposals; notes with concern proposals put forward by the Opposition which would damage Britain's relationship with Europe to the detriment of British business by withdrawing the UK from the world's largest common market; recognises the Government's constructive stance on the Agency Workers and Working Time Directives where it has maintained a position that promotes both fairness and flexibility; and calls on the Opposition to examine its own European policies which are consistently flouted by its own MEPs and Party members.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  SUPREME COURT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

  PATENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(I)(a) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),
  That the draft Regulatory Reform (Patents) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.

Potters Bar Derailment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
7.29 pm
Mr. James Clappison: The Potters Bar derailment was, and continues to be, a subject of the gravest importance to my constituents, members of the travelling public and everybody who saw the terrible pictures of the carriage wedged beneath the canopy of Potters Bar station. In that tragic accident, seven people died and 70 people were injured, some of them very seriously.
One of my constituents, the late Agnes Quinlivan, was among those who died. Two members of her family—her daughters—are here tonight, as is a Hertfordshire man who was sadly affected by the incident. That man is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is also here this evening. I should add that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has taken a particular interest in the subject, and I know that he wants briefly to intervene at the conclusion of my remarks.
This is the second short debate that I have obtained on this subject—the first occurred on 15 November 2002, six months after the derailment. Since then, the first and second anniversaries of the crash have occurred. The first anniversary was marked by a moving ceremony, where all those who attended were struck by the dignity of the bereaved families and survivors. At about the same time—May 2003—the third and most recent report from he Health and Safety Executive investigation board was published. I understand that the HSE plans to conclude its investigation into the accident by September or October of this year, and that a final report will then be published. When that investigation is concluded and concomitant legal decisions have been taken, the Secretary of the State will decide whether to hold a public inquiry.
It would be preferable if the Secretary of State had already decided to hold a public inquiry, because the case for such an inquiry is very strong, and I have pressed the Government to hold an inquiry for some time. As it stands, the earliest point at which a decision will be taken is two and a half years after the derailment.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend knows that the train in question was heading to King's Lynn in my constituency, and that constituents of mine were on the train—mercifully, none of them was killed, although some of them were injured. He will understand why I feel very strongly about the situation, and why I feel that the Government have prevaricated—it is a disgrace that they have not announced a public inquiry hitherto. Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the HSE is taking so long to produce its final report?
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right that it would be better if we knew more of the answers at this stage. Along with many other hon. Members, he had constituents who were travelling on the train, and I know that he has taken a particular interest in the subject.

409
The stretch of line is very busy, and large numbers of people, including many of my constituents, travel up and down it. All those who use it are conscious that the tragic accident at Hatfield occurred a short time before the Potters Bar derailment. The fact that it has taken so long to make a decision must concern all those who use the line, but it particularly concerns the bereaved families and the survivors, who have had to wait for a significantly long time. That is not the only matter that I seek to raise on behalf of my constituents. The case for a public inquiry is strong, and I shall renew my request and give the Minister three reasons why one should be held.
First, from what we have seen of the HSE report so far, it appears that many questions remain to be answered about how the derailment occurred. The HSE report of May 2003 is very clear about the immediate cause of the derailment—the technica1 factors that led to the failure of the points—and it also makes some recommendations in respect of points elsewhere. However, it does not give anything like a full picture of the state of affairs that led to the points being in the lethal condition that they were in on 10 May 2002. It does not give a full picture of the state of affairs regarding the installation, maintenance and inspection of the points. Nor does it give a full picture in respect of what happened to the points—of who did what to them to leave them in that condition—or who exactly was responsible for what was going on. I make no criticism of the work of the HSE, which has been thorough, but all the questions arising from this tragic crash can be adequately dealt with only by a public inquiry that is held in the open with all the powers that are available to it. I put that forward as the principal reason for holding a public inquiry.
Secondly, I believe that in this case only a public inquiry can meet the legal obligations of the Government under the Human Rights Act 1998. I ask the Minister to take into account the implications of that Act and its case law, particularly that relating to article 2, on the right to life, and the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the right to an effective investigation where death is caused and a public authority is responsible. I respectfully invite the Minister to consider that very carefully. I also invite him to take on board the ECHR's judgment that any deficiency in the investigation that undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.
Thirdly, in the absence of a public inquiry there would be a coroner's inquest. However, there limits on the proceedings and evidence of such an inquest under the coroner's rules, and an inquest would not meet the obligations to which I referred; no would it meet the need to establish where responsibility lies for the state of affairs underlying the crash.
I put those three reasons to the Minister. In addition, I invite him to bear it in mind that holding an inquiry would be in keeping with the holding of statutory public inquiries into previous major rail crashes such as Clapham, Southall and Ladbroke Grove. I put it to the Minister quite simply: without a public inquiry into such a major rail crash, vital questions about an equally tragic incident will go unanswered.
410
I mentioned the issue of responsibility. In April this year, nearly two years after the crash, Network Rail and Jarvis made a joint announcement of acceptance of liability. There seems to have been some question, to say the least, about whether that was an acceptance of responsibility or of liability. In a carefully crafted statement, the two parties said that they would accept liability for all claims justified in law brought by the bereaved and injured, but there seemed to be some ambiguity about whether they actually accepted responsibility for the derailment.
Whether or not that amounted to an acceptance of responsibility, I am afraid that anyone who was led to believe that the families would in all cases receive appropriate compensation for their suffering will be sadly disappointed. I believe that the treatment of the families in that respect has fallen way below what it should have been, as can be demonstrated by the case of my constituent the late Agnes Quinlivan. Before turning to the particulars of her case, I should like to make it clear that the paramount concern of her family, and other families, has been to establish the cause of the crash and, in so far as possible, to prevent any other families from having to go through what they have gone through. However, most fair-minded people would agree that the families should receive compensation to recognise the value of the lives of their loved ones and the trauma they have gone through.
Agnes Quinlivan was an 80-year-old lady who had lived an exceptionally valuable life in her church and community in Potters Bar. As it happens, she was the only local victim of the crash. She died, tragically, when part of the bridge fell on her as she was walking through an underpass. Immediately after the accident, Network Rail and Jarvis gave £10,000 to her family on a without-prejudice basis and with a view to covering their immediate expenses. Since then, Network Rail and Jarvis have interpreted the law so as to refuse any further compensation to the family. As far as I can ascertain, they have no plans to make any further compensation available.
For the Quinlivan family, the acceptance of liability by Jarvis in April was meaningless. I understand that other bereaved families have been treated similarly. At least five of the seven families have been offered compensation that most fair-minded people would regard as low, and in accordance with an especially strict interpretation of the law by Network Rail and Jarvis. It would be open to those companies to take a more appropriate approach to compensation, as I believe happened in the case of the Ladbroke Grove crash.
Things are made even starker for the families by reports that appeared in the newspapers three months after the Potters Bar crash and appeared to suggest that much more generous compensation would be forthcoming to them from the railway industry. Three months after the accident, when it remained fresh in the public mind, there was talk of £1 million in compensation for each bereaved family.
There is little doubt about the source of the reports. In The Times of 13 August 2002, the chief executive of Railtrack is quoted as saying that a compensation package worth about £12 million would be offered to the injured and the families of people killed. In the case of

411
the Quinlivan family and, I believe, in that of four of the other seven families who suffered a bereavement, the compensation is a small fraction of that figure. The Quinlivan family have not received a single penny beyond the sum that was made available immediately after the accident to meet their expenses. The treatment that that family and others have received is unsatisfactory. I suspect that most fair-minded people would regard it as downright shoddy.
There has been far too much delay; far too much consideration has been given to media management and far too little to doing justice to the families. I hope that all those in the railway industry, especially Network Rail and Jarvis, will reconsider the issue. I am tempted to ask the Minister to say what he thinks about the treatment of the Quinlivan family, although I fully understand the limitations on his position. However, I ask him in any event to use his influence and that of the Government with Network Rail and Jarvis to ask them to re-examine the way in which they are dealing with the matter.
It is not acceptable to leave matters as they stand. Those who suffer injury and bereavement should not have to wait years for answers to questions about how this all came about. They should not be put through more agony when seeking a fair reflection of the life of a loved one; they deserve better than that.
7.43 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I asked the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) whether I may have one minute of time on the subject. I congratulate him on securing an important debate and concur with most of what he said. I look forward to a positive reply from the Minister to the question of why we have a position whereby the family of a woman who was the mother of a constituent of mine are denied what I believe to be a given right to some form of compensation from two companies that have been very negligent in the conduct of their business.
7.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate. I endorse his opening remarks about the continuing impact of the derailment, and thank him for the manner in which he made his speech.
I should first like to extend my sympathies to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives or were injured in this tragic rail accident. The pain and suffering that those people have had to endure over the past couple of years is difficult to imagine, and it is hard for any of us to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine the extent of the ongoing trauma and difficulties that the loss of loved ones causes.
The details of the accident are well known. The rear coach of a four-coach West Anglia Great Northern commuter train, travelling from King's Cross to Cambridge and King's Lynn, derailed while passing over points number 2182A just before Potters Bar station. The hon. Gentleman evoked the images of the pictures that we all saw subsequently. Seven people died
412
and more than 70 ware injured. However, the raw facts mask the intense emotional and psychological impact that the accident has had on so many lives. I totally understand the desire and determination to find answers to why this tragic accident happened.
The joint investigation into the accident by the British Transport police and the Health and Safety Executive is continuing. It has been the objective of the BTP to establish whether there was any deliberate criminal act or any breach of duty, other than health and safety at work offences, that could be described as grossly negligent. The HSE investigation has focused on establishing the direct and root causes of the accident and has published three reports, on 14 May 2002, 4 July 2002 and 29 May 2003. Two of those reports included recommendations designed to prevent a similar accident from happening again, and generally to make safety improvements on the railways.
The most recent report by the HSE's investigation board covered the HSE's investigations up to May 2003. It described the technical, forensic and other work undertaken by the Health and Safety Laboratory and the railway inspectorate. The report indicated that the most likely underlying cause of the derailment was the poor condition of points 2182A at the time of the incident, and that this had resulted from inappropriate adjustment and insufficient maintenance. The report made a number of recommendations further to improve safety on the railways. Those recommendations cover the rail industry's safety culture, management systems for safety, general design and engineering aspects, selection and control of contractors, and the regulation of railway health and safety.
The HSE is satisfied that the industry is making progress on implementing those recommendations, although it recognises that there is still more work to be completed. The HSE has appointed an experienced inspector to monitor progress on implementing the recommendations and validating the action taken. A final report can be published only when any legal proceedings that may arise have been concluded or ruled out.
The lead in the investigation was transferred in March 2004 from the BTP to the HSE, because the emphasis of the investigation now focusing on systems and procedures which fall within the specialist skills and experience of HSE investigators. The BTP has some remaining lines of inquiry to complete and continues to hold regular review meetings with the HSE to consider whether all the objectives of the investigation have been met. If evidence emerges that would lead to the possibility of prosecutions for serious offences other than health and safety at work offences, the HSE, the BTP and the Crown Prosecution Service will consider whether it would be appropriate for the BTP to resume the lead.
The HSE investigation is targeted at staff competency, the maintenance and inspection regime, and equipment design and supply issues. The HSE has estimated that its investigation team will be in a position to report to the investigation board in September or October 2004. That report will include the HSE's analysis of the statements taken and evidence gathered, and will include the issues that the HSE has identified as being the root cause of the points failure. If necessary, the investigation board expects to be in a position to

413
make further recommendations in addition to those already published, to prevent a recurrence of the accident. This is also the time at which the relevant prosecuting authorities and their legal advisers will review all the evidence to determine whether matters are to be brought to court.
I know that many of those affected by the accident have been calling for a public inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently stated. Public inquiries are not convened after every rail accident Prior to the public inquiries into the 1997 Southall and 1999 Ladbroke Grove accidents, there had not been one since the public inquiries into the 1987 King's Cross fire and the 1998 Clapham accident. They tend to be convened to look at general principles and major structural issues rather than merely establishing what the immediate cause of an incident was. The Southall and Ladbroke Grove inquiries produced many recommendations, which the industry has been implementing. I will happily pass on to the Secretary of State the hon Gentleman's three concerns to justify a public inquiry.
At this stage, however, the Secretary of State considers that it would be premature to make a decision on a public inquiry. Instead, he intends to await the conclusion of the HSE investigation and decisions about the preferment of charges. The Secretary of State expects the HSE to provide him with an overview of the outcome of the investigation at this point, which should allow him, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to take a decision later in the year.
In a statement made through the British Transport police on 18 March 2003, the coroner made it clear that he was preparing for an inquest by asking for relevant information from various parties but no proposed timetable was given for a full inquest. The coroner has since indicated to the Department that he intends to await the outcome of all further investigations before holding the full inquest.
I know that the Potters Bar derailment once again brought forward concerns about track maintenance and the use of contractors. A report by the HSE made it clear that the use of contractors is not a problem in itself, but the contractors need to be properly managed and to have a properly trained work force. The hon. Gentleman will know that in October 2003 Network Rail announced the decision to take in-house all maintenance contracts for the rail infrastructure.
There has been recent public concern that Jarvis was awarded a major contract for rail replacement in the Potters Bar area. That is, of course, a track renewal contract and not a maintenance contract. Network Rail—not Jarvis—will decide what work will be done and where, and it will instruct Jarvis to carry it out to a nationally applicable standard method.
Mr. Clappison: The Minister has mentioned the rail replacement contract for Jarvis, which I had not. As he has brought the subject up, may I suggest that we should not set too much store by the distinction between rail replacement and maintenance, because it is important that the same culture of safety should govern both operations?
Mr. McNulty: I accept that point and I suggest that most of the industry would accept it, too. I merely put those things on the record as matters of fact.
414
Compensation is a key issue for those bereaved or injured in the accident. In a joint statement on 27 April 2004, to which the hon. Gentleman also alluded, Network Rail and Jarvis announced that they have formally accepted liability on behalf of the rail industry for all legally justified claims brought by the bereaved and injured, despite the continuing investigations into the root cause of the accident. I understand that a significant percentage of the claims have been processed, and that most outstanding claimants have received interim payments. Again, as a point of general fact, I shall pursue the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, not simply about Mrs. Quinlivan but about the others, too. At the end of the day, as he will know, the issue of those who are aggrieved by whatever compensation is put in place is to be determined by the courts rather than by ministerial intervention.
More generally, the Government are committed to ensuring a safe, reliable and customer-focused railway.
Mr. Clappison: On the previous point, I acknowledged the limitations on the ministerial position. The Minister has mentioned the courts, but there is no legal action at the moment. My plea to Network Rail and Jarvis is to consider this matter again, including from the point of view of the public interest, and to examine whether they are doing justice to those people, bearing in mind the compensation that has been made in other cases, such as Ladbroke Grove, which was a similar situation.
Mr. McNulty: I am sure that, given this debate, they will have heard that plea. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the limitations on ministerial intervention. It is not for Ministers to intervene in specific cases. Perhaps I should have made it clear that, ultimately, only the courts can intervene if no agreement is reached.
Since the 1970s, the frequency of fatal train accidents has reduced from roughly five a year to about one a year. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the number of signals passed at danger in 2003–04 was the lowest total for 12 months since records began in 1985. However, I take very much to heart what the hon. Gentleman has said about the need to get the overall culture of health and safety right, and I think that that is happening.
Although the general safety record of the railways is good, a number of rail crashes, including the Potters Bar crash, have demonstrated that there must never be complacency and that much still needs to be done. The industry is, I think, focusing on remedying the weaknesses revealed by the series of accidents and subsequent reports. Most of the recommendations that emerged from the public inquiries into the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes have now been implemented. The Health and Safety Executive is continuing to monitor implementation of the outstanding recommendations and—as I have said—will publish a third progress report later in the year.
Progress is also being made in the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation branch. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Transport Safety Act, passed in July 2003, provides for that. It implements recommendations on accident investigation made after

415
Lord Cullen's public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash. The chief inspector was appointed in May 2003, and the recruitment of investigators began in November 2003.
The RAIB has begun to develop the regulations that will underpin its operations and related policy and procedures. It will undertake investigations into railway accidents or incidents with the aim of learning lessons that will improve railway safety. The chief inspector will report directly on accident investigation to the Secretary of State.
A key component of the strategy to improve rail safety is the implementation of the train protection and warning system. The fitting of TPWS to all trains across the national rail network was completed on time at the end of last year. TPWS automatically applies the brakes of any train that has passed a red signal, or is travelling too fast on the approach to a red signal, speed restriction or buffer stop. It will safely stop trains attempting to pass a red signal at up to 75 mph. At higher speeds it will slow the train, thus reducing any impact.
Network Rail plans to fit TPSW-plus to a number of signals, which will be effective in the case of trains travelling at up to 100 mph. The Strategic Rail Authority is continuing to take the lead in developing a single national programme for the European rail traffic management system.
416
The Government are committed to ensuring that we have a safe railway and that the lessons from past accidents are learned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, collectively, we owe it to all affected by the Potters Bar derailment to ensure that happens. I also agree with what he said at the outset: there is still much to find out about what happened at Potters Bar and—as I tried to make clear earlier—the Health and Safety Executive, the British Transport police and others are still trying to get to the bottom of it. All those processes are unfolding.
We owe that not just to the bereaved and their families, but to all on whom Potters Bar has had an impact of any kind. As the hon. Gentleman said, the line is extremely busy. There will have been an impact not just on those who used it on the day, but on those who use it regularly—and, indeed, on rail users and the rail industry everywhere.
I wish the hon. Gentleman well in pursuing his case with Network Rail and the Health and Safety Executive. The sooner we can reach a stage at which the final reports have been submitted and the Secretary of State is in a position to decide on whether there should be an inquiry or whether other avenues should be explored, the better.
It is almost a cliché now, but I entirely understand that for many of the people involved, what is required is closure.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock.