Sitting of 18 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Retained Firefighters
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of retained firefighters. [86318]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Each fire brigade is responsible for recruiting its own retained firefighters. Our office recognises the vital role taken by retained staff in meeting the needs of many parts of the country and we are working with the fire service actively to encourage people to become retained firefighters. We are considering carefully the recommendations on retained firefighters made by the independent review of the fire service.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he share my appreciation of the vital role that retained fire officers play in rural areas, although the nature of the retained service is often not fully appreciated by the public, who often do not realise that being a firefighter is a second job for the retained firefighters? Does he agree that, to improve recruitment, we need to give retained fire officers the same hourly rate as the full-time service, the same opportunities for training and the decent pension scheme, which they do not currently have?
    Mr. Raynsford: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the very important work of retained firefighters. I, too, pay tribute to the contribution that they make towards the safety of the public in many parts of the country.
    As my hon. Friend will know, the Bain review recommended a number of important improvements for retained firefighters, including the ones that he has mentioned. We are considering all these matters carefully and a further statement will be made in the
    826
    White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has promised that we will publish early in the new year.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Given that the Retained Firefighters Union is not on strike and that its members are not being represented at the ACAS negotiations, why is the Minister so confident that the eventual settlement will give the retained firefighters the decent pay deal that they deserve? Does he not share my concern that the Fire Brigades Union has not represented the retained firefighters properly in the negotiations so far? Why is he so confident that the eventual settlement will give them the pay deal that will solve the recruitment crisis in the retained firefighters service?
    Mr. Raynsford: As I made clear in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), the Bain review sets out a number of very important proposals in relation to retained firefighters. As I have already said, we are very much minded to proceed on the basis of the Bain review and will set out our responses in the White Paper that we will publish. The responses will cover issues of negotiation and the representation of retained firefighters as well as of full-time firefighters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are, in effect, two separate unions, one of which represents only retained firefighters. The FBU also represents some retained firefighters and the issues need to be clarified. We will address them in the White Paper.
    David Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the value of retained firefighters. However, is it not the case that there are at least 3,000 to 4,000 fewer retained firefighters than are needed to maintain an adequate response time in rural and urban areas? The retained fee works out after tax at about 15p per hour. Should there not be a national recruitment campaign? Do not retained firefighters need more than just warm words?
    Mr. Raynsford: Retained firefighters represent just under a third of the total force of firefighters in the country. We wholly share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure more effective recruitment of retained firefighters. We are already engaged in the preparation of publicity material to assist in that process, and we are looking closely at the trials that have been conducted in areas such as south Wales to improve the recruitment of retained firefighters. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are very well seized of the importance of helping to recruit more retained firefighters, who do such a crucial job in many parts of the country.

    Domestic Violence
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the supporting people programme for tackling domestic violence. [86319]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The supporting people programme will bring major improvements to the quality of housing-related support services for vulnerable groups, including people experiencing

    827
    domestic violence. Specialist co-ordinators on domestic violence are working closely with local authorities and providers to offer support and raise awareness.
    Shona McIsaac: I welcome my hon. Friend's recent announcement of £9 million extra to deal with domestic violence. Will she tell us in more detail what is involved in the projects? Will they impact, for example, on the Grimsby women's refuge, which has only 10 places for women who are victims of domestic violence?
    Mrs. Roche: What happened last week was an important announcement. Together with organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge, and with the backing of Comic Relief, which has made its largest domestic donation, we have given funds so that we have, for the first time, a national helpline for those suffering from domestic violence. As well as that funding, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has given £7 million to help the Housing Corporation fund refuge places. As far as the refuge is concerned, I believe that it covers Cleethorpes and our money will bolster any bid that it may submit to the Housing Corporation. At the end of the process, we will consider the geographic coverage to see what other unmet need there may be.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Earlier this year, the Opposition were pleased to support a change in the law that gave people who suffer from domestic violence priority in local authority housing. The hon. Lady will know, not least from constituency cases that I have raised with her, that that message has not got through to local authorities, some of which do not seem to have grasped that it involves moving people across local authority boundaries. In a perversion of the Christmas message, domestic violence will almost certainly double this time next week, as it did last Christmas. Notwithstanding a need to issue guidance to local authorities, will she give the clearest message to them, at this crucial time, that accommodating people who suffer from domestic violence sometimes involves them crossing local authority boundaries?
    Mrs. Roche: I am happy to do so. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the issue. I know that he takes a keen interest in it. Guidance is available on the supporting people programme. He will know that draft guidance on the priority need order has also been made available. The final guidance will be issued once we have analysed the results of the consultation. There is a firm message to local authorities that the subject is a priority and that they must work together. The strongest message we can send out from both sides of the House to perpetrators of domestic violence is that it will not be tolerated.
    Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case, however, that many extremely good organisations already exist to deal with that problem, although they do not concentrate exclusively on the housing needs of women and their families who flee domestic violence? For example, Camden Safety Net in
    828
    my borough works well across many departments. How will they access the additional support offered in the supporting people programme?
    Mrs. Roche: Victims of domestic violence are one category of the supporting people programme. There are other categories for other vulnerable groups. It is interesting to note that, when we analyse the figures nationally of people who present themselves as homeless, 16 per cent. show a connection with domestic violence. The project that my hon. Friend mentions will definitely benefit from the national helpline.

    Debt and Financial Exclusion
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If he will ask the social exclusion unit to conduct a review of debt and financial exclusion. [86320]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Our approach for a more inclusive society is to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. Improving financial inclusion is central to this. Decisions on future unit projects will be made shortly.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of producing a further report on current levels of debt, especially in low-income households? The evidence shows that their debt is spiralling out of control, and many of those families cannot cope either with the level of indebtedness or the rates of interest that they have to pay at the hands of loan sharks. Will she undertake to carry out a cross-departmental review to help such families to get out of the debt that they are in?
    Mrs. Roche: I certainly recognise the situation that the hon. Gentleman presents. The Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to crack down on loan sharks and it will publish proposals in the new year. It is also important that we carry out work on credit unions, which have increased considerably since 1997, and implement pilot initiatives to discover how community-based organisations can get involved in such work. I shall certainly give careful consideration to his representations.
    Mr. David Clelland: I support what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to say about loan sharks. Is my hon. Friend aware of a constituent of mine whose original borrowing of £7,500 has now increased to £43,000? The company demanding that money, Provident Financial, has made a profit of £700 million over the last five years, all on the back of the most vulnerable people in deprived communities. Something must be done about that, and urgently.
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is right; there are some absolutely disgraceful cases, which is why the community finance and learning initiative is so important. Those pilot schemes promote financial education and good practice so that we can crack down on loan sharks, who cause a great deal of disruption to our community and feed off vulnerable people.

    Planning
    Mr. Peter Lilley: If he will make a statement on how he intends to improve the involvement of local communities in planning decisions. [86321]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will, subject to parliamentary approval, require all local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement setting out what the authority will do to involve the community in preparing local development documents and in their consideration of planning applications.
    In addition, we will provide Planning Aid with significant funding over the next three years to enable it to become more proactive and to develop a greater role in targeting communities that traditionally do not get involved in the planning system.
    Mr. Lilley: How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain his decision to take out of the hands of elected county and district councils in Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire key decisions about housing, especially as he previously justified the approval of a plan to build 10,000 houses on the green belt on the grounds that the decision was endorsed by the elected Labour party that was then in power and that there were no other sites? Now a Conservative group has taken power and found alternative sites, so why is the right hon. Gentleman overriding local democracy, and why he is determined to concrete over the green belt?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection of that application is somewhat limited. He will know that we do not make a judgment according to whether a Labour or Tory council has made the decision; we have planning inspectors to make independent judgments. They made that recommendation, and I accepted it.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Why is the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to community involvement so poor? He was recently asked whether he would call in a planning application in which a district council gave itself consent to develop its own land, despite the fact that all the people of the town, Teignmouth, asked for the application to be called in.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: There are many thousands of applications on planning inquiries which bear my name, but as the hon. Gentleman will know from the process, I am not aware of any individual case. I will look at the matter that he mentioned and write to him, provided that the planning procedure has been completed and that I am not interfering in the process.
    David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister's White Paper on regional government was entitled "Your Region, Your Choice", but it is clear from the two Bills already before the House that the Government intend to remove the planning powers from county councils, whether or not there is a referendum and irrespective of the result of any referendum. Why are the people not being given a say in
    830
    this vital aspect of local government? Should not the White Paper have been entitled "Your Region, No Choice"? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is far too noisy. If hon. Members want to chat, they can leave the Chamber.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I always find it very difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, because it was a previous Conservative Government who abolished county councils without any consultation, along with their planning powers and everything else. We made it clear in our White Paper that it is for the people to choose, and we will give them a referendum. The Conservatives did not do that when they abolished county councils.
    David Davis: Well, I did not think that I would get a proper answer to that, so I am not surprised. In the spirit of Christmas, I shall try something a little easier. Yesterday, it became apparent that the Government intend to add insult to injury for county councils. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), told the House that the regional planning bodies would be funded by central Government to the tune of £6 million. In Committee yesterday, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that the money would be taken from county councils. Which one is right?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Those bodies will be financed by central Government.

    Planning
    Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on third-party rights in the planning process. [86322]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The views of interested parties are taken into account in drawing up development plans and when reaching decisions on individual applications. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains new measures that give local residents and third parties greater opportunities to participate more effectively in the planning process.
    Keith Vaz: I am sure that the Minister agrees that unlimited involvement by third parties in the planning process will paralyse the whole system. However, does he accept that a limited right at major inquiries, perhaps funded by the taxpayer, would ensure that third-party objectors can put their views across in a focused way, thus shortening those long inquiries?
    Mr. Leslie: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said about the need to support residents and interested parties, especially in larger-scale applications. I believe that there are prospects of more support, not only from our announcement about funding for Planning Aid, but from changes such as the introduction of mediators in

    831
    the inquiry process and round-table discussions to make sure that details are fully understood at an early stage of inquiries.

    Planning
    Mr. Tony Clarke: What plans he has to reform the planning system. [86323]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): The Government's programme for the reform of the planning system is set out in "Sustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning", published on 18 July 2002. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to enact reforms that require primary legislation in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, introduced on 4 December 2002 and happily given a Second Reading by the House just yesterday.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am sure that many local authorities across the country will welcome the changes in the Bill that we debated yesterday, but many are apprehensive about the financial cost of the transition. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that local councils will be supported financially through that transitional period, so that in accepting the change there is no financial penalty for those local authorities?
    Mr. McNulty: As I have said previously, the legislation that we discussed yesterday is only part of the reform of the planning system, which also includes the review and revision of circulars and policy guidance, and the introduction of £350 million more through the planning delivery grant, which is intended to meet councils' very real concerns, to which my hon. Friend alluded.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Minister is aware that all over the country the absence of affordable housing to buy and rent is ripping the heart out of communities. What changes to the planning law does he propose to help the provision of more affordable housing so that local people can afford to live locally? If not through planning, how do the Government intend to help?
    Mr. McNulty: Given the hon. Gentleman's party and the previous Government's record, I am terribly tempted to say that he has more front than Harrods for even asking the question. On the planning reform package and affordable housing, a review of circular 6/98 will begin in January. However, an effective, responsive, flexible and speedier planning system will also help the process—that goes for the southwest and all the other regions.

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What his estimate is of the per capita change in revenue support grant to the Isle of Wight council resulting from his changes to the distribution formula. [86324]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Under our proposals, the Isle of Wight council will receive a grant increase of £3.56 million, which is equivalent to almost £27 per head more than in 2002–03.
    Mr. Turner: I recognise and welcome that marginal increase in cash terms, but could the Minister explain how the grant settlement takes account of the additional costs of delivering statutory services, such as fire services, on an island, where we cannot get the help from adjoining authorities that we sometimes need. Will he agree to meet with me a group of representatives of the Isle of Wight council to discuss how those needs can more effectively be met?
    Mr. Raynsford: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that our settlement of course takes account of the special circumstances of his area. He will be aware that in the last four years of the Conservative Government, the Isle of Wight received only a 1 per cent. increase in grant—a real-terms cut—whereas under this Government, it has received a 30 per cent. increase in grant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring a delegation to discuss with me how his councillors will spend the extra money that we are making available to his authority, he should put that request in writing and we will, of course, consider it.

    Council Tax
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has for the reform of council tax. [86326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Local Government Bill contains provisions on council tax revaluation, banding, discounts and exemptions.
    Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware that since the Conservatives introduced council tax nine years ago, the average English council tax bill has risen by more than 70 per cent., and by more than 50 per cent. under the present Government? How do the Government justify dependence on such a regressive tax, unrelated to the ability to pay, to fund a growing percentage of public services?
    Mr. Leslie: I shall take that as a representation from the Liberal Democrats in favour of some sort of local income tax, which I understand is their policy. I wonder how many of their constituents appreciate the implications of that policy for them. Council tax is certainly fairer than its predecessor, the poll tax, which some people may still remember, but in our reforms we will take into account how we might be able to make council tax fairer still.

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When he intends to visit Coatbridge and Chryston constituency to discuss social exclusion. [86327]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to visit

    833
    the constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston. However, the Government maintain regular contact with the devolved Administrations on issues relating to social exclusion through forums such as the joint ministerial committee on poverty, which I attended in September.
    Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to come to my constituency in the immediate future—he does not know what he is missing. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the credit unions, particularly in Kirkwood and Muirhead, which, despite a huge reduction in unemployment, are helping to make life easier for a substantial number of my constituents?
    Mrs. Roche: I am very happy to do that, as I know what an interest my right hon. Friend takes in such measures. I believe, as has already been mentioned, that credit unions are incredibly valuable. They can give people real independence. If, by encouraging credit unions, we tackle seriously the problem of financial exclusion that blights many of our communities, we shall be doing all our communities a great service.

    Firefighters' Dispute
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What progress has been made towards resolving the firefighters' dispute. [86328]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): The final report of Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service, published on Monday, is central to resolving the dispute. On the same day, I made a statement to the House welcoming the report and detailing how the Government will take forward its recommendations. The Government want a fair deal for firefighters and other workers, and a fair deal for the economy. Sir George Bain's report provides the framework for such a deal.
    Mrs. Humble: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Blackpool firefighters whom I met recently at the Bispham fire station that discussions about modernisation will take into account the local circumstances of towns such as Blackpool, where the firefighters care not only for the resident population, but for 11 million visitors in a town that stays open late into the night entertaining them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Many of those in the House with experience of Blackpool will understand my hon. Friend's point. We want to give the Blackpool brigade, and every other brigade, every assistance to be more efficient and more effective in their operations. That is why Sir George Bain's recommendations that we should move to more targeted fire cover based on basic risk assessment, and that working practices should be changed, are important. I identified to the House some of the changes that are needed, and I have already made it clear that I intend, as the inquiry recommended, to begin the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern and surprise that the firefighters have not taken the opportunity to form a
    834
    considered view of the proposals in the Bain report before calling another strike in the new year? Is that not very regrettable indeed?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree with what the hon. Lady said. The House will share the hope that all firefighters, at whatever level in the Fire Brigades Union, will take note of what Sir George Bain has said and of what I have said in the House about the changes that the Government will make. I hope that we can all look forward to further discussions in which the report is not treated as irrelevant. It is very relevant and we would like to see a settlement. My advice all the time is to talk, not walk. That remains my advice.

    Illegal Camping
    Mr. Mark Todd: What recent progress has been made in controlling illegal camping. [86329]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): In the early part of next year, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Home Office, will issue new guidance on managing unauthorised camping. The guidance is currently in its second phase of consultation with stakeholders. The guidance issued in the new year will include detailed operational guidance and deal with the roles and responsibilities of local authorities and the police in taking action.
    Mr. Todd: Can we ensure that the decision is made in the very earliest part of next year? In my area, there are typically three illegal occupations at any time, trashing our countryside and having an antisocial impact on local residents. Can we please have the earliest possible conclusion to the consultation?
    Mr. McNulty: When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued the initial guidance, we took the very clear decision that we wanted substantive consultation, so that when the framework and operational guidance are issued—I hope that that will happen as early as possible in the new year, to satisfy my hon. Friend—they will be agreed to and welcomed by all parties associated with this very serious matter.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Heath: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will agree that national security far outweighs commercial sensitivity

    835
    or indeed potential embarrassment. If British companies and individuals are named in the declaration on resolution 1441 as having supplied arms or weapon-making technology or material to Iraq—a country with which every appearance suggests we will soon be at war—why do the British Government refuse to publish their names so that the claims can be investigated?
    The Prime Minister: The UN resolution concerns the circumstances of the UN's mandate in respect of the inspectors and the ability of this country and others to ensure that Saddam complies with the requirements of the resolution. In respect of any information about companies, we apply exactly the same rules as Governments have always applied, and I think that it is right that we carry on doing so.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: At the weekend, President Bush declared his intention to offer vaccination against smallpox to every American, with a few exceptions among those with medical conditions. Is that our intention, or do we know something that he does not?
    The Prime Minister: No. We do not believe that mass vaccination is warranted. We are following the World Health Organisation's guidelines. Our primary strategy in the event of any outbreak will be to contain and ring vaccinate as the first line of defence. However, we do not know of any specific threat, so the sensible thing for us to do is follow the guidelines set out by the WHO, which I think are correct, and that is what we intend to do.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The United States has made it clear that it will respond to the Iraqi weapons declaration within days. When will the Government publish their formal response to the declaration? From the evidence that the Prime Minister has seen so far and has already produced, will he say whether he agrees with Colin Powell that scepticism about the Iraqi declaration is well founded?
    The Prime Minister: We will make a formal response shortly after the Christmas break. In respect of Colin Powell's remarks, most people who have looked at the document, which is obviously very long, are pretty sceptical about the claims that it makes, but it is important that we study it in detail and make a formal and considered response.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is clear—it is certainly in today's papers—that the Government are making preparations for a major deployment in the Gulf. If a decision to deploy is made during the recess, is the Prime Minister prepared to recall Parliament? There is also confusion about whether there might be a vote on deployment. I would urge him to hold a vote on a substantive motion. Will he now agree to do so?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of any substantive vote, we have made it clear that it would be our intention to do so, although that is, of course, subject to the proviso that the Foreign Secretary set out: nothing must be done that would endanger or imperil our troops should we need to act quickly. The Secretary of State
    836
    will make a statement about the deployment later. It is a contingency deployment. Our position remains exactly as it has always been: we want the inspectors to do their work, we want Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions, and we use force in circumstances in which there is a breach of the UN mandate.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Last week, I was told about a child in my constituency who could not sleep, not because she was over-excited about Father Christmas but because she was afraid that some lout might smash the windows of her mum's flat or put a lighted match through the letter box. While I know that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating north Kent police on cutting crime by a further 5 per cent. over the past year, will he assure the mother of that child that he will not let up in his determination to deal with loutish and antisocial behaviour, which still creates a climate of fear? Will he also ensure that the police and local authorities continue to be given the resources they need to tackle the problem, rather than taking the advice of the Conservatives and cutting them?
    The Prime Minister: First, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can to deal with this issue. I congratulate Kent police on their great achievement of reducing crime in the Kent area. The key is simple and effective ways of enforcing the law on antisocial behaviour. That is why it is important that we streamline the antisocial behaviour orders. I also hope that the House will support the measures in the forthcoming Bill to make it far easier to impose fixed penalty notice fines for a range of antisocial behaviour offences, because the law will be used effectively only if there is a simple way of enforcing it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On Iraq, apart from welcoming the apparent conversion of the leader of the Conservative party to the arguments that Liberal Democrats have been advancing here for a long time, may I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Where is the sense of Christmas spirit in the Conservative party? The Secretary of State for Defence said this morning:
    "If members of the Security Council judge ultimately that military action is necessary, it is important that"—
    we—
    "are in a position to take military action."
    He was then asked, however, whether that meant that the UN Security Council would be the final judge of the matter, to which his answer was no. Surely it is important that the Prime Minister should clarify the position.
    The Prime Minister: The position is as we have always set it out, which is that UN resolution 1441 assumes that there will be a further discussion in the UN Security Council. Of course, it has always been our desire to act with the full authority of the UN Security Council. We have always made it clear, however, that, if there were a breach and if, for any reason, the Security Council were blocked in any way, we do not believe it right that that breach should go unpunished. Those are the circumstances in which it is important to make sure that we do our level best to work with the UN in any way that

    837
    we can, but the bottom line—as I have set out right from the very beginning—must be that the United Nations route must be the way of dealing with the issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it. Having said that, I believe that the UN will support action in circumstances in which there has been a breach. That is my belief after talking in detail to the main countries involved in the UN.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed and serious reply. Will he clarify one further aspect of the matter? The UN weapons inspectorate will complete its task and submit its conclusions and recommendations to the Security Council. If the American Government were, in the interim, to take any kind of pre-emptive unilateral action in respect of Iraq, would their action have the backing of the British Government?
    The Prime Minister: I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, although many people thought that the American Government would take a unilateral route, they actually chose to go through the United Nations. They are bound by the UN resolution, just as we are. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support me in saying that, if we are to use the UN route, and if there is a breach by Saddam, we should agree to take action. That surely must be right. At the very heart of the negotiations over the past few months has been the simple agreement that America and ourselves, and those who are enthusiastic about ensuring that we deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction, are prepared to go down the UN route. The other side of that agreement, however, is that if Saddam breaches the UN resolution, people agree to take the action necessary to enforce the will of the UN.
    Mr. Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the excellent work undertaken by the Worcester division of West Mercia police in tackling antisocial behaviour, but is he aware that magistrates fined one of my constituents who breached their order only £50? When a second constituent clearly breached an order, the Crown Prosecution Service failed to push the case. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those agencies have let the local police down? If he does, what is he going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to reflect that the Magistrates Association has just agreed to bring forward new sentencing guidelines on breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. Following the discussions that the Home Secretary and I have been having with the CPS, I can assure my hon. Friend that it will attach much greater priority to ensuring that orders are enforced. Nation wide, about 44 per cent. of those prosecuted for breaching antisocial behaviour orders have received custodial sentences, so there are indications, at least in some parts of the country, that this is being treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
    I hope very much that the Bill on antisocial behaviour will give us the opportunity, as a House and as a Government, to send the clearest possible signal that
    838
    antisocial behaviour order offences are a source of immense concern and worry to people, and that they need to be treated with utmost seriousness.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the Prime Minister tell us why—despite all the promises, despite all the boasting about extra resources and despite the fact that we have had 12 criminal justice Acts in five years—only one crime in 40 ends up in a conviction?
    The Prime Minister: For years, of course, there has been a problem with getting those who have committed crimes to justice, but I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, for the past five years, crime is down, not up, under this Government. We now have record numbers of police officers. Indeed, his own area, Cambridgeshire, had record police numbers at the end of March 2002. There is still a long way to go, but surely the answer is to keep putting the money into the police service and not take it out, which is his party's intention.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: When my right hon. Friend considers the railways, will he discuss with ministerial colleagues the parts of the country that are remote from London and, in particular, the poor and, indeed, worsening service provided by Virgin Trains to north Wales, which, even at the best guess, will not improve until September 2004?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the difficulties of the Virgin west coast line. What I know she will understand, as she has talked about it with me, is that the Strategic Rail Authority's west coast strategy—the consultation on it closed on 16 December—includes a through service every two hours between London and Holyhead from 2004, which will run at 125 mph. I know that, as she rightly says, we have to wait some time for that to come online, but it is and it will be as a result of the extra investment going in.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Government promised to cut road congestion by 6 per cent. Has the Prime Minister kept that promise?
    The Prime Minister: Road usage is up by over 20 per cent., it is true.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. He has broken his promise. According to all figures, congestion is worse, motorway congestion has doubled in the past four years and the Government have even abandoned their target, so he has broken another promise. What about the promise in 1997 to support and strengthen occupational pensions? Has he kept that promise?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the measures announced in the pensions Green Paper yesterday will indeed help occupational pensions. I also believe that the introduction of stakeholder pensions—low-cost private pensions—will also improve the situation, but I may point out on transport that it is true that road usage

    839
    is up by over 20 per cent. It is also true that rail usage is up by over 20 per cent. Indeed, so is tube usage. That is in part because the economy is immensely stronger.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer is that the Prime Minister has broken his promise on that as well. Occupational pensions are a disaster. As a result of the Prime Minister's £25 billion tax, more than three quarters of occupational schemes have closed or are about to close.
    What about the Prime Minister's promise to cut school truancy by a third? Has he kept that promise?
    The Prime Minister: First, on pensions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am sorry; the right hon. Gentleman made a remark about pensions, so I will deal with that first. These are the facts on pensions—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not shout across the Floor.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had broken the promise on pensions. Let me tell him what we have done for pensions. We have introduced the £200 winter allowance. We have introduced the larger-than-inflation rises in the basic state pension. We are introducing the pension credit next October. We have restored free eye tests—and, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's party, we have cut VAT on fuel, not put it up. That is what we have done for pensioners.
    The right hon. Gentleman is correct: truancy has remained roughly stable since we took office—that is absolutely true. However, there is one big difference. As a result of the measures that we are introducing, every child who is excluded from school will now get full-time education. When we took office, such children were getting only two hours of education a week.
    The point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is this: whether it is transport or pensions or schools, we are in favour of putting investment in and he is in favour of taking it out.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister promised to cut school truancy, and he has broken that promise. More than 50,000 children play truant every day, and truancy in secondary schools has increased. Is it not the case that when the Prime Minister makes promises on schools, transport, pensions or, for that matter, crime, asylum, drugs or health, he is not juggling balls but talking them?
    The Prime Minister: Let us look at the record, shall we? Let us look at the record on schools, hospitals and crime. Under this Government we have the most jobs ever in the economy, the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years, record investment in education and health, the best school results that the country has ever seen, and the best-ever in-patient waiting-list figures since we came to office. Crime is down under this Government; it doubled under the right hon. Gentleman's.
    Whether it is schools, hospitals or dealing with crime, we are in favour of putting the investment in. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of taking the money out.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: I have recently been deriving enormous pleasure not just from the
    840
    opinion polls but from my numerous lunches with pensioners' groups. There is, however, a susurrus of discontent among the pensioners of Northolt over a perceived threat to their bus passes. As they are disinclined to believe me when I assure them that there is no such threat from this Government, will the Prime Minister set the record straight?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no way in which we would withdraw the concessions on bus passes for pensioners. I can make that absolutely clear. Once again, that is a measure that we introduced and the Conservative party opposed.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: The Prime Minister will be aware of the rapidly rising insurance premiums that are affecting businesses all over the country, especially tourism businesses that come into contact with the public, which cannot obtain public liability insurance or find that the premiums are rising fast. The Government say that they are organising an inquiry, but that there will be no report until March. Will they in the meantime consider acting as insurer of last resort, so that some of those businesses can obtain cover and stay open?
    The Prime Minister: An announcement was made in, I think, the pre-Budget report a few weeks ago, and it is correct to say that it will take until March for the inquiry to report. These are difficult issues, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Office of Fair Trading is also looking at them, but I cannot give a commitment that the Government will act as an insurer of last resort. That would land the Government with a very large potential indemnity, which would not be a responsible thing to do.
    Mr. Tom Harris: The whole House will have welcomed the Prime Minister's initiative in calling a middle east peace conference for next month in London. Will he make it clear to Palestinian delegates that although the Government support the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state, every suicide bomb attack against innocent Israeli civilians puts such a prospect ever further out of reach?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, the purpose of suicide bombings and the killing of innocent Israeli citizens is to provoke such hatred and division between Israelis and Palestinians that they cannot reach an agreement whereby the two states live side by side. In exactly the same way, the so-called dissident republicans and so-called loyalists who are engaged in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland seek to disrupt the process of peace. That is the purpose of the people who engage in these appalling suicide missions, and he is absolutely right in saying that they are the enemies of a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents in Romford—he will recall that Romford was a Conservative gain at the last general election—why, under the new local government formula, Sedgefield is

    841
    being given an 8.9 per cent. increase, yet we in the London borough of Havering are receiving only 3.5 per cent.? Are not the people of my borough being short-changed by this Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of how much money we are putting into local government services, particularly since, as he says, Romford was one of the few gains that the Conservatives made at the last election. The fact is that, under this Government, we are putting far more money into local government and into services such as education, health and the police. As a result of the additional sums going into Romford and elsewhere, in the past few years local government support has risen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, yet in the five years before we took office it was actually cut. So the message to his constituents is to reverse the slight misjudgment that they made at the last election.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is no doubt fully briefed on the current negotiations in Brussels on the fishing industry. Is he aware that the proposal for an 80 per cent. cut in fishing effort and for seven days per month spent at sea will totally devastate the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency? Will he use his governmental influence to ensure that no such agreement is reached, and that a reasonable effort is made to provide a regime that can sustain the industry on the sea and onshore?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is of course entirely right to raise this concern. He will know—it is always important to repeat the point—that there is a real issue in respect of fishing stocks. Cod stocks have fallen from about 250,000 tonnes to some 35,000 tonnes in the past few years. He will know from what I said the other day in this House that I consider an 80 per cent. cut entirely unacceptable. It would devastate the industry, and we are working flat out in Brussels and elsewhere, and at every level that we can, to try to ensure that that decision is not implemented.
    Andrew Selous: With a possible war looming in Iraq, many of our loyal constituents want a clearer explanation of the British involvement. Is that involvement intended to protect Iraq's citizens and neighbours from Saddam, to enhance UN authority, or to protect Britain from a future missile attack and Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I never quite know where the Conservative party is coming from nowadays. Those factors are not all mutually inconsistent. The reasons for being prepared to take action in respect of Saddam are, first, that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that threaten his region. As I said a few months ago, they not only threaten his region; frankly, if a conflict took place there involving weapons of mass destruction, it is unthinkable that we would not be involved in it in some way, as we were 10 years ago.
    Secondly, it is important because there is a UN resolution. We have laid down the clear will of the international community, which is that Saddam must give up those weapons. There are real issues concerning
    842
    weapons of mass destruction and if, at this moment in time, we were to allow Saddam to breach the UN will and did nothing about it, the consequences would be felt not just in respect of Iraq. We would send a message across the world that this was a serious issue, but one about which we were prepared to do nothing. [Interruption.] Conservative Members shout, "What has it got to do with us?" [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They were, as a matter of fact. We are members of the international community and we believe that it is important that Britain make sure that Saddam complies with those UN resolutions. That is why Britain has a vital national interest in ensuring that the resolution is implemented.
    Jim Dobbin: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that, today, the UK came bottom of an international league table of 17 countries in terms of the provision of recombinant for haemophilia sufferers? When will the Government provide recombinant for those sufferers in England and Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to support this work through research and by considering the case for extending the provision of recombinant to all other haemophilia patients. As my hon. Friend knows, certain of them already get it. It is important that we examine the case for extending it and we are looking at that case at the moment.

    Terrorism
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What his latest estimate is of the risk of terrorist attack by al-Qaeda against the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: As I made clear a few weeks ago, barely a day goes by without some new piece of intelligence coming via our security and intelligence services about a threat to UK interests. Although we have had some significant success in damaging al-Qaeda's capabilities since 11 September and have thwarted a number of attacks, the terrorist threat against the UK and UK interests remains real and serious.
    Dr. Lewis: Have not the attacks in Bali and Mombasa shown that al-Qaeda specialises in multiple, simultaneous attacks? Given that al-Qaeda cells are believed to be in place in Britain, was not it unwise of the Home Office to withdraw last month the serious warning that it rightly gave of the sort of attacks that we could expect here in the UK? Was not it a mistake to think that it was wrong to spell out the threats in detail because the British people might panic? The British people need to be warned of what they might expect, and I do not think that they will panic if they are told the truth.
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is important that people be told, but it is also important that we make a balanced assessment of how much information we give and what we say along with it. It is not just a question of the information; it is the judgment we make as to the weight that can be attached to it. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, a few weeks ago, there were stories in the

    843
    newspapers about a possible poison attack on the tube. There was no specific evidence of such an attack, yet the information ended up causing, I think, unnecessary concern among people. It is a difficult balance to strike and we do our level best to get the balance right. However, it is important to realise that intelligence and information comes to us the whole time. If we published all of it, we would cause unnecessary alarm, so we must sift it and make a judgment. I believe that the judgments that we have made so far have been right and the circumstances in which that information was withdrawn were explained at the time.
    Jim Knight: This week, Dorset police warned Christmas shoppers to be vigilant about terrorist attacks. Does my right hon. Friend share Dorset police's concern? What action has he taken to reassure constituents such as mine in Dorset about terrorist attacks?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that people be vigilant, and this country has long experience of dealing with a possible terrorist threat from the IRA. However, it is important that we recognise that the terrorist threat could take many different forms. Although we are spending considerable sums on doing all that we can to protect ourselves against a threat, it is also important that we realise that there is a limit to what we can do.

    Engagements
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is the Prime Minister persisting in his policy of 50 per cent. participation in higher education by people between the ages of 18 and 30 before the year 2010?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we want to make sure that we get as many people into university as possible. We
    844
    have set a target of 50 per cent., but I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education that that should be open only to people who pass the requisite standard. At the moment, 43 per cent. of the relevant age group go to university. Extending that to 50 per cent. will mean that there will be about 250,000 extra students a year. In the past four years, for example, we have had very nearly 100,000 extra students, so the target is not impossible. However, reaching it must not involve a drop in standards.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the two biggest problems in Burnley are the 4,500 empty houses and the fact that our main core budget is less, in real spending terms, than it was 11 years ago. The forthcoming housing renewal pathfinder project and new financial arrangements will help the area tremendously. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the people of Burnley that next year's transitional and bridging arrangements will enable Burnley borough council to tackle the two important problems that I outlined?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of great concern to people in his area and in other parts of the north-west where houses are lying empty or are falling in value. He will probably know that there is due to be a community statement at the end of January, which will set out the pathfinder initiatives to deal with the problem. The overall investment that the Government will put into housing over the next few years will mean that hundreds of millions of pounds more will be available. I hope that that extra money will play some part in enabling affected communities to rebuild themselves. Again, of course, that is all part of the investment that the Government are committed to putting in, and which the Opposition are committed to taking out.

Iraq
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on contingency preparations for possible military action against Iraq.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and I, have set out the Government's approach to Iraq on a number of occasions. That approach has not changed in any way. We are committed to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime by ensuring its compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. Our primary objective is to achieve this by peaceful means. Saddam Hussein is being given every opportunity to disarm voluntarily.
We hope that he will take this opportunity to do so but, given his previous record, it would be foolish to assume that he will comply unless he faces clear and overwhelming pressure. That is why we must continue to present a credible threat of force.
When the House debated this issue on 25 November, and when it discussed it again at Defence questions on 9 December, I made it clear that we would continue with the prudent preparations and planning necessary for military action, should it be required. I said that we would continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces were ready and had the training, equipment and support that they needed. What we are doing is ensuring that we have a range of military options available, should they be required. The House may, however, find it helpful if I set out again the work that we have put in hand.
As I told the House on 25 November, we have also been taking action to provide additional capabilities that may potentially be needed, either by bringing forward programmes which were already planned or by making new procurements against short time scales. As the House will recall, these measures include bringing forward the purchase of further temporary deployable accommodation, upgrading the infrastructure available in deployed field hospitals, improving battlefield ambulances, and enhancing the ability of our forces to handle and exploit secure communications. We are approaching the shipping market this week, to charter vessels that might be needed to move equipment and personnel. We are also acting on the lessons learned from Exercise Saif Sareea 2, particularly in relation to the Challenger 2 tank, the AS 90 artillery system, and desert clothing and boots. I can assure the House that we are working closely with industry to ensure that British forces will have the capabilities they need for the contingencies that they may face.
As I previously indicated to the House, we are also continuing to consider the number and mix of reservists who might be required in the event of military action and to ensure that the machinery and processes involved in mobilising reserves are ready to be used if and when the time comes. Relevant units and individual reservists will be informed of the possibility of being included in a call-out, should that become necessary. We will take steps to identify individuals who may have genuine reasons for not being available in the months ahead. Information will also be made available to reservists for their employers.
846
More generally, I have authorised a range of steps to improve readiness. This includes training, ensuring that the right quantities of equipment are available to those who may need them, as well as the procurement of stocks and spares. For some units it will involve a reduction in their notice to move. This does not mean that they are about to be deployed but that they will be ready to deploy at relatively short notice if required. I emphasise that the involvement of any particular unit in these processes does not mean that it will necessarily take part in any military action that may be required. The purpose of these preparations is to provide the necessary range of options, not a specific plan.
We have already announced the long-planned deployment of the naval task group 2003 in the new year, with scheduled visits and exercises in the Gulf and the Asia-Pacific regions from February to August. This is a routine deployment that happens approximately every three years hut, like all maritime deployments, it remains available for a range of potential operations if required. The group will be led by HMS Ark Royal and will include the Type 23 frigate HMS Marlborough, the Type 42 destroyer HMS Liverpool and support from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels Fort Victoria and Orangeleaf. A nuclear-powered submarine will also be assigned to the group for part of its deployment. In addition, a mine countermeasures group, comprising HMS Ramsey, HMS Grimsby, HMS Shoreham, HMS Ledbury and RFA Sir Bedivere will deploy ahead of the task group to undertake a series of exercises and port visits in the Gulf region.
Further to those routine deployments, we are also considering the deployment of additional maritime forces early in the new year to ensure the readiness of a broad range of maritime capabilities, should they be required.
Finally, I emphasise once more that these are contingency preparations, aimed at increasing the readiness of a range of options. This process does not lead inexorably to military action. The use of force is not inevitable. However, as long as Saddam's compliance with UNSCR 1441 is in doubt, the threat of force must remain and must be real.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Secretary of State is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is in the Gulf visiting British servicemen and women who are already there in some force.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Indeed, we are grateful to him for responding to the call yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) to make a statement today, the last major parliamentary day before Christmas. However, it is an indictment of the Government's priorities that the media were briefed yesterday and the House of Commons was briefed today. We are clearly the poor relations.
Furthermore, at the now famous press conference held last month by the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff, the right hon. Gentleman undertook to brief Parliament during our debate on 25 November. He failed to do so, imperiously confining himself to a reference to "prudent preparations and planning". Today's mantra, adding to that, seems to be the mere maintenance of a range of options.

847
It is some time since the Government reported that the United States had submitted a formal request for UK military support. We recognise that operational security may limit the information that the right hon. Gentleman can give the House, so we shall not seek confirmation of every detail published in today's newspapers. However, the House and the country are entitled to know what level of military commitment the Government have in mind. It is frankly bizarre that our television screens are full of US troop manoeuvres in the Gulf while the Government have so far said virtually nothing about possible British involvement.
Today's bland statement adds very little to what we know. From reading today's newspapers, it seems that the media know more about the detail than the Secretary of State is prepared to share with the House, so let me put some questions to him. What specific capability has the United States requested, and what is the Government's response? What are the options that he referred to in his statement? Can he assure the House that, bearing in mind reports of shortages, there will be sufficient spares and logistical support to sustain a campaign lasting more than a few days? Has the equipment been desertised and will units trained on Exercise Saif Sareea be deployed and not held back for firefighting duties?
Given the consequences for both reservists and employers, surely the Government could be more specific about their call-up plans. Does the Secretary of State have in mind the call-up of formed units, apart from the medical services? What medication will be prescribed to any British contingent and will it be different from that prescribed during the Gulf war, or take into account United States developments in that respect?
Is it not the case that the likely resumption of the firemen's strike will have a damaging limitation on the Secretary of State's ability to deploy troops whose training is up to speed, thus confirming that he is unprepared for the unexpected? Does he accept that publicly preparing British forces for deployment will help to bring pressure to bear on Iraq to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441, and that being more forthcoming would assist the House and the securing of that objective?
The statement was thinner than I had expected and than the House was entitled to have heard. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, if there are to be deployments during the Christmas recess, the House will be advised.
Finally, as we approach Christmas, I hope that in a spirit of good will and cross-party solidarity the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces and their families as they stand ready to embark on operations should the need arise.
Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the briefing to journalists yesterday that had not previously been set out clearly to the House of Commons on two, if not three, occasions? Each of the points that he made—for example, on desertisation, the impact of a possible fire strike or reservists—has been dealt with in some detail already.
848
Although hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are shaking their heads, I invite them to look carefully at reports both of previous debates and of the most recent Defence questions where all those matters were dealt with. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has come to the House with such a long list of requests—if he had carefully read the pages of Hansard, all his questions would have been answered.
Mr. Paul Keetch: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I thank him for providing an advance copy. It is right that he brought that information to the House so that we could consider it; no Government can afford to leave themselves unprepared for military action.
This Christmas, many members of our armed forces and their families will be acutely aware of the possibility that they could be involved in future military action, so I am sure that they would like reassurance from the Secretary of State both about the readiness of the armed forces and about the decision-making process that might precede action.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the lessons of Saif Sareea 2 have been learned, but can he confirm that the MOD did riot decline an offer from Vickers to modify the tanks earlier this year? If he has changed his mind, how much will that cost the taxpayer?
What is the availability of our aircraft carriers for action and will our Sea Harriers be able to operate in that climate? Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that any troops sent to the Gulf will have the modified SA80 assault rifle?
Are the necessary medical provisions in place? What provision has been made for the purchase of nuclear, biological and chemical suits and filters? What steps have the Government taken to prevent a repeat of the medical problems experienced after the Gulf war? If troops are sent to the region will the Defence Medical Services have the capability to provide enough field hospitals?
The Secretary of State is right to say that war is not inevitable, but Liberal Democrat Members speak for many people in the House and beyond when we say that military action should be conducted only with the authority of the UN and after a substantive vote in the House. We must not fall into the problems experienced by Europe before the first world war; preparations are necessary but they must not make war inevitable. We must not fall into that trap.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and I shall try to deal with each of his points in turn.
Certainly, the Government have learned lessons both from previous exercises and from previous deployments. As I pointed out a few moments ago, I referred on a previous occasion to specific examples in respect of Saif Sareea 2, which was a valuable training exercise and a number of significant lessons were learned—not least about the use of Challenger 2 tanks and the need for desertisation.
As for the SA80, again, we have learned the lessons thrown up by the deployment in Afghanistan, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the modified assault rifle will be available to our forces in the event of there being a need for military action.

849
On the medical issues, some of which I have mentioned already today, as I did on a previous occasion, I can also assure him and the House that our forces will be effectively and properly equipped against the risk of exposure to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. I think that I have already dealt with the point about field hospitals. Certainly, a great deal of effort has been made to learn and understand the lessons from the Gulf war in the early 1990s, and they will be applied in the event of any subsequent operations in similar conditions.
Ann Clwyd: Whatever happens in the next few months—no one quite knows what—I spent this weekend at the Iraqi opposition groups' meeting in London and, as far as I could see, apart from a junior Foreign Office official, there was no British involvement at all, although there was a delegation of 50 Americans present. All those in the Iraqi opposition have always said that they want greater British involvement. Whatever the future of that country, Iraq should be democratic, and we should be involved in those talks from the very first day, so will my right hon. Friend please consider those suggestions and act on them?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for her typically constructive approach to such matters. For many years, she has been a champion of the need to observe human rights in Iraq and, indeed, she has not shrunk from the difficult decisions that follow from that. I assure her that the Foreign Office monitored the conference closely during the weekend, but that conference was clearly a matter for the Iraqi opposition groups themselves.
While not attempting to foresee the consequences of military action if it is ultimately required in a place such as Iraq, I believe that we have an important model in what has taken place in Afghanistan. In the months since military action was necessary there, we have seen a determined effort—not without difficulty; in no way do I underestimate the problems that have been faced—by the international community, by people in Afghanistan and, significantly, by many people returning from exile abroad to Afghanistan to help in the considerable task of rebuilding their country. I have every expectation that the same determined effort will be made by the international community and, indeed, Iraqi exiles in rebuilding their own country.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): Following the exchange in the House earlier today on the possibility of a future debate on military intervention in Iraq on a substantive motion in the House, will the Secretary of State for Defence assure the House that the Government's overriding consideration on the timing of any such debate will be the protection of the lives of British servicemen and women?
Mr. Hoon: I can give that assurance. I was asked that question this morning, and I gave that assurance then. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said on precisely that issue: it is obviously crucial that the safety and security of our forces should be uppermost in any decision, and I know that all hon. Members would agree with that.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: While neither President Bush nor anyone else must pre-empt
850
the implementation of Security Council resolution 1441, does my right hon. Friend agree that that resolution must be implemented, that paragraph 13 says that Iraq will face serious consequences if it is not implemented and that it would be irresponsible of Her Majesty's Government not to make contingency preparations in case that way of implementing it is necessary? Does he agree that whether resolution 1441 is implemented by force depends on Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend sets out the position with his customary clarity. I do not need to add anything to his words except to agree that it is vital that we make it clear to Saddam Hussein that the choice is his. He has been given the opportunity of disarming, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, that is a choice for him.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that while there may be substantial agreement between those on the Front Benches, that should not mask the fact that a great deal of anxiety exists in this House and elsewhere about the policy towards Iraq? Does he not understand that while a Security Council resolution may make a policy of war legal, it does not make it wise or moral? Furthermore, does he not understand that in the absence of a grave and imminent threat to ourselves and our allies, many of us believe that war is wrong, by which I mean not morally justified, as well as politically profoundly unwise?
Mr. Hoon: I was not sure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations whether he was making a general or a specific observation about the nature of war. I have heard him make observations in the past, and, curiously, they were never critical of his Government when he was a Minister. He has never made previously the kinds of comments that he has made lately about the responsibilities of the House or of the Government to Parliament. I assume that he has made a recent conversion to those views. He is perfectly entitled to those views, but I happen to disagree with them.
Tony Worthington: This will be the first war that will be fought when the International Criminal Court is in operation. Our forces will be subject to it, and I hope that Saddam Hussein will appear before it. Why are the Government negotiating a bilateral agreement with the American Government to help exclude American forces from the provisions of the International Criminal Court?
Mr. Hoon: The answer to that is straightforward: the present United States Administration have not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for their armed forces. To ensure a consistency of approach, the Government, together with many other Governments around the world, have agreed that bilateral approach with the United States.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State goes out of his way to say that the deployment is routine. Is it routine to deploy minesweepers ahead of the task group? Does he not

851
consider that the UK is now on a treadmill to war, and that, in fact, the decision to commit will not be made by No. 10 but by somebody else across the sea who has already decided that war is inevitable?
Mr., Hoon: I repeat again that this is a routine deployment and a long-planned exercise, which has taken place on a regular basis. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question about minesweepers, it would hardly be sensible to allow this deployment to take place in one of the most dangerous stretches of water anywhere in the world without there being appropriate protection in place, in the form of minesweepers, to ensure that British forces are not at unnecessary risk. I reject absolutely what he says about any decision to commit; that decision will be taken by a British Prime Minister, as has always been the case.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have been invited to give a Zayed foundation lecture in Abu Dhabi on Saturday, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows, those are serious occasions. After discussions with the leadership in the Emirates, they were absolutely appalled and horrified at the consequences of an American-British attack on Iraq. What value do the Government attach to the opinion of old and trusted friends of this country?
Mr. Hoon: The United Kingdom Government attach very great value to their friends and allies around the world, and not least in the Gulf region, to which I have been a regulator visitor over many years. I recognise the importance of maintaining an international coalition on these matters, which is reflected in a unanimous vote by the Security Council—including, perhaps to the surprise of many right hon. and hon. Members, the vote of Syria—in favour of resolution 1441. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government set great store by the views of the international community, and we will continue to seek out those views and to seek to have them in agreement with whatever decisions are taken in due course.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will recall that, following the strategic defence review, the Chief of the General Staff said that the most important development of the SDR for the Army was the development of the formation training cycle, which was designed to prepare formations to make deployments precisely such as this. How robust has the formation training cycle proved under the combination of having to deal with the firefighters' strike, all the other active service deployments and this particular deployment?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's observation to the extent that it has not been possible to follow precisely the formation training cycle as laid down in the SDR, not least because of the series of events that the United Kingdom has felt it right to respond to. I do not like challenging him with a further question, but, before he asks a similar question, he needs to think through what would have been the response of Opposition Members if we had stuck rigidly
852
to the formation training cycle and not involved ourselves in a series of important international operations, such as those in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. It is for those reasons that it has not been possible to follow precisely the terms of the formation training cycle.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have listened to the statement and to the answers that the Prime Minister gave earlier on Iraq, and it seems to some of us that it is absolutely clear that we will support the Bush war on Iraq regardless of the United Nations. Given that, we are entitled to know exactly what the cost of preparing for this illegal, immoral and unnecessary war will be. What contingencies have been made for the thousands of refugees who will undoubtedly seek asylum in our country and in the west in general if the whole area is destabilised?
Mr. Hoon: I can only repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friends and I have given on previous occasions. There is no inevitability about a war. It is a matter of upholding United Nations resolutions and the approach that the UN has taken. Again, I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider how it is otherwise possible to uphold the will of the international community—I am sure that is something that she and I agree upon—unless we are prepared to use force to back up the decisions that the UN has taken.
Hugh Robertson: As someone who was personally involved in the last deployment 12 years ago, I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State's desire to give servicemen and women and their families the maximum possible notice of any deployment. However, one of the options being studied is presumably the deployment of a full armoured division. How long does he calculate that it would take to deploy such a division to the Gulf? Once it is there, how long does he calculate that it would take to bring it ready for operations?
Mr. Hoon: From the hon. Gentleman's considerable previous experience, he knows full well that it would not be sensible for me to answer either of those questions.
David Winnick: Is it not the case that, this time about 12 years ago, the criminal dictator had time to leave Kuwait and his refusal to do so led to the Gulf war? Now, his refusal to give up weapons of mass destruction might lead to military action. Why do not the critics, including the former Tory Minister who was so enthusiastic about the Gulf war at the time, give the responsibility for war, should it come, not to the allies, the United States, Britain and the international community, but to the criminal regime because it refuses to comply with the UN resolution?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend puts his case with his customary passion—more passion than I am perhaps able to display. We have always made it clear that Saddam Hussein is a unique case, having not only invaded two neighbours but having used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. That is why the

853
overwhelming view of the international community is that it is necessary that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq should be disarmed.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Remembering the experience of prisoners of war after the war in Afghanistan, will the Secretary of State tell us what plans he has to deal with Iraqi prisoners of war in the event of an attack?
Mr. Hoon: They will be dealt with in accordance with humanitarian and international law.
Donald Anderson: The terms of the charter of vessels will surely be known in the markets fairly soon, if not now. What can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the earliest start date for those charters and the length of them? Which NATO allies, apart from the US, are also involving themselves in prudent planning?
Mr. Hoon: Again, for reasons that I have set out, I cannot give the House precise details of either the start date of any charters or their length. All I can say is that we are involved in contingency preparations to ensure that vessels are available should their use be required. No decisions have yet been taken on their use. As far as other countries are concerned, I am sure that all responsible members of the Security Council and the UN will want to take appropriate action to ensure the enforcement of Security Council resolution 1441.
Patrick Mercer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Armoured Brigade—the teeth, the arms, the punching machine of the force—that was so carefully, expensively and contentiously trained in Saif Sareea will be used for desert warfare in Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I am not going to give any indication of the nature of the force package that will be available. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the words that I used in the statement, he will see that I said that a range of military options will be available to the commanders of UK forces. It would not be sensible for me to dwell on any particular aspect of those forces, as he knows full well.
Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will know that Saddam Hussein's regime used Scud missiles in 1991 and that previously it used chemical weapons against its neighbour and its own people. What assurance can he give that, if our forces have to be deployed, they will be adequately protected against such attacks? In that context, is there effective interoperability with our NATO allies and other partners in the coalition if there is a material breach and military action becomes necessary?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I said that British forces would be properly protected in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against them. On interoperability, one of the most recent decisions is to ensure effective communications between different forces. One of the clear lessons from the operation in Afghanistan, especially the deployment of the international security
854
assistance force, is that NATO standard forces can work together quickly given their common training and common approach to equipment. We need to build on that recent success.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Given recent tragic incidents of friendly fire in different theatres of war, can the Secretary of State assure the House, and indeed the country, that all our service personnel deployed in theatre will have the equipment they need to communicate speedily and effectively with friendly units?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a serious and important point. I assure him that efforts are being made to ensure that that is the case.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Recalling A. J. P. Taylor's theory on mobilisation, is not there a certain inevitability about military action given the Americans' stated intention of regime change in Iraq? Will the charters be British ships manned by British crews?
Mr. Hoon: As far as inevitability is concerned, the final observation in my statement was that military action is not inevitable. Equally, however, if we did not make prudent preparations, it would be inevitable that we could not take military action should the circumstances warrant it. I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider that. If he believes, as I am sure he does, in the need to enforce UN resolutions, he must also believe that it is necessary to take military action in certain circumstances to uphold those decisions. As for chartering ships, it is important that the UK has available to it a secure and reliable system of being able to transport both its people and its equipment.
Richard Younger-Ross: I want to press the Secretary of State on humanitarian aid. Considering the disaster that occurred in Kurdistan after the Gulf war, what contingency plans has he made for humanitarian aid, and what calculations has the Ministry of Defence made for best case and worst case collateral damage?
Mr. Hoon: I shall not go into a great deal of detail at this stage about the range of possible consequences of military action that has yet to be decided on. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, not least because of our experience in Afghanistan, where a huge amount of humanitarian aid was promptly made available after military operations, that the matter will be high on our list of priorities.
Glenda Jackson: If war is inevitable only if Iraq fails to comply with Security Council resolution 1441, will all members of the Security Council be furnished with the American analysis of the Iraqi document? Given the somewhat intemperate statements of Secretary Powell, who rushed to judgment on the document's veracity, will such an analysis be verified by the UN inspectors before any decision is made by the Security Council, or is the will of the international community reduced to that of the United States?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. If my hon. Friend looks carefully later at the question that she just asked me, she will realise that the answer is a matter for the United States. I emphasise to her and other hon. Members that the United States and, quite separately, the United Kingdom will be making their own assessment of the material, as, I anticipate, will other members of the Security Council. There have been certain adjustments in the material made available for perfectly understandable reasons, because it is necessary to ensure that nothing that is communicated to members of the UN should assist in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Other than that, it will be open to members of the Security Council to make their own assessment.
Mr. Gary Streeter: In supporting the steps being taken by the Secretary of State, I ask him to give the House an assurance that, before he deploys Challenger 2 tanks to the Gulf, he will deal not only with their desertisation but with the technical deficiencies that came to light in recent exercises in Canada. Will he make sure that, in the coming combat, if that occurs, our troops have high-quality equipment that is not likely to break down as they are charging towards Baghdad?
Mr. Hoon: Of course, Challenger 2 tanks regularly exercise in Canada, so it is important to recognise that our information about the performance of the equipment is regularly updated. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that every effort will be made to incorporate all the lessons learned from previous exercises and deployments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Are the Government aware that outside this place there is probably a majority of the British people who are against a war on Iraq? That was not true of the Falklands, Kosovo or Afghanistan, and it must worry Ministers as it worries those of us on the Back Benches. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many electors say that this is about a vain American President wanting to complete the job that his father did not do 12 years ago? They also think that it is about oil. I say to my right hon. Friend and the Government that vanity is not sufficient reason to spill the blood of innocent men, women and children, either here or in Iraq.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend and I are parliamentary neighbours; we live in the same county and therefore come across the same sorts of people. I do not find that people are saying quite what he says. I recognise that there is concern and that there should be concern. There is concern in the House and on this Front Bench about any decision to deploy British forces in a war.
I simply do not accept, however, that the British people believe any of the criticisms that my hon. Friend makes of the United States or its President. They are looking for UN Security Council resolutions to be upheld, ensuring that Saddam Hussein and his regime cannot threaten the stability of the region or indeed the safety and security of British people, whether they are British troops deployed in Cyprus or people here in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 40 per cent. of Iraqis are children under 16? When an attack takes place on Iraq, what action will be taken to ensure that there is not collateral mayhem involving children and innocent people'?
Mr. Hoon: An enormous effort is made during the course of any kind of military operation, including bombing operations, to ensure that the targets addressed do not cause unnecessary risk to a civilian population. That was the case during operations over Afghanistan for which I was responsible, when I personally ensured that harm to the civilian population was minimised. I can tell my hon. Friend that even in the relatively short time since the last Gulf war, there have been enormous improvements in the accuracy and sophistication of the equipment used to allow those responsible for any military action to ensure that the threat to civilian populations is minimised.
Hugh Bayley: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in Britain hope desperately that we will not go to war with Iraq but nevertheless think that it is wise and prudent to make preparations for war because they know that it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein will comply and disarm without the threat of military action if he fails to do so?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can I make it clear that I am one of those who hope that we will not go to war? I hope that Saddam Hussein will accept his responsibilities and enforce the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Equally, however, like my hon. Friend, I believe that it is much more likely that Saddam Hussein will accept Security Council resolution 1441 if it is backed up by the threat of the use of force.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Abu Dhabi, why cannot the Government understand that, having committed themselves to the United Nations process, if they then remove themselves from it and take unilateral or bilateral action, they will alienate moderate Islamic opinion throughout the world? Does he recognise that, if that happens, he will create a hell for us and our children for many generations to come?
Mr. Hoon: But the Government do understand that. The point was made directly to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago, and he addressed the issue directly. It is clearly understood, recognised and acted upon by the Government.
Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Secretary of State not just made a statement that softens us up for a war? He has no intention of going back to the United Nations or seeking parliamentary approval, and is moving troops into the region to start a war the moment that George Bush says so. Can he deny that carte blanche has been given to George Bush to do what he will, and that the British Government will support him?
Mr. Hoon: I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend all the points that I have made repeatedly in response to each of those questions. I am sorry that he does not appear to accept the answers that I have already given, but I can assure him that it will be for a British Prime Minister acting in the best interests of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not British troops are deployed in the event of a decision to use military force.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while, as he said, the threat of military action is a major incentive for Saddam to comply with UN resolution 1441, if he forms the impression that war is probable or inevitable, that will be a strong disincentive to disarm? If we sincerely wish to avoid war, surely it is essential that we and our US allies keep a careful balance in the belligerence of our stance?
Mr. Hoon: That is absolutely right. It is important to make it clear that we want a peaceful resolution of the situation—we want Saddam Hussein to accept the opportunity that he has been given to agree to the will of the United Nations and the international community. Equally, however, it follows that he is much more likely to do so if we maintain a credible threat of force.
Alan Simpson: Despite the shopping list of military resources in the Secretary of State's statement, is not the reality that the British Government have already decided to support a US war on Iraq and, in fact, are already doing so? Given the 300 per cent. increase in US and British raids on the no-fly zone, perhaps he will tell the House how many bombing days he has left before Christmas. Will he also acknowledge that the evidence of Turkish troops using those raids to go in and kill Kurds raises the question of who exactly is being protected in this hidden war against Iraq, long before the formal slaughter begins?
Mr. Hoon: Again, instead of using language like US and UK raids on Iraq, it is important that my hon. Friend thinks about the many men and women based in
858
the east midlands, an area that he and I are both proud to represent, who are risking their lives over the skies of Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Is he telling the House that he believes that those men and women should not be entitled to defend themselves when they come under regular attack from the forces of Saddam Hussein? I am sure that my hon. Friend is not saying that, in which case their actions are entirely justified in international law.
Llew Smith: The Secretary of State outlined some of the preparations for a war with Iraq, including, frighteningly, the use of nuclear-powered submarines. Can he tell me whether similar preparations are being made for a war with Israel, which is also breaking UN resolutions, is invading Palestine daily, has weapons of mass destruction, and has a Head of State who is a state terrorist?
Mr. Hoon: I must tell my hon. Friend that all British submarines are nuclear powered. The comparison between Iraq and Israel does not stand up. The position in relation to Iraq is quite unique. It is a country that has invaded two of its neighbours and used weapons of mass destruction against its own people. That is in no way comparable with Israel, nor are the resolutions that my hon. Friend cites in any way comparable. The resolutions that mention Israel also mention a number of other countries that have equal obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. The comparison is not helpful. If my hon. Friend looked more carefully at those resolutions, he would not ask such a question.
Harry Cohen: Are UK forces taking cluster bombs to the region? Are US forces taking them? Have US forces taken their giant, indiscriminate daisy-cutter bombs there? Are not the preparations really civilian-killing preparations?
Mr. Hoon: Again, I have resisted the temptation that hon. Members and hon. Friends have given me this afternoon to refer to any specific equipment that might or might not be used. Appropriate respect will be given to the requirements of international law in any action that is taken and proves necessary in Iraq.

Scottish Parliament
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future size of the Scottish Parliament.
In the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" published in July 1997, the Government acknowledged that the special statutory provisions that stipulated a minimum number of Scottish seats in this House would no longer apply. The average Scottish constituency represented here comprises around 55,000 electors, whereas the average for English constituencies is around 70,000. One factor in this increased representation had been the need to recognise the additional requirement for Scottish MPs to scrutinise separate legislation unique to the Scottish system.
The Scotland Act 1998 provides that any reduction in the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster will cause a reduction in the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. The boundary commission for Scotland published in March this year provisional recommendations that would lead to a reduction in the current number of Scottish Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59. The consequence for Holyrood would be a fall in the number of MSPs from 129 to around 104. During the passage of the Scotland Act, the Government made it clear that if the Parliament took the view that its workings would be undermined by a reduction in numbers, representations could be made to the Government of the day to amend that section of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), then Secretary of State for Scotland, reiterated that view in September 2000. I have made similar public statements to that effect.
Honouring that commitment, I launched last year a consultation to seek views on retaining or adjusting the current statutory link between Westminster and Holyrood parliamentary constituencies. In particular, the consultation paper sought views on three issues: the consequence of the reduction required by the Scotland Act for the operation of the Scottish Parliament; the practical effect and issues that might arise between MPs, MSPs and councillors if boundaries were not coterminous for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies; and the implications of non-coterminous boundaries for electoral administrators and local authorities in relation to the registration of voters and conduct of elections and for the structure and operation of political parties. Almost 800 copies of the consultation document were issued, and the Scotland Office website page recorded 1,300 hits. More than 230 replies were received from civic bodies, individuals, electoral administrators, councils, the Scottish Executive, MPs, MSPs and political parties.
The purpose of the consultation was to seek to proceed on the basis of the sort of consensus born out of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's scheme for the Scottish Parliament. That broad-based convention was made up of political parties including the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, as well as trade unions, local authorities, Churches, the voluntary sector, business groups and civic Scotland. I made it clear that if the Government were ever to
860
consider amending the Scotland Act, any proposal should seek the same sort of consensus as that which emerged through the convention.
Two strands emerge from the consultation. First, there is the need for stability. Among the civic and representative bodies that responded, the overwhelming view was that the Scottish Parliament should continue to operate with the present number of MSPs. The argument was put that a reduction would cause difficulties, especially to the Committee system, and that it would be unwise to destabilise the Parliament so early in its life by reducing its numbers. The respondents stated that a reduction would adversely affect the Parliament's scrutiny of legislation and the Executive's capacity to conduct inquiries or initiate legislation. They claimed that any reduction in the numbers of list MSPs would reduce proportionality and that the current structure should be maintained to give a proper balance of representation.
Secondly, it was acknowledged, not least by electoral administrators, that difficulties could arise if the boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood were not coterminous. Confusion could be caused to voters and there would be problems for political parties in relation to their organisation.
A summary of those responses has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I have weighed up carefully all the responses, and in view of the overwhelming body of opinion in favour of maintaining the current number of MSPs, I propose in the interests of stability to seek to amend the Scotland Act accordingly. However, I also take very seriously the concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood. I therefore propose that an independent commission should be established to examine and make recommendations on issues caused by different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies.
I expect that, subject to Parliamentary approval, any order giving effect to revised Westminster boundaries should be in place for the next general election, no later than June 2006. Consequently, the new commission, which has the approval of the Scottish Executive and is referred to in their submission, would sit after the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Any changes that it might propose to the Scotland Act would be a matter for this Parliament.
Retaining the present number of 129 MSPs requires an amendment to the Scotland Act by way of primary legislation. It will also be necessary to provide for the routine review of Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries. I will be seeking agreement to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Let me make it clear that any change to the Scotland Act will be narrowly drawn. The Government believe that the spirit of the constitutional convention must guide any changes to the legislation. This announcement acknowledges the fact that, as it approaches the end of its first term, the Scottish Parliament is a hard-working and effective institution committed to serving the needs of the Scottish people. It underpins the stability and success of the constitutional settlement in Scotland, which has strengthened the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me sight of her statement under the new terms of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. The statement is not unexpected; we have been waiting for it for 264 days, which is more than the number of replies that she received to her consultation document. Perhaps there was too much reading for her to do in her otherwise busy day.
Unlike the Government, the Conservatives have been consistent in wanting a reduction in the number of MSPs. As early as 28 January 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) argued for such a reduction in line with the welcome reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. The then Minister, Henry McLeish, supported that. Since then, Conservatives in the Commons, the Lords, and the Scottish Parliament have consistently argued for the Government to uphold the terms of the Scotland Act—which set out the reduction—or, alternatively, for true devolution of power so that the Scottish Parliament could make its own decision. The right hon. Lady may recall that, in 1998, she voted to overturn an amendment to the Scotland Bill that would have had the same effect as her new plans. What specifically has happened in the interim to change her mind?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that similar devolved parliaments elsewhere in the world need fewer members? For instance, in British Columbia, which I visited in the summer, the legislature has greater powers but only 79 members. Will she tell us why the Scottish Parliament needs 129? Will she also tell us why it needs all 17 of its Committees, and why it now needs 23 Ministers when the Scottish Office used to get along nicely with five?
I would be grateful for clarification of the right hon. Lady's statement. Is my reading of it correct that, if her proposed new commission concludes that coterminosity is absolutely essential for the democratic process, she is prepared to retain the 72 Scottish MPs at Westminster? Will she confirm that that number will remain at 72 for the general election to be held by June 2006, and for the subsequent one? Will she also tell us whether she expects to introduce the Bill amending the Scotland Act before or after 1 May 2003?
The Scottish Parliament will only work with public support. The Lib-Lab pact running the Scottish Executive is losing the confidence of the Scottish people. The right hon. Lady knew the first First Minister well, and she may remember him saying, on 11 November 1998, that
"over the next few years, we shall have experience of the Scottish Parliament in operation and can then assess how dependent it is on having 129 MSPs for its success. I suspect that that will not be a determining factor. What I believe will be the success of the Parliament will depend on its ability to deliver, to respond to Scottish public opinion and to involve Scottish public opinion in its affairs."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998: Vol. 319, c. 386.]
The second First Minister said on 12 May 1998 that he believed that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members and that there were good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies. The third First Minister came to office pledging to do less, better. He has failed to do so. How, then, does the
862
right hon. Lady justify keeping more MSPs than envisaged by the Scotland Act? Will this not be a case of more MSPs and more MPs doing worse?
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady has proved that she can count, but she has not proved an awful lot else. She asks what has happened since the consultation began and, indeed, since November 1998. First, let me remind her that in November 1998 she voted for a Lords amendment that would have guaranteed 129 not only for the first Scottish Parliament elections, but in perpetuity. I contend that it is she who is performing a U-turn today. She quoted the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) from January 1998, but she failed to quote his 11 November 1998 speech to the House in which he made it clear that
"The first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability".—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]
The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of defending instability in seeking to cut the number from 129. I suggest that the hon. Lady is a little confused.
The hon. Lady asks about the independent commission that I propose. That commission will be truly independent. It will have an opportunity to look at all the issues relating to coterminosity, and it will be able to advise on any issue arising from having 129 MSPs and a smaller number of Westminster MPs than at present.
I made available to the hon. Lady a copy of my statement, which makes it quite clear that I envisage that the boundary commission will have reported to me and that an order will have been laid before the House to reduce the number of Members of this House by June 2006, which is the last possible date for a general election. In relation to when that legislation is likely to be introduced to amend the Scotland Act, I would hope that it could be done as soon as parliamentary time allows, but I am not in control of when that might be.
The hon. Lady talks about the lessons of devolution. I say to her that her lecturing the House about that is like the wolf giving Little Red Riding Hood advice on long-term care. The Tories have always opposed devolution, and they sought a no, no vote in the referendum. She asks me why 129 is essential. She will see from the replies to the consultation exercise that the overwhelming majority of people support 129. One of the main reasons for that is proportionality.
I point out to the hon. Lady the fact that the Scottish Conservative party had zero constituency MSPs elected in the 1999 general election in Scotland. As a consequence of 129 and the electoral system, 18 Conservative MSPs were elected. There are few examples in modern history of a party with overwhelming support allowing a diminishing Opposition the chance to have some representation when they cannot win first-past-the-post seats.
John Thurso: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of her remarks. May I give a general welcome to the statement, which I believe is courageous? It shows that she has considered the problem seriously, and proposed a considered and constructive solution to the problems set

863
out in the consultation paper. It also has the advantage of being in line with the recommendations made by my party in Scotland and the only Deputy First Minister that the Scottish Parliament has enjoyed. [Interruption.] Maybe they will let him keep the cup next time.
May I refer to three points in particular? First, I recognise the Parliament's success, which I believe is self-evident, especially in how the Committee system has worked and in its proportionality.
Secondly, the statement shows that the changes will be made through an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998. It is important that that take place on the Floor of the House with proper opportunity for Members to debate it.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State proposes to set up an independent commission to consider the problems of coterminosity. May I ask the Secretary of State whether its remit will be as tightly drawn as in her statement, or will it have an opportunity to cast its net a little wider? In particular, will it be able to consider as a possibility amendments to the electoral system—for example, the use of the single transferable vote as a remedy for the problem of coterminosity?
Will the Secretary of State consider devolving the routine review of the Scottish Parliament to a boundary commission for Scotland that is answerable in Scotland and operating within clear guidelines? In that context, I commend an amendment that was successful in the other place—not the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—which I tabled and which was then rejected by the Secretary of State's predecessors.
We who have supported devolution for more than a century commend the Secretary of State for respecting the spirit of the constitutional convention, and, allowing for suitable questions on detail, we support the thrust of her statement.
Mrs. Liddell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the statement, and for the action that I propose.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role and remit of the new independent commission. It will be appointed by the United Kingdom Government in consultation with the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. It will be a non-statutory advisory body. I can only say that it is too early for me to be precise about its remit—a subsequent Government will have to make decisions about that, as no Government can bind their successor—but I would expect it to cover any issues arising from the operation of non-coterminous boundaries, and I would not expect it to be prevented from looking at proportional representation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Scottish boundary commission. I see no reason to change the boundary commission as it currently operates. It is an independent body which does its work very effectively, and—I say this with all respect to the hon. Gentleman—I think that the establishment of a Scottish commission would just be tokenism.
Mr. George Foulkes: I thank the Secretary of State, for whom I retain the greatest respect, for agreeing that the merit of both the Scotland Act 1998 and the current provision lies in common boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood. Is that not, however, a tacit admission that these proposals will cause chaos and confusion with the different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood?
While I welcome the establishment of the independent commission, I fear that it will come too late to minimise that chaos and confusion. May I urge the Secretary of State to consider setting it up far earlier?
Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments, but I must disagree with him about the chaos and confusion. It is not unusual for Members here to deal with different boundaries in a local government context, and also in the context of the European Parliament. I have, however, taken on board the comments that have been made—not least by electoral administrators, who, while not claiming that non-conterminous boundaries would be impossible, say that additional difficulties would be created.
That brings me to my right hon. Friend's second point. He wants me to proceed earlier with the installation of the independent commission. If I did so, we would be engaged in a theoretical paper exercise on how boundaries would operate. What I propose will provide an opportunity to analyse the practical operation of non-coterminous boundaries, because that will happen anyway. If we assume that the next general election occurs in June 2006, given that the next Scottish parliamentary elections after 2003 will be in May 2007, we shall have a period in which to analyse the operation. If the independent commission feels that the difficulties created are too great, it will be able to propose remedies to the Secretary of State.
Pete Wishart: Is it not ironic that probably the only part of the House that will give the Secretary of State full support for her proposals is the Scottish National party Bench? Does she not think, though, that what this sorry exercise has done is expose the true enemies of the Scottish Parliament? Her own Back Benchers are now fuelled by hostility and jealousy because they are rightly ignored back home in Scotland, and there is an unholy alliance with the Conservatives, who have at least been consistent in opposing a Scottish Parliament that they never wantedֵ
Will the Secretary of State now do the right and democratic thing, and ensure that the future size and structure of the Scottish Parliament remain an issue for the democratically elected Members of that Parliament? And while she is thinking about that, can she name one legislature in the world that does not determine its own size?
Mrs. Liddell: The true enemies of the Scottish Parliament are the separatists who seek to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did not see fit to be part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, that it has sought for more than 20 years to undermine the devolution settlement, and that in the general election of 2001 it had

865
its worst result for almost 20 years. The Scottish people support devolution, and they oppose the separatist instincts of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The people of this country see the Scottish Parliament as strengthening the United Kingdom, not wrecking it.
Mr. David Marshall: Bearing in mind the need for coterminous boundaries, and if the 129 number is so important, will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to rearranging the composition in order to elect two MSPs for each of the proposed new 59 Westminster constituencies, one man and one woman for each? That would give a total of 118 members elected on a first-past-the-post basis, to which could be added 11 list members. They would represent the whole of Scotland, unlike the current system, which involves eight separate regional divisions of seven. Would not that be fairer, more acceptable and more popular than the current situation?
Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for laying out that scenario. In establishing the independent commission, I can hardly say at this stage what its conclusions will be, but there will be nothing to prevent it from looking at his proposal.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The Secretary of State has quoted selectively from the debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998. I shall assist her with another quotation, from the former Minister Henry McLeish, who said:
"We also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members"—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 225.]
What precisely has happened to change the Government's mind on that issue? Is not this self-serving consensus purely about jobs for the boys?
Mrs. Liddell: On the question of jobs for the boys, I notice that the hon. Gentleman jumps between the Front Bench and the Back Benches to try to swell Conservative numbers. I have conducted a consultation exercise, and the overwhelming majority of people have supported the retention of 129. They have done so because they believe in proportionality, which creates 18 jobs in the Scottish Parliament for Conservative MSPs who would otherwise have had no political career.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I disabuse my right hon. Friend or any commission that she sets up of the notion of seeking any solution that does not include coterminosity? I shall give one example and invite her to comment. One Lanarkshire seat that is planned under the boundary proposals would consist of 60 per cent. of Clydesdale, and 20 per cent. of each of the two neighbouring constituencies. That would involve one Westminster MP, three individually elected MSPs and 16 list MSPs. I repeat: may I disabuse her and the commission of any notion of moving away from coterminosity?
Mrs. Liddell: It is a fact that, in any event, for a certain period between the general elections for this House and for the Scottish Parliament there will not be coterminous constituencies; indeed, that period will
866
allow the independent commission to take on board the very point that my hon. Friend makes. Should the arrangements prove unworkable, it will be up to the independent commission to come forward with proposals that the then Secretary of State could take into account.
Malcolm Bruce: I, too, acknowledge appreciation for the Secretary of State's sticking with the spirit of the constitutional convention, with which I was very closely involved in its first few years. It is also an important principle, on which the referendum was founded, that a Scottish Parliament must be elected by a proportional system. Any suggestion otherwise, such as that made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), would be totally contrary to the spirit of the convention, and of the referendum voted for by the Scottish people.
The Secretary of State acknowledges that coterminosity will be untidy. We know that, but would not STV—as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—resolve two problems? It would do away with the problem of coterminosity, and with the problem of there being two classes of MSP.
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman compliments us on sticking to the terms of the constitutional convention's recommendations and to the Scotland Act, and concludes by asking for a different system of proportional representation within that. There is little doubt that if the commission looked at the situation in relation to the Scotland Act, it would conclude that a system of proportional representation was the only way of securing some kind of proportionality. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his mind to the fact that if we have 129 MSPs, plus a conclusion from the independent commission that there is a need for coterminous boundaries, there will have to be a change of some kind to enable those conclusions to be taken into account.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Surely one of the easiest solutions to the problem is to amend the Scotland Act to retain the 72 Westminster MPs, given that, over the four years, it has been demonstrated clearly that the work load of the Westminster MP has not in any way diminished. I am also reliably informed by those within the boundary commission that if there are similar boundaries between Westminster and Holyrood constituencies, it will be well nigh impossible to operate a system when it comes to the division of the wards within local government.
Mrs. Liddell: The reason for the number of MPs in this House prior to the introduction of devolution was largely to take account of the fact that Members of this House from Scottish constituencies had the job of scrutinising the separate legislation that was available through the Scottish system. For that reason, we ended up with a situation where the average size of Scottish constituencies was roughly 55,000, compared with 70,000 for English constituencies. It has been recognised from day one of the devolution debate that it would be essential to address the size of Scottish constituencies. The boundary commission has begun its work and must

867
report to me between December of this year and December 2006. It is completely independent, and we must await its conclusions.
On my hon. Friend's final point, I fear he may have misunderstood what the boundary commission has said. The boundary commission reviews local government boundaries without regard to the shape of parliamentary constituencies, so it would have no difficulty in coming to conclusions in relation to boundaries if we did not have coterminosity between Westminster and Holyrood constituencies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I will try to call everybody who has been standing, but one question at a time, and not a debate of the issues, would be very helpful.
Angus Robertson: I note that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to give the House an example of one single normal Parliament in the world that cannot determine its own size. Will she now give the House such an example?
Mrs. Liddell: The Scottish Parliament is a devolved parliament within the United Kingdom and is essential to the maintenance of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can point as much as he likes. He is a separatist, whereas I believe in the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland have voted for a devolved Parliament within the United Kingdom.
Andrew Mackinlay: Two great friends of mine who are twice my size and twice my height have asked what this has to do with me. I want to tell them. The size of the Scottish Parliament is not my business. Representation here is my business, and that of my constituents. I believe that all constituencies throughout the UK should be the same size, and I hope that the commission bears that in mind. Last week, we saw a reduction of 130,000 in the electorate of Northern Ireland. Every Member here should have the same number of constituents, and there should be separate compensation if Members' constituencies cover a large area. It should not be the other way round.
Mrs. Liddell: I note what my hon. Friend says. I want to put it on record that I am not one of the two people twice his size and weight who put pressure on him.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I entirely endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I claim an interest, in that my constituency, with 74,000 electors, is set to disappear in the English boundary review. Will the right hon. Lady accept that she has not made a case for Scottish representatives in this place having smaller constituencies than ours? Constituents would be better served if Labour Members—such as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe)—paid more attention to Scottish matters and less to television programmes such as "Coronation Street".
Mrs. Liddell: I have not the foggiest idea what the hon. Lady is talking about. From the beginning of
868
the devolution process, the Government have acknowledged that it would not be possible to continue with the size of representation of Scottish constituencies that obtained prior to devolution. That is why the boundary commission has begun work on the matter. However, the Government will take no lessons from Conservative Members on the operation of devolution. They have done everything in their power to thwart devolution, and for 18 years they put in place at every possible opportunity conditions that mean that the Scottish people resent the Conservatives.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Given the overwhelming consensus of organisations in Scotland, my right hon. Friend has done the right thing by introducing her proposals with regard to the 129 MSPs. She has rejected my carefully crafted solution but, given that it was supported only by Brian Monteith and Margo MacDonald, I can see why. However, setting up the independent commission some time after 2007 could be a mistake. Does my right hon. Friend accept that having the debate about 129 for the past year has been something of a distraction in Scottish politics, and that continuing the debate for the next five years might be even more of a distraction?
Mrs. Liddell: I repeat that I have chosen the period after 2007 because I want to gather practical evidence about how coterminous boundaries work. Any other approach would be a paper exercise and we would end up working out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We need practical evidence about coterminosity, and the independent commission needs the best available information when it gives advice to Ministers.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I, too, commend the Secretary of State for her brave and balanced approach, despite the siren voices of self-interest from Labour Back-Bench Members. Will she now turn her searching gaze on her Department of State, which, once this exercise is complete, must surely have outlived its usefulness?
Mrs. Liddell: It is strange that an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should seek a reduction in Scotland's voice in government. That is bizarre. I believe in the United Kingdom, and that Scotland's voice should be heard in the Cabinet.
Mr. Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend will know that I made a submission similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), which she seems to have rejected out of hand. From what has been said today, it is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) made a salient point when he said that we were in for five years of people talking down the arrangement that my right hon. Friend proposes. Will she ensure that the independent commission will be included on the face of the Bill to amend the Scotland Act, and that it will not be possible for someone else to withdraw it at a later date? In addition, will she also ensure that the issues at which the commission will look will also be included on the face of the Bill? In that way, people will know the terms on

869
which the debate will be conducted over the five years. Otherwise, everyone will just be making up their own rules and talking down my right hon. Friend's solution—which, by the way, I believe to be an absolute shambles.
Mrs. Liddell: I remind my hon. Friend of the constitutional principle that no Government can bind their successor. Decisions on the matter will have to be taken by a subsequent Government, as the next general election will be held in 2006. I say again that an endless paper exercise between now and 2007 would mean that we found ourselves in the sort of argument that my hon. Friend has described. I believe that practical evidence must be gathered. In that way, sound decisions can be taken about the proper operation of democracy in Scotland, both in Holyrood and at Westminster.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Can the Secretary of State tell us how much the taxpayer is paying for all these extra MSPs? Does she agree that most people in Scotland think that the money would be better spent on schools and hospitals?
Mrs. Liddell: Does the hon. Lady really want me to go through the Government's increased expenditure on schools and hospitals in Scotland? Shall we talk for a little while about the fact that all 26 of Glasgow's schools are being refreshed in the course of this year? Or shall I tell her that the Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have responsibility for determining their priorities? That is as it should be—it is what devolution is all about. The only people for whom jobs have been created are the 18 Scottish Tories who could not win under first-past-the-post system.
Mr. Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the scepticism concerning the numbers of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament is created by the cynical practice of the Scottish National party in encouraging list MSPs to pose as constituency MPs. Does she agree that that strategy will completely fail and the scepticism will evaporate when it comes to the test next May?
Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We need only look at the results of the 2001 election in Scotland. The SNP had its worst result since the mid-1980s; it actually managed to lose a seat to the Tories, which is almost unheard-of, and saw the biggest drop in support of any political party. My proposals are about stability. The SNP wants instability—it is not interested in devolution, simply in breaking up the United Kingdom. We believe that divorce would wreck the prospects for Scottish jobs and the Scottish constitution. The Scottish people have rejected it and this House will reject it again.
Mr. Alan Reid: The Scottish Constitutional Convention reached a consensus on proportional representation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's policy that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by proportional representation? If so, and if the Government are still in
870
power when the independent commission is set up, will they write it into the remit of the commission that it can only examine proportional systems of election?
Mrs. Liddell: I confirm that it is the Government's view that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by a system of proportional representation, but I am not in a position to bind any subsequent Administration. That would be complacent and arrogant of me. However, I believe that when the independent commission looks at the operation of the Scottish Parliament and the need for coterminous boundaries, it will conclude that the system of proportional representation is the only way to ensure that parties which do not succeed in winning first-past-the-post places should be able to be elected to that Parliament to give a balance within the Parliament. There can be very few international examples of a party with the overwhelming support that my party has in Scotland being prepared to give up some of that power in the interests of a more balanced assembly. That is what we did with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
David Hamilton: As one who has not been here long and knew beforehand that there would probably be a reduction of MPs, I do not have a problem with the proposal. However, I find it unbelievable that at a time when the boundary commission is recommending that I go coterminous with my council, it is also recommended that 16 MSPs are mirrored against me. The commission has to put in place a mechanism before that happens. My colleagues are right that the proposal must be right for everybody in Scotland, which is not the case at present.
Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is proposing a paper exercise that will not take into account the actual operation of boundaries one way or the other. I return to the point that there will inevitably be a period following the next election for this place and the 2007 Scottish Parliament election when, with the best will in the world, there cannot be coterminosity. I believe that that is the appropriate time for the independent commission to sit.
Mr. John Baron: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) about what hard evidence exists to suggest that 20 Ministers are required to do the job that five used to do prior to devolution? Is it simply a case of jobs for the boys?
Mrs. Liddell: That is a matter for the First Minister and for the Scottish Parliament, but everyone on the Labour Benches remembers what a Tory Scottish Office did to Scotland—not least of which was the poll tax. It is not numbers that matter but quality and commitment to Scotland.
Mr. Russell Brown: I very much applaud my right hon. Friend's bold stance on stability for the Scottish Parliament, which I firmly believe is required. Coterminosity is extremely important. However, the boundary commission's proposals for the south of Scotland would give us one MP and four first-past-the post elected MSPs. Although I acknowledge my

871
right hon. Friend's point that the commission's considerations will go beyond 2007, there could be a six-year gap in which coterminosity does not exist. The simplest way out of the problem would be for my right hon. Friend to accept the boundary commission's proposals but to implement them only at the next but one general election in England and Wales.
Mrs. Liddell: I understand my hon. Friend's strong views on the matter and I have a great deal of sympathy with his position. However, I have to be bound by the recommendations of the independent boundary commission and I cannot say when I shall receive its report. I can only state that it must be made before December 2006. I do not want falsely to raise my hon. Friend's hopes, but I believe that it may be possible to implement the commission's recommendations prior to the next general election.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State says that she wants to narrow down changes to the Scotland Act 1998. Will that stop Scottish National party Members or other Members from proposing changes that would amend it? Is she not stifling Parliament's ability to make decisions should there be a need for major changes when the commission has produced its recommendations?
Mrs. Liddell: The Scotland Act arose from the Scottish constitutional convention, which achieved broad consensus across civic Scotland, involving political parties, the churches, voluntary organisations and the trade unions. The Scottish Conservative party
872
decided not to be part of that constitutional convention—as indeed did the Scottish National party. The Scottish Parliament grew out of that consensus. I shall seek to build on that consensus. That is what the Scottish people wanted and they are entitled to have what they want. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may slap his thigh in pantomime fashion as much as he wants but we have the support of the Scottish people—his party does not.
John Robertson: We are keeping the best until last.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made great efforts to explain that there will be a trial period between the next general election and the report of the commission, when we shall have to go back to the Scotland Act in order to implement the commission's recommendations. May I make another suggestion? Could we have a trial period after the next general election so that we can see how the Act is working? Why do we not leave the Act alone so that it can work as it was supposed to do?
Mrs. Liddell: I am unclear as to my hon. Friend's recommendation. I think that he is recommending the ultimate in instability—reducing the number of MSPs and then restoring the number to 129 after a certain period. It is clear from the responses to the consultation exercise that stability is the key thing that people want. I would have thought that, three and a half years into a constitutional settlement which changes a 300-year-old arrangement, the one thing that we want to achieve is stability. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be a recipe for instability.

Points of Order
5.4 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time, the Prime Minister alluded to developments in the fisheries negotiations in Europe. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, been made aware of whether the Government intend to report to the House before it rises as to the conduct of those negotiations? Given that the earliest date that the House may be able to debate any decisions arising from the negotiations is in mid-January, some weeks after draconian cuts may be introduced, what is the procedural position when the House has to debate in retrospect measures that could bring ruination for many coastal communities in the country?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I cannot speculate on the future situation; but as to the present, I have received no notification of the intention of a Minister to report to the House.
Mrs. Marion Roe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, there has been some concern recently about names being improperly recorded at the Telling Desks during a vote. The most recent example is that I have been recorded in Hansard on 16 December in column 654 as voting for the Hunting Bill, when purely because I will be one of the Chairmen of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, I had to abstain on that occasion in accordance with precedent. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you please ensure that this mistake is corrected, so that my constituents and the press know that I did not vote on that Bill because of my duty to the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady's comment will be noted. I agree with her that it is extremely important for those hon. Members who take on the responsibility of chairing Committees and therefore abide by certain rules that prevent them from voting in connection with the Bills that those Committees are considering that their position is not abused either by inaccuracies in recording their votes or, indeed, in reporting that they have voted when they have not. I hope that that will be put right and that it will not happen again in future.

Orders of the Day

  INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.

  INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to tax which may arise from provisions restating, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to income tax on employment income, pension income and social security income.—[Man Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

  REGULATORY REFORM
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  REGULATORY REFORM

    LICENSING
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th December 2002, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Programme)(No. 2)
  5.6 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
  That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Programming Committee of 12th December 2002 and pursuant to the Programme Order of 26th November 2002 relating to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Clauses 1 to 4), proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) by the times specified in the Table—

  Table

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  Clause 1

  two and a half hours after the commencement of any proceedings on a motion relating to the Resolution

  Clause 2

  five hours after the commencement of such proceedings

  Clause 3

  five and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings

  Clause 4

  six hours after the commencement of such proceedings

  It is right that clauses 1 to 4 should be debated today on the Floor of the House. Those clauses provide for referendums to be held about establishing regional assemblies, set out the referendum question, entitlement to vote and the referendum period, and we consider them to be of first-class constitutional importance. The remaining clauses do not raise such issues, and it is appropriate that we will consider them in Committee Upstairs.
  The motion proposes a split of time between the clauses. Clause 1, on the power to order referendums, should be concluded two hours after the start of the debate. Clause 2, on the referendum question, should be concluded five hours after the start. Clause 3, on the entitlement to vote, should be concluded five and a half hours after the start, and clause 4, on the referendum period, should be concluded six hours after the start. That indicates that we will probably still be at it a little after 11 o'clock this evening.
  That allocation of time has been based, broadly, on the subject matter of each clause and the number of amendments currently tabled to each clause. The split seems to us to be broadly right, allowing about 40 per cent. of the time to consider clause 1—one of the most important clauses in the Bill—about the same proportion of time to consider clause 2, which deals with the referendum question and which has obviously generated a lot of interest, while ensuring that the Committee of the whole House has time to consider the other issues raised by clauses 3 and 4. That is a sensible allocation of time, which should allow full and proper scrutiny of all those issues.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I shall be very brief. For the record, we are disappointed about the allocation of only one day for the Committee of the whole House to debate a Bill that may have profound constitutional implications.
  Having failed to persuade the Government of the need for a further day's debate on the Floor of the House, we very much regret the decision to limit the
  876
  total amount of time for debate today to just six hours. We regret even more the decision to insert intermediate guillotines, making it almost certain that some of the most important issues arising from the Bill will be debated neither on the Floor of the House, nor in Standing Committee.
  However, given the irony that any discussion of the iniquity of the timetable and any Division on it erodes still further the very limited time available for debate, will do no more than place those concerns on record.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said. To use the Minister's words, this is a matter of first-class constitutional importance. It is therefore welcome that this part of the Bill is debated on the Floor of the House, which I acknowledge. I object, however, to the fact that we are subjecting such an important first-class constitutional measure to a guillotine or timetable.
  Of course, the Minister is entirely right to speak of the Bill's importance. Clauses 1 and 2 have the possible effect, for example, of incorporating Lincolnshire into the east midlands region, which Lincolnshire does not want, and could lead to the abolition of the county council in Lincolnshire, which Lincolnshire does not want. It is therefore a matter of substantial importance, and it will also apply to all the shire counties, which are grouped within regions.
  I very much object to a process of timetabling. I am bound to say that although Bills are now frequently subject to timetabling, it is rare that we have the opportunity to discuss a motion. Because of the Standing Orders that the House has been bullied into passing, timetable motions, on the whole, are no longer debated, which does not enable Members to protest at the process. I am glad to say, however, that on this occasion we can protest at the process with particular reference to this motion.
  My first point is an important one. An implied bargain exists between the electorate and the House that if the electorate accept the obligations of legislation, we at least will do our part in scrutinising the legislation. Inevitably, however, as my hon. Friend said, the timetable process prevents the House from performing that function. Legislation that has not been properly discussed will therefore leave the House to go to the other place, and, no doubt, in the fullness of time, there will be a further timetable motion to deal with the amendments coming from the other place. What kind of democracy is that?
  On the second question that we need to ask ourselves, who has decided the terms of the motion? My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has made it plain that he and his colleagues wanted two days. He was not—and we are not—allowed two days; we are allowed only one day. What will be the consequence of that? The Executive, who have charge of the Bill, will come to the House and tell us that one day is sufficient. To make sure that we only have that which they want, they will use a whipped vote, should there be a Division, to force that through. I regard that as a disgrace.
  Furthermore, if we were to push this motion to a Division, and if right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak for up to 45 minutes on the matter, that would

  877
  come out of the time allocated to the clauses, which are substantial. To take the point even further, clause 1 deals with the important question of the regional assemblies, clause 2 deals with import ant questions as to the language of the referendum, and substantive amendments have been tabled. If we choose to divide on each of the possible amendments in clause 1 and on stand part, we will vote at least three times, and perhaps more. That will reduce the time available to this House to debate the other clauses.
  The truth is that we have got used to this process because we cannot stop it. The Government have got used to bullying the House because they know that they can do so. We should, however, take every opportunity to protest. I will not press for a Division on the matter tonight for the reason advanced by my hon. Friend—I am conscious that that will use up time allocated to the debate. This process, however, is contrary to what I understand democracy to be. It is bad law making and bad democracy, and the Labour Front Bench should be profoundly ashamed of their activity.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I shall be brief for all the reasons that have been set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I wish to add my voice of protest at the timetable to which the House is being asked to agree and, in particular, at the time allowed to debate clause 1.
  The first group of amendments on clause 1 deals with the question of whether the House should agree to a Bill that will introduce referendums on the establishment of regional assemblies before it is known what powers those assemblies will have. We do not know what the implications of establishing assemblies will be for the county councils in Lincolnshire and my neighbouring county of Leicestershire. Those are fundamental questions relating to the governance of my constituents and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and to the provision of essential public services in that area.
  The timetable asks us, in just two and a half hours, to accept the principle of holding referendums to establish regional assemblies without clear knowledge of the powers that the assemblies will have. Under the timetable motion, the House will have two and a half hours less the time that we take to protest against the motion to scrutinise that proposal. I protest vigorously against the principle that two and a half hours is enough to debate that fundamental and wholly objectionable proposal. However, I do so with so brevity—but none the less passion for that—so that we can move on to deal with the substance of the issue.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I shall also be brief in recording my protest at the way in which the Government are timetabling the Bill. Although I protest, I am not surprised at the way in which they are handling the matter. We learned in Standing Committee that—not before the Bill receives Royal Assent, not before it goes to another place and not before it returns to the House for Report and Third Reading—the
  878
  Government were taking soundings under clause I before the Bill had even gone to Standing Committee. Such is the Government's contempt for the proceedings of the House. They do not appear to care that the Bill might be amended on its way through. They assume that it will become law, so they have already issued documents and taken soundings all over the country as to the level of interest in referendums. They did that before the Bill had even reached Standing Committee. If ever there were an illustration that the Government had an overbearing attitude to the House and an arrogance towards its procedures, that would surely be it. That is why I place on record my strong protests at the lack of time that there will be to discuss this important measure today.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Minister has told us that the Bill is a matter of first importance for the constitution. If it is of first importance for the constitution, I would argue that it is wholly inappropriate to guillotine it. A measure of first importance for the constitution would not have been guillotined until this Government came to office in 1997.
  I cannot believe that a local government reorganisation, with limited powers asserted that may indeed undo counties that have been in existence for a long time, is anything more than a local government measure. However, even if my judgment were correct and the Bill were merely a matter of local government reorganisation, I would still argue against a guillotine. Guillotines have become an instrument of the management and denigration of the House. We can no longer debate many of the issues that are of relevance and importance to us. I want to re-emphasise, however, that a matter of first-class constitutional importance cannot necessitate a guillotine.
  The Minister and the Secretary of State have argued that the proposal is a balancing measure to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh devolution, but it is not. No one could seriously or rationally argue that. The idea is that it will settle the score and make people in England comfortable with the fact that they are grasping real and relevant powers at a local level. All those are important arguments and should not be discussed under the threat of the curtailment of debate. Around me are eminently rational and reasonable people who want to dispose of the matter appropriately. We do not know the rhythm or time that a debate will take, but every one of us should be concerned whether the abolition of, say, Shropshire or Staffordshire is appropriate.
  I seriously oppose what has become the instrument of this "forthwith" Government—the guillotine motion. It is clear from our Order Papers that much of our business is forthwith. We have majoritarianism. It is a freak of parliamentary procedure that we have a 45-minute window of opportunity in which we can express our annoyance and anger at the denigration of Parliament. Ordinarily, the matter could have been contained in the motion that followed immediately on Second Reading. I oppose this guillotine.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I support the guillotine motion. I may not be eminent, but I assure the House that I consider myself reasonable.

  879
  I remember what happened with the Scotland Act 1978 when I was involved in Scottish politics in the 1970s. There was a huge demand in Scotland not necessarily for devolution, but for the devolution debate so that the different arguments could be put. People in Scotland got extremely frustrated that it took Parliament about three years to reach a decision by correctly following the procedures of the time and debating the matter on the Floor of the House. That caused much disillusionment afterwards. I am a bit surprised to hear what the Conservatives have to say because they were the worst losers eventually. The electorate were more cynical about them than they were about even the parliamentary process.
  People in the English regions want the issue debated and those in my region of the north-east support the proposal. The Government are offering people a choice. The Bill is enabling legislation that allows a referendum to be held. If people in Lincolnshire do not want to be part of a greater area, they will vote against it.
  Mr. Hogg: It is all very well to say that if the people of Lincolnshire vote against the proposal they will not be part of it, but if other people in the area vote in favour of it, they will be.
  Mr. Henderson: That is complete tautology. That is bound to be the case in any large area. It is like saying that if people in Westerhope in Newcastle are outvoted by people in the east side of the city—
  Mr. Kevan Jones: They usually were.
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, they used to be. However, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
  Mr. David Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Henderson: No, I want to finish and do not want to deny anyone the chance to speak.
  People expect a decision. They want a choice. Given the way in which we have delayed and obfuscated before, we should support the motion.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: We have heard much synthetic indignation from Conservative Members. The arrangements have ensured full and proper scrutiny of the Bill, which has been the subject of detailed consideration over several days Upstairs. It is a matter of agreement between the usual channels that one day should be allocated—[Interruption.] It was agreed that one day should be allocated for a debate on the Floor on the House. We have six hours for that debate, which will allow thorough consideration. Obviously I will be keen to hear the comments and interventions from Opposition Members who have raised their concerns in this preliminary debate. The longer we spend debating the programme resolution, the less time we have to debate the substance of the clauses, so I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
  (Clauses 1 to 4)
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUMS
      5.26 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3)'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 46, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (3) to (8) and insert—
      '(3) No order under subsection 1 shall be made unless—

      (a) a review of the boundaries of the regions in England has been conducted in accordance with section [regional boundaries]; and

      (b) an Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies shall have received Royal Assent; and

      (c) the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community within the region for the holding of such a referendum; and

      (d) the Secretary of State has commissioned and published a report by an independent auditor expressing his opinion that, on the basis of the information available to him at the time of his report, no additional public expenditure overall would be incurred as a result of the proposed implementation of elected regional assembles and the associate reorganisation of local government in the region'.'.

      No. 35, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'unless' to end of line and insert
      'the condition in subsection (4) below is satisfied in relation to the region.'.
      No. 43, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'two'.
      No. 44, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'satisfied' to end.
      No. 36, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'first'.
      No. 24, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'has' to end of line 12 and insert
      'concluded on the basis of the evidence available that it is probable that at least twentyfive per cent.of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum held pursuant to section 1 would vote in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region if such a referendum were held.'.
      No. 34, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
      No. 15, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
      '(5A) The third condition is that an Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies shall have received Royal Assent.'.
      No. 17, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
      '(5A) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community within the region for the holding of such a referendum.'.

      881
      No. 18, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
      '(5A) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has commissioned and published a report by an independent auditor expressing the opinion that, on the basis of the information available to him at the time of his report, no additional public expenditure overall would be incurred as a result of the proposed implementation of elected regional assemblies and the associated reorganisation of local government in the region.'.
      No. 9, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
      No. 10, in page 2, line 12, leave out
      'if subsection (6) does not apply'.
      No. 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end add—
      'It is not proposed to proceed with the establishment of elected regional assemblies in any region where less than twentyfive per cent.of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum vote in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly for the region.'.
      Mr. Hammond: In Committee our duty is to examine the detail of the Bill, and that is precisely what we shall do over the next few hours in respect of clause 1, which introduces the arrangements for referendums.
      Briefly, and by way of putting some context around these debates, it may be useful if I outline the Conservatives' position on the Government's concept of regional assemblies, which we believe is fatally flawed. It introduces an extra tier of government that is more remote from the people. It will undermine local government. It is based on arbitrary and often meaningless boundaries, which mostly have no resonance whatever with the population. It will struggle, in most cases, to create any real sense of identity, and in practice it will be tightly constrained by central Government and watched over by strengthened Government offices for the regions. It will require a wholesale reorganisation of two-tier local government to boot, including the abolition of many, if not most, of our historic counties.
      We would not choose to go down that route. However, we recognise the need to address the question of local government in its widest sense—by that I mean the tiers of government between Westminster and the individual citizen—in England, following the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements. We recognise too the very real sense in some regions that decisions made in London are too remote and not always responsive enough to local mood.
      Jim Knight: Where in the Bill does it say that counties will be abolished? It says that nowhere in the Bill, so is not that idea the misinformation that we normally hear from the Conservative party?
      Mr. Hammond: I suspect that the matter will be debated at some length. The Government have made clear in the White Paper their requirement that if regional elected assemblies go ahead, we will have all-unitary local government in those areas. I suggested to the Minister yesterday that he might like to indicate whether a unitary Kent authority wit h a population of 2 million would be acceptable, and he declined to be drawn, saying that he had an open mind on all these
      882
      issues. However, I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have their own views about the likely outcome of local government reorganisation.
      Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
      Mr. Hammond: I am mindful of the time, so I will make a little progress if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
      I say to the Minister that this is not a solution for all England, and in their heart of hearts the Government know that. It is a response to the specific concerns of one or perhaps two areas masquerading as a final solution to the English question. We would prefer it if the Government went back to the drawing board and tried to build from established units of local government, rather than seeking to sweep them away. However, we recognise that the Government are committed to the process, and our purpose today is to address some of our specific concerns about the Bill.
      5.30 pm
      Clause 1 sets out the process for initiating a pre-legislative referendum and the conditions that must be met before one can be held, as well as preparations for the establishment of regional assemblies. On closer inspection, this rather large group of amendments can be whittled down. Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, together with the paving amendments Nos. 43 and 44, effectively duplicate amendments Nos. 45 and 46, but were tabled because it was possible that the Standing Committee would have reached clause 26 before today, in which case amendment No. 46 could not be selected. I am glad that it has been selected, and I shall address it rather than amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, as it embodies our preferred solution.
      Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 tabled by the Liberal Democrats seek to reduce the conditions of precedent and eliminate the link in the Bill to local government reorganisation. We are sympathetic to the objection to the compulsory unitarisation of England, which the Liberals are targeting. They have correctly identified the problem, but have drawn the wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that the Government's proposals for regional government in Britain simply do not work—they either involve the compulsory reorganisation of local government or, in the Liberals' preferred option, the imposition of a third tier of government.
      Mr. David Clelland: Amendment No. 46 calls for a review of the boundaries of the English regions, but as they were basically drawn up by the last Conservative Government, would the hon. Gentleman tell us which ones they got wrong?
      Mr. Hammond: Yes, in just a moment if the hon. Gentleman would bear with me.
      Amendment Nos. 46, 24, 23, 9 and 10 address substantive issues. Amendment No. 46 deals with conditions of precedent that must be met before the Secretary of State can call a referendum in a region. Proposed subsection (3)(a) imposes a requirement for a review of regional boundaries. Members on both sides of the House will know that one of the principal

      883
      objections to the Government's proposal concerns the unwieldy and incoherent nature of the regions and their disparity in size. The smallest region, the north-east, has a population of about 2.5 million; the largest region, the south-east, has a population of 8 million. The electorate per directly elected assembly member will range from 150,000 in the smallest region to nearly 350,000 in the largest region. People in Cornwall do not identify with Bristol; people in Dover have little in common with Banbury. Arguably, only the north-east has a coherent or readily recognisable regional identity. If the regions are to work, they must be natural entities with a sense of identity.
      The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) asked why I am dissatisfied with the current regional boundaries, when they were indeed established by the previous Government. However, those regions were established for convenience as a tier of administrative government and, as vastly disparate areas, are simply not suitable for the introduction of democratically elected institutions.
      Mr. Edward Davey: For the second time in debates on the Bill the hon. Gentleman has said that the Conservatives now recognise that people in the north-east have regional aspirations. Will he tell the Committee how the Conservatives would allow the people of the north-east to realise their legitimate regional aspirations?
      Mr. Hammond: We recognize—the hon. Gentleman has heard this before—that people in some parts of the United Kingdom feel that decision making in London is remote from them. We believe that it is essential to strengthen local government to ensure genuine devolution of power, rooted in natural communities in cities and counties where people have a true sense of identity. That is the way to strengthen the system of government in this country.
      Joyce Quin: How would strengthening local government respond to regional identity, which the hon. Gentleman has conceded exists in the case of the north-east?
      Mr. Hammond: I said that regional identity may exist in the north-east. Of the Government's proposed regions, that is the one where, by general consensus, there is most likely to be interest in a regional identity. If the proposal is to work, it must be an all-England solution. That is the point that I was about to make. If the Government want to engage the population, they must start from the bottom and work up.
      Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
      Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress. We have a very constrained timetable for debate today.
      Mr. Davey: On that point—
      Mr. Hammond: Very well. I shall give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Davey: I want to explore the hon. Gentleman's logic a little further. He said that there were regional aspirations in the north-east, but that those could be realised only through regional government throughout England. Does he not realise the logical inconsistency of his argument?
      Mr. Hammond: No, that is not what I said. I said that if the solution is to be workable, it must be applicable throughout England. It is no good the Government proposing a solution that purports to be a resolution to the question of governance across England, if it applies in only one or, at most, two regions.
      Jim Knight rose—
      Mr. George Howarth rose—
      Mr. Hammond: I shall make some progress. Hon. Gentlemen will have plenty of opportunity to speak later.
      Paragraph (a) of the amendment refers to new clause 3, which will be considered in due course in Standing Committee. New clause 3 establishes a review of the regions based on submissions from local authorities. It requires the Secretary of State to invite all local authorities to submit proposals to him for the creation of regions for the purposes of the Bill. It also requires the Secretary of State to invite other persons and bodies that appear to him to represent relevant interests to submit proposals, and to ask the Electoral Commission to comment on those submissions and make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions, having regard to the desirability of all regions being approximately equal in size—one of the great flaws in the Government's proposal—and having regard also to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly support the Opposition in one of their amendments on clause 2. I am considering supporting them on this group. First, however, I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's thinking. My argument, as someone representing a Merseyside constituency, is that Merseyside does not fit neatly into the fictional north-west. If I supported the hon. Gentleman on amendment No. 46, and in the unlikely event that it was carried, would that, in his opinion, enable Merseyside to come up with a totally different solution?
      Mr. Hammond: That is the purpose of paragraph (a) of amendment No. 46 and new clause 3, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied. Essentially, the local authorities in the proposed regions would be invited to make their own proposals. The Electoral Commission—not the Secretary of State—an independent body that already controls the boundary committee and has expertise in these matters, would consider those proposals and present to the Secretary of State a proposal for a sensible structure of regions that would allow identities such as the one about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned to be effectively recognised.
      Andrew George (St. Ives): The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the original boundaries were set purely

      885
      for administrative convenience. He says that the proposal in new clause 3 is to establish regions of approximately the same size, but are not regions that reflect regional identities bound to vary in size? He is simply creating regions that reflect administrative convenience, not identity.
      Mr. Hammond: I accept entirely that there will always be a tension, but it is no good the Minister nodding. What he is proposing are regions that do not reflect any sense of identity. What does Banbury have in common with Dover? We have already heard that the people of Lincolnshire do not want to be included in the east midlands. We have all heard in Committee that the people of Shropshire do not regard themselves as being in the west midlands. The problem already exists, and it is compounded by the huge disparity in size between the different regions that the existing structure proposes.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he clarify whether he proposes that the boundary review should cover London, as that is not clear in the amendment?
      Mr. Hammond: Of course not. The subject under discussion is the situation in England, excluding Greater London, which has been dealt with in previous legislation, as the Minister is well aware.
      The proposals seem the sensible and obvious way of proceeding if there is a genuine desire for an all-England workable regional government solution. It is the absurdity and arbitrariness of the boundaries that have generated the most hostility to the Government's proposals. Their only response is simply to say that it would take too long to conduct a boundary review before implementing a referendum, but they are prepared to delay a referendum while a local government review is carried out.
      Paragraph (b) of the subsection set out in the amendment deals with our concerns about pre-legislative referendums. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) pointed out that we are asking the public to vote for a pig in a poke. They have no idea of what powers regional assemblies would have or what authority they would represent. We must trust the Minister when he says that the detail is in a White Paper or consultation document, but we would rather see the measures in place to ensure that people are aware of precisely what the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies would be if they opted for them, including the tax-raising powers.
      There is an almost bizarre contrast between the Government's absolute and unshakeable commitment to ensuring that local government reorganisation is done and dusted, reported on and established in black and white before a referendum is held and their apparent failure to set out the substance of the powers that will be given to the regional assemblies that will be created if the referendum is successful. People will be asked to vote when the substantive issues are still unclear, but we are told that the subsidiary issue must be resolved first. Incidentally, neither do the Government propose that the electoral boundaries of the districts used in a region for the election of regional assemblymen will be defined before a referendum takes place.
      886
      Paragraph (c) would require there to be substantial business support in a region before a referendum is called. The Bill already provides for a so-called test of an appropriate level of interest in holding a referendum, although that is undefined. One of the Government's principal arguments in favour of regional assemblies has been that they will boost regional economic growth. At the very least, that case has not been proven. Indeed, in Scotland, the opposite appears to be the case. Scotland has enjoyed negative—if that is the right word—GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and the first quarter of 2002, which is the classic definition of a recession. Overall, in the year up to the second quarter of 2002, its GDP grew by just 0.3 per cent., which is not much more than a 10th of growth of the UK as a whole.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I hate to refer back to the Scottish issue again, but I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that any Scottish industrialist or business person—I know quite a few of them—would argue that the reason for the relative slowness of the Scottish economy is the Scottish Parliament. It is clearly due to the decline in the technology industries. There is no argument about that in Scotland, so I do not know where he got that idea from.
      Mr. Hammond: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman: I got it from the CBI, which is using Scotland as an example that England should not follow, as it shows how additional bureaucracy and layers of government can impose burdens that restrict economic growth.
      I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confused about that, because it appears that the Deputy Prime Minister is also confused. On 20 November, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), he said:
      "He must have been asleep for months, during which time the CBI and other representatives of industry have made it clear that they are supportive of the proposals."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 630.]
      For the record, and to clear up any residual confusion in the mind of the Deputy Prime Minister, I shall quote from a Confederation of British Industry press release issued on 23 September, which stated that its members
      "have given 'a vote of no confidence' in government plans to develop the English regions."
      In case that was not clear enough for the Deputy Prime Minister, the director general of the CBI bothered to go all the way to the Labour party conference to say it again. There, he said:
      "Business doesn't believe that regional assemblies will deliver … There is a real danger they could make a bad situation even worse."
      I would suggest to the Minister, therefore, that it was perhaps not my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch who had been asleep for all those months but the Deputy Prime Minister, at the Labour party conference. Perhaps those who attend Labour party conferences will have some sympathy with him.
      5.45 pm
      Regional assemblies will take control of the regional development agencies. The creation of elected regional assemblies is thus a key issue for business in the regions,

      887
      and business interests have to be taken into account. Business will clearly have no vote in a referendum, if one is called, so it is right and proper that the Secretary of State should be obliged to establish—before calling a referendum—that there is substantial business support for such a referendum in the region in question.
      Mr. Derek Foster: The hon. Gentleman is now arguing that the regional assemblies taking responsibility for the regional development agencies is a substantial reason for the CBI being against the proposal. I remember distinctly, however, having campaigned for regional development agencies for 25 years, that the CBI was almost entirely opposed to RDAs—not only in the north-east, but almost everywhere else as well. This therefore seems like complete opportunism on the part of the CBI, and the Tory party is erecting it as a hurdle for the Bill to jump over.
      Mr. Hammond: It is interesting that Labour Members have spent most of the last five years citing the CBI's support for everything that they are doing, whenever the CBI has made observations that the Government find helpful. Now that the CBI has made an objective observation expressing the views of business in the regions about this proposal, Labour Members want to demonise it. That is very telling.
      Jim Knight rose—
      Mr. David Borrow rose—
      Mr. Hammond: I shall make some progress if I may, because there is quite a lot to get through, and I am sure that other hon. Members will want to contribute to this debate, which is only one of the three debates that we wish to have in the first two and a half hours of our allocated time.
      Paragraph (d) in amendment No. 46 seeks to introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to produce an independent auditor's report. The Labour party manifesto of 1997 stated:
      "In time we will introduce legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want elected regional government. Only where clear popular consent is established will arrangements be made for elected regional assemblies. This would require a predominantly unitary system of local government, as presently exists … and confirmation by independent auditors that no additional public expenditure overall would he involved."
      That was Labour's commitment. Our charge is that the Bill will create an extra tier of government, more bureaucracy, more red tape, more tax, more spending, more politicians, more talk, more expensive headquarters buildings and, if Labour controls any of the assemblies, no doubt more cronyism and sleaze as well.
      The Minister must accept this amendment, because its words are not my words, but the words of the Labour party manifesto, copied into the amendment. The Labour party, when it was bidding for the job of government, said that there would be independent audit to ensure no additional public expenditure; now that it
      888
      has the job, it should stick to its word; otherwise, the Minister must tell us how much additional public money and additional tax this whole edifice is going to cost us.
      Amendment No. 24 seeks to introduce a slightly more objective test to replace the utterly meaningless one in clause 1(4) of the Bill, which states:
      "The first condition is that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum."
      What does "considered the level of interest" mean? Does it mean that, in the time it takes his Jaguar to get from New Palace Yard back to his departmental office, the Secretary of State has had a think about it in the back of his car? This is no test at all. There is no requirement that the interest be substantial and no requirement even that that interest be determined as representing a certain level of support for the proposals. There could be a lot of opposition to the Bill, but it would be perverse indeed to use that as a ground for calling a referendum.
      Mr. Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be interest across a particular region, not just in a small area of it?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That issue, in a slightly different form, will be addressed by a subsequent amendment, and I am sure that he will have something to say about it.
      I suggest that it will be sensible to hold a referendum only if there is substantial support for elected regional assemblies, if that is what the Secretary of State has determined. I also suggest that, in practice, that is the political judgment that the Deputy Prime Minister will make, so let us include it in the Bill. It is hardly conceivable that he will consider the support in a region, determine that it is overwhelmingly hostile and then call a referendum. Instead of having woolly words that mean effectively nothing, let us get the Bill to say what is going to happen.
      Amendment No. 24 would require the Secretary of State to consider on the evidence available to him the probability of a certain level of support for a yes vote. However, the idea that some threshold of support for the proposal—the Minister for Local Government and the Regions prefers to call it a hurdle—has to exist before we enter into such wholesale constitutional restructuring caused angst in Standing Committee.
      Originally, I expressed that idea in amendments as a requirement for a minimum percentage turnout. The Minister, in fairness to him, pointed out that that would have perverse outcomes, as it would create an incentive for people opposed to the proposition to abstain. We listened to what he had to say, went away and reformulated the threshold concept around a percentage of the electorate recording a yes vote, which would not produce perverse incentives such as the one which he suggested.
      We have chosen 25 per cent. of the eligible electorate voting for the proposition, but that is contentious. Many of my hon. Friends will, I suspect, think it too low a threshold, but the Minister says that it is ridiculous to set any threshold at all. What is ridiculous is postulating a major constitutional change on the back of the

      889
      support of a tiny fraction of the electorate. The burden must be on those who propose to change the status quo to show support for that change.
      Jim Knight: I am interested in why the hon. Gentleman has chosen 25 per cent. I assume it is because he thinks that being unable to achieve 25 per cent. voting yes would mean no legitimacy on such an important constitutional matter. Given that President Bush got less than 25 per cent. of the votes of those of voting age in the United States presidential election—I have checked the facts—does he regard President Bush as having no legitimacy?
      Mr. Hammond: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly why I have chosen 25 per cent. as a figure to put before the Committee. My elementary mathematics tells me that 25 per cent. represents a simple equality of half the electorate voting. He is trying to equate an advisory referendum with an election, and he well knows that we have already had that debate in Standing Committee. Interestingly, perhaps, the 25 per cent. threshold would have legitimised the Scottish and Welsh referendums, but not, by a small margin, the Greater London referendum.
      Mr. Borrow: The amendments are about the judgment that the Secretary of State would make of the support in a region for a referendum, but a subsequent amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman calls for an all-England referendum in which all regions would vote on the same day. If this proposal is accepted, I assume that he will withdraw the amendment on an all-England referendum?
      Mr. Hammond: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Minister rises to his feet to announce that he has suddenly seen the light and wants to accept amendment No. 46, I shall immediately go into a huddle with my hon. Friends. We may well want radically to change what we are putting before the Committee.
      Mr. David Curry: My hon. Friend is something of a high-hurdler and I am a bit of a high-hurdler as well, but the Government are distinctly low-hurdlers. He will recall the threshold to trigger referendums on directly elected mayors and no doubt speculate as to the turnout in those elections and their unsatisfactory nature for the Labour party, particularly in the north-east.
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend astutely identifies an issue. The Minister's difficulty is that he does not like 25 per cent., but he has to agree—indeed, he has agreed—that, in principle, there needs to be a certain level of participation and a certain level of support for the proposition to be legitimised. However, he has so far successfully avoided putting a number on that, and he will not say whether a plurality of turnout of 10 or 20 per cent. would be enough to legitimise such a major constitutional change. I hope that we shall hear him speak on that subject this evening. Let him suggest the appropriate threshold for change.
      Mr. George Howarth: Following the intervention of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon
      890
      (Mr. Curry), perhaps I should say that I was a high-jumper at school. I suspect that, after today, I will be for the high jump with my Whips. Amendment No. 24 says:
      "on the basis of the evidence available … it is probable that at least twenty-five per cent. of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum … would vote in favour".
      How should that be judged?
      Mr. Hammond: Unfortunately, we are constrained by the Bill's architecture, as is the hon. Gentleman. That is a test that the Secretary of State would have to apply before calling a referendum. When we debate clause 2, the hon. Gentleman will see that we have sought to address a yes vote of less than 25 per cent. of the eligible electorate, whatever the Secretary of State's judgment in advance of a referendum. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall address that point now by referring to amendment No. 23, which is in this group. It deals with the test that the Deputy Prime Minister would have to apply before calling a referendum, but he would still be free to go ahead with creating an elected regional assembly if the turnout were very low—for example, if only 20 per cent. were achieved and 11 per cent. of the electorate voted yes.
      Sadly, owing to the nature of the Bill, there is no scope to introduce a test for setting up regional assemblies, so we have tabled this amendment, which would add to the preamble to the question a statement of intent from the Government. I do not often offer to draft such statements for them, but on this occasion I thought I would. That statement is that the Government would not intend to proceed if less than 25 per cent. voted yes.
      Some of my hon. Friends may think that I am naïve to assume that the Government would feel bound in any way, shape or form just because they made a statement of intent. Consider their 1997 manifesto commitment and the litter of other broken pledges and failed targets that surround them. However, it is the best that I can do within the constraints of the Bill's architecture. I hope that it allows other Members to address the substantive issue.
      That brings me to amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which are offered in the alternative, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) would say in his lawyerly way in Standing Committee. If the Government reject amendments Nos. 46 and 24 and leave in place the absurd non-test of clause 1(4), which states that
      "the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest",
      without setting any parameters as to what he has concluded, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would at least tighten the process of consideration. Subsections (6) and (7), which those amendments would delete and amend, say that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest if he orders the referendum within two years of ordering a local government review.
      So provided that the Secretary of State made such an order within two years of setting off a local government review, he would be deemed to have carried out that consideration, whether he had done so or not. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would remove those paragraphs and require the Secretary of State, before ordering a review, always to consider the items specified in clause 1(8), namely,
      "views expressed and information and evidence provided to him",

      891
      and
      "such published material as he thinks appropriate."
      I would not have thought that that was a particularly onerous task for the Secretary of State, and it would make his judgment reviewable at least in theory, which his decision under subsection (4) almost certainly would not be.
      6 pm
      Mr. Clelland: I do not want to make a long speech. I merely want to get to the bottom of the Conservatives' motives. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said a few moments ago—I think I quote him accurately—"We want to dispose of this matter appropriately". That, I believe, is what the Conservatives want to do: they want to dispose of the matter altogether. They probably think that a wholesale reorganisation of regional boundaries, if it happened, would take so long that a general election would be upon us which, in their own pathetic minds, they imagine they might have a chance of winning. While that is not impossible, of course, it is very unlikely.
      I see no need for a review of regional boundaries. As I said earlier, the current boundaries were drawn up by the last Conservative Government, who seemed to think them appropriate then.
      Mr. Peter Luff: I would be entirely content for there to be a Government office for the west midlands for statistical and administrative purposes, but I would not be content with a severing of the link with Gloucestershire, which is important in the context of the Three Choirs Festival and the three counties showground. I would not be content to be run by Birmingham. Administration and government are very different. I wish the hon. Gentleman would understand that crucial distinction.
      Mr. Clelland: I think I understand it quite well. I was about to say that as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent any Government or Secretary of State from making proposals to change regional boundaries in the future. We are not drawing up boundaries for ever. Indeed, once we have regional government regions themselves may well suggest boundary changes, and there will be nothing to prevent such changes.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister said that it would take a year to review local government. The regions can be dealt with at the same time: that would certainly not take longer than a year. The process will not exactly be prolonged. Does it not make much more sense to sort out the boundaries before proceeding further? The hon. Gentleman's region contains perhaps 1.6 million people, and he may be content with his boundary, but the south-east is very much larger and shares no integument across its boundaries.
      Mr. Clelland: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism. I think the process would take a great deal longer. I also think the Conservatives know fine well
      892
      that their proposals would mean the end of regional government this side of a general election. That is what this is all about.
      Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he may be expressing a self-interested view? I have made it clear that I am happy for the north-east to proceed as quickly as possible, but there is not a settled belief in many other so-called regions that the boundaries are acceptable. Whether there is a one-off wide-ranging review, or whether the north-east goes ahead and the "difficult" areas become a part of a separate review by the Secretary of State or the boundary commission, the issues need to be addressed; otherwise there will be no regional government in the bulk of England.
      Mr. Clelland: I think that if the Conservatives get their way and the Liberals are minded to support them, there will indeed be no regional assemblies. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should declare an interest when defending what is best for my region, I plead guilty. I certainly believe that regional government would be good for the north-east.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) prayed in aid the director general of the CBI, who apparently said that businesses were not keen on the idea of regional government. The director general recently told the Deputy Prime Minister's Department that most businesses considered the planning control system to be a major burden on new business development. A later survey found, however, that most businesses ranked it 13th out of 15 in terms of importance. I do not think that the director general of the CBI necessarily always represents the views of his members.
      Matthew Green: This is a very timid Bill, given that it establishes no more than a shell of regional government. One of the most disappointing aspects that emerged in the Standing Committee was the fact that the Government see it as a final settlement rather than a stepping stone to the devolving of real power from this place down to the regions. I must tell Labour Members who share our wish for such devolution that this will produce no more than a weak imitation, which is not intended to go any further.
      More worrying, so much is wrapped up in the Bill that it has itself reduced the chances of success in referendums. Certain elements of the Government—perhaps in No. 10—who do not want regional government may have had a hand in this, as under the Bill failure is almost certain in some if not most of the referendums. We want regional government and we want referendums to be won, although not with the boundaries proposed in the Bill.
      Our amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 34 seek to decouple local government reform from regional government, for a good reason. As I have said, we want referendums to be won. A single question linking the two issues will cause people to vote "no", not because they do not want regional government but because they do not like the local government reform that is being foisted on them.
      Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we like the principle of unitary authorities, but we do not think

      893
      they should be imposed on local people from the centre. Local people should have a choice. It could be provided in one referendum or there could be a separate vote—various procedures are possible—but the decoupling is necessary.
      Let us take the example of a two-tier authority such as Worcestershire. If there were a referendum in the west midlands, most people in Worcestershire, who might not want local government change, could find themselves ruled out because the overwhelming majority of those in Coventry, Birmingham and West Bromwich can vote for local government change in Worcestershire. The people in Worcestershire could be overruled by those already in unitary authorities.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the toughness and definiteness of the choice that must be made between historic identification with a county and future identification with a region is precisely the answer to the trumped-up Conservative amendments?
      Matthew Green: I will come to the amendments tabled by the Conservatives. There could have been grounds for our supporting them, but they have phrased them in such a way that they would not achieve what they set out to achieve.
      Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman knows that I disagree on the question of regional government, but does he agree that the people of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley and Wolverhampton face no tough choices, because they are already in unitary authorities? The tough choices are for the people of the counties of Worcestershire, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Warwickshire, but they can be overridden by the majority, who are already in unitary authorities. That is why the proposal is so profoundly undemocratic.
      Matthew Green: Absolutely, and we can see similar situations throughout the country. We recognise that there is strong demand for a regional assembly in the north-east. People in Northumbria may not be particularly enthusiastic about local government change, yet it will be forced on them by a majority of people in Newcastle and elsewhere.
      Jim Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman tell my constituents in Dorset how many representatives he thinks that they need? Many of them have a parish or town councillor, a district councillor, a county councillor, a Member of Parliament and seven members of the European Parliament. If we add in this extra layer of government without taking one away, they will have, through the regional chamber, a representative attached to the area in which they live, as well as the top-up members. That is ridiculous.
      Matthew Green: What we are saying is that we should trust local people to be able to decide what they want. Local people will instinctively oppose having too many representatives, but why not trust them, rather than saying, "We know what's best for everyone around the country, so we'll tell them"? On a more serious point, if we have proper regional devolution in England and some powers are taken away from this place, we ought
      894
      to look at reducing the number of MPs. Lots of people have been banging on about jobs, but in that regard perhaps we should be focusing on this place, rather than on local councils.
      As I said, the purpose of our three amendments—we will seek a vote, if we may, on amendment No. 34—is to decouple the process of local government reform from that of regional government. It is not simply that we are worried about the effect on a regional government referendum; we are also concerned about the fact that one test is the level of interest, which the Minister must discover. In fact, we in Shropshire would like a unitary Shropshire. It consists of five districts and one county, and all the political parties are in agreement in wanting a unitary Shropshire. We do not want to have to wait for that for a long time, but at this rate the only way that we will get it is through a regional government referendum.
      The Minister has made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no other way that we are going to get a unitary Shropshire. However, if he judges that the level of interest in regional government across the west midlands does not justify a referendum, and he continues to do so for some years to come, we will never get local government reform in Shropshire. The decoupling process works in both directions. There are some areas that need local government reform, but which cannot wait for a regional government referendum; likewise, in other areas people would vote against regional government not because they oppose it, but because of the problems associated with local government reform.
      I want to touch on the two substantive Conservative amendments—Nos. 46 and 24—that, by their own admission, form the crux of this group. In theory, we have a lot of sympathy with elements of amendment No. 46, particularly that concerning regional boundaries. Although we like to tease the Conservatives that the boundaries for the current regions are theirs, if we are frank, the reality is that they established them for purposes other than for elected regional assemblies. As it happens, the boundaries that they drew up in the north-east probably do match the aspirations of the people there, but in many parts of the UK such boundaries do not. It is clear that this is an issue in Cornwall, and in Committee we touched on the question of the Isles of Scilly. One of the points of regional government is to bring local government closer to the people, but elements of local government control in those places would move from London—in some cases, from the Isles of Scilly or from Cornwall, because sadly, the principle works in both directions—to Bristol.
      6.15 pm
      I am not an expert in these matters, but I understand that by most transport links it takes an awful lot longer to get from the Isles of Scilly to Bristol than it takes to get to London. That would lead to a rather odd situation.
      Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time. I have two questions for him. First, why does he cite Bristol as the base for the south-west, given that it is highly possible that it would be Exeter, which is certainly much more straightforward for people from the Isles of Scilly to get to? Secondly,

      895
      why does he seek to decouple the boundary reviews of local government, while supporting the coupling of reviews of regional boundaries? He wants to simplify matters for the elector by uncoupling, but now he seeks a coupling. That seems contradictory.
      Matthew Green: I am slightly lost as to the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's second point. I mention Bristol only because the Government's administrative region for the south-west has its central offices there, and I believe that the quango regional assembly also meets there. I admit that another place could be chosen, but Bristol seems a reasonable assumption. However, before we get too excited about what the regions can or cannot choose to do, we should bear in mind that if the assemblies follow the terms of the Government's White Paper, they will not even be able to choose their own health advisers; they will have to accept the person that the Secretary of State appoints. Indeed, the regions may not even have the power to decide where the assemblies sit.
      Mr. David Curry: Given that the assemblies will have so little power, why should they not just hire a charabanc and tour round the regions, saving us all the costs associated with the Scottish Parliament?
      Matthew Green: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
      In other regions, boundary issues may well arise. Frankly, in my own region the people of Shropshire, of Herefordshire and of Worcestershire do not feel that they are part of the west midlands; however, the people of the north-east probably do feel that they are part of the north-east region. In my view and the view of many in Shropshire, it would probably make a lot more sense for Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, which share a common heritage, to be grouped together. Perhaps other people would say the same of their counties. My region consists of 1.7 million people, which is not that far off the population of the north-east. However, we cannot possibly consider such a grouping because the regional boundaries as laid down are sacrosanct.
      Mr. Adrian Flook: Has the hon. Gentleman calculated how many regions England would consist of if his amalgamation of more local councils were replicated throughout the rest of the country?
      Matthew Green: No, because I do not consider it not right for me to go round the country drawing lines on maps; however, the Government obviously think that they can do so. That is the point of having a review—we would not want to prescribe the total number of regions, or their size.
      We have heard that the south-east, with a population of 8 million, is the largest region judged by those terms, but I think that all of us accept that it is probably also the region with the least well-defined regional identity. Perhaps that is why enthusiasm for regional government appears to be lowest in the south-east.
      Mr. Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Matthew Green: I shall make some progress, if I may. Perhaps what the south-east needs is to be broken up into
      896
      a couple of regions. That might make a lot more sense, and as a result some of people's objections—even, ultimately, of Conservative Members—would disappear.
      On the Conservatives' approach to this issue, amendment No. 46 wraps up with boundary reviews lots of other aspects that are perhaps undesirable. They are proceeding by way of reference to new clause 3—the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has touched on it—which we are not debating today. It is rather odd that the new clause should refer to the desirability that all regions be of approximately equal size. I am not entirely clear whether that means in terms of population or area. Population might be the more sensible of the two; we can think of plenty of reasons why authorities being the same size in terms of area might not make sense. For example, the south-west is relatively under-populated, whereas the metropolitan areas of the west midlands are densely populated. However, even if the proposal referred to population, we would struggle to get natural communities from it. One of the reasons why we are unable to support amendment no. 46 is that the Conservatives have gone about the matter in an undesirable way.
      Mr. Raynsford: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some interest and his most recent remarks with a certain amount of sympathy. Clearly he would like a major review of boundaries to be undertaken. Does he have a view on the minimum size that would make a region viable? Specifically, given the presence of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in the Chamber, would he consider Cornwall sufficiently large to be a viable region in its own right?
      Matthew Green: That is exactly what a review would look at. [Interruption.] I do not have a view because I do not know a lot about Cornwall and its viability as a separate region. My hon. Friend would know a lot more about that.
      Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend accept that the smallest size that a region could be is no smaller than the largest tier of local government? If we raise our eyes above the level of the parish and the often insular debate within the UK and look at the wider world, we see a variety of regions of different sizes in different countries that work perfectly well. Can we not accept that there are regions—and nations in some cases—in other parts of the world that have populations smaller than that of Cornwall?
      Matthew Green: My hon. Friend makes his point exceedingly well and that is the sort of issue that we would want a review to look at. We believe that such a review could be concluded within about 12 months.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has attacked the phrasing of the new clause. Does he accept that the new clause would require the Electoral Commission to have regard to the desirability of all regions being of approximately equal size, as well as the need to reflect identities? According to the Bill's own language, that exact same requirement would be placed on the

      897
      boundary committee. It is not an absolute requirement, but a question of "having regard." In addition, we have already had this debate in Committee.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is muddling up regional government and local government. Even within local government, we see different sizes of unitary authority. Rutland is the smallest of the unitary authorities now. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Rutland should not be a unitary authority? People in Rutland should perhaps know of this new move from the Conservatives.
      Amendment No. 24 would put a threshold in the Bill, but I cannot see why the Conservatives are keen on having a threshold. Frankly, the only thing they are currently good at is going around the country stirring up apathy. Given that they are led by the quiet man, it is no surprise that they want to see as little activity as possible.
      The key point is that the referendums are indicative and not binding. The Minister—and, presumably, at least part of this House—must make a decision before a regional assembly is set up, as the Minister will probably confirm when he winds up.
      Setting a threshold of 25 per cent. voting in favour in a referendum is not putting a hurdle before the Minister; ultimately, it is putting a hurdle before the House's ability to decide things for itself. That is what I find strange about the amendment. The referendums are not the final say; they are indicative. Once again, we will not support the Conservatives on amendment No. 24. I only hope that when the Bill gets to another place, we might be able to find agreement on amendments on boundaries on which we can agree. It is a shame that the relevant amendments that we tabled were not selected.
      Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I want to address my remarks—reasonably briefly, I hope—to amendment No. 46, which has been spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The amendment deals directly with the principle of a pre-legislative referendum. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, just said that we did not need to worry because the referendums were merely indicative and advisory. He said that a yes vote in a region would come back to the House for a decision, and that would be the decisive moment.
      With respect, that ignores the effect of the political dynamic. If a referendum in a particular region resulted in a vote in favour of the establishment of an assembly, there would be a strong political dynamic to carry out the expressed wishes of the electorate of that region. It is for that reason, and because I recognise the power of such a referendum result, that it is important for the House to consider what it is being asked to agree to as a principle to be put before the electorate in one of the referendums envisaged by the Bill.
      Andrew George: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that political dynamic or momentum would have any legitimacy—and that the Minister would give support—if the turnout were less than 10 per cent.?
      Mr. Dorrell: I agree, which is why I support the introduction of some hurdle.
      898
      It is hard to imagine a more fundamental question for the House to address before agreeing to the principle of holding a referendum than the provision of a proper answer to the question as to what should be the powers and functions of such an assembly were it to be established, whatever the boundaries. I find it difficult to engage in an argument about what the boundaries should be when we are still wholly ignorant of the structure of powers and functions that the electorate are being asked to envisage. I do not regard this as a pedantic piece of small print and I make no apology for asking the House to pause to consider which issues would have to be addressed in the context of a referendum debate.
      The services involved in the combination of the establishment of a regional assembly and consequent local government reorganisation—which, as the explanatory notes make clear, the Government regard as a precondition for allowing a referendum to go ahead—include the local education service, which makes up 60 per cent. of everything done by county councils in shire counties.
      The second most important area in the provision of local services in a two-tier authority is the social services department. Conceivably, by virtue of involving social services in the reform—and by virtue of what the Government have said about the probability of power being delegated away from central Government towards regional assemblies—the debate would have to involve the future structure of health provision in the regions as well. That is not to mention the delivery of transport services around the regions. Those are the four key areas on which domestic political debate concentrates—the delivery of education, health, social services and transport. All four services would be caught up in the reorganisation that would follow a yes vote in a referendum on the establishment of a regional assembly.
      6.30 pm
      The House is being asked to agree to a proposal that a precondition for any assembly referendum should be that the boundaries must be sorted out. However, no provision or recommendation has been made about the consequences of a yes vote for the delivery of the core public services that I have listed.
      The Government have made two potentially contradictory proposals about the consequences of reorganisation for those services. First, as I have noted already, the Government have said that more of the powers going to the regional assemblies would come from central Government than from the current tiers of local government. Secondly, it is clear that, in any area in which a referendum is held, there must be a parallel proposal for the establishment of a unitary authority.
      One Labour Member contended that that does not mean necessarily that county councils must be abolished, but it is hard to see how a unitary local government structure based on the principle that districts should be abolished and that power should be concentrated in counties could be delivered. That proposal is unlikely to command wide public support. We should not agree to allow referendums on

      899
      establishing regional assemblies to go ahead without clear Government proposals about the consequences for delivery of the four core services that I listed earlier.
      Jim Knight: I have some sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and those problems are touched on in the White Paper. I should like a draft Bill to be published in the next Session of Parliament, so that they could be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Would the right hon. Gentleman support that as a happy compromise, or perhaps a middle way? I also want to respond to what he said about unitary counties. It would be perfectly reasonable to take a look at the current district structure of where I live in Dorset. The districts of Purbeck and of Weymouth and Portland are not viable, in terms of their size. People are more emotionally attached to the historic county of Dorset than to the districts, and services are run on that basis.
      Mr. Dorrell: I do not want to get into an argument about what the focus of a proposed unitary structure should be. I want to pitch my tent firmly on the territory that the Government should be clear about what they are proposing before they ask people to vote. The hon. Gentleman suggests that a draft Bill should come before the House before the referendum programme begins. I should be the first to agree with that proposition, which represents a huge step forward. However, the House must take seriously its function of probing the Government's proposals, calling the Government to account and setting down the terms under which this huge proposed reorganisation of the structure of local government should be allowed to go ahead. Hon. Members must not simply hope, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the Government might—out of the goodness of their heart and if it fits in with the timetable of the parliamentary draftsmen—introduce a draft Bill before a referendum is held.
      The referendums will be about the reorganisation of the delivery of core public services. Before any are held, the House must have the opportunity to tease out the practical implications of a yes vote for the delivery of the education service and for the links between social services and the national health service. Will there be a greater democratic involvement in the delivery of the NHS, and would that be consistent with the principles of the NHS as it has developed over the past 50 years? Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the delivery of public services in Britain. They are not mere details to be covered in the footnotes of a Bill apparently more interested in regional government boundaries than in the delivery of those core services to electors.
      Mr. Derek Foster: I detect some confusion about the architecture of what is being proposed. The proposed regional assemblies will be strategic and slimline authorities. I understand that a reorganisation of local government would have deep implications for the delivery of education services, but the regional assemblies will be slimline and strategic. The matters with which they will deal are already being discussed by
      900
      one configuration of regional authority or another, and the proposal means only that that discussion will have a democratic dimension.
      Mr. Dorrell: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is focusing on the proposed slimline regional assembly. I recognise the rhetoric, but I doubt that matters would turn out that way in reality. Will he set out the implications for unitary local government in the area where a slimline regional assembly is to be established? The Government insist that those implications should be thought through before a referendum is held. If slimline regional assemblies as he envisaged are set up, the delivery of local government services such as education, social services, transport and, possibly, health would have to be fundamentally reorganised.
      My contention is that we need to see the detail of that reorganisation before we agree to allow the referendums to be held.
      Mr. Robert Key: As do the people.
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that that is what the people want as well. More importantly, we need to allow time for the complexities to be worked through. Any such reorganisation would involve institutions that have grown up over a long period. If we act in haste to reorganise local government, we will have plenty of years to repent at leisure, as we have learned to our cost.
      Jim Knight: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Will not the boundary committee look at the strategic functions in a local government reorganisation? The unitary proposal would be made clear to electors when they cast their ballots about a regional assembly. The democratic choice would be offered to electors.
      Mr. Dorrell: With great respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right.
      Mr. Dorrell: The Minister says that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is right. Is the Minister endorsing the hon. Gentleman's version? I do not need to give way to the Minister, which will be a relief to those of my hon. Friends who want to contribute to the debate. However, the suggestion does not answer the point, because the complexity of public service delivery must be thought out in detail. It is not good enough for the boundary committee merely to propose on the back of an envelope an outline scheme about how education will be delivered after the reorganisation.
      If the House were being asked to consider the reorganisation of the schools service separately, no one would argue with the proposition that the normal way of doing that was for the Government to present proposals, publish a Green Paper and a White Paper and go through a legislative process. Yet we are proposing to do that for social services, transport and conceivably the health service as well, all spatchcocked

      901
      up into the same piece of legislation to be dealt with by the boundary committee. I do not think that that is a sensible way of dealing with core public services.
      I focused on the implications for those services from an organisational, managerial point of view. They are complex services and I am concerned that if we do it this way, institutions that have developed for good reasons will be changed without proper consideration. There is another reason why I am concerned about abolishing existing institutions and seeking to put in place a regional assembly as the new apex for political accountability for those services on the basis of a single, insufficiently informed referendum. If we are honest about what our constituents are saying, we know that there is already a problem in health and education. People do not really know who is responsible for the core services; they are already too far divorced from political accountability.
      The political accountability of all the services that I have identified is already too diffuse within the bureaucracy. We should seek to make political accountability for those services clearer so that people know who is responsible for delivery and hold them to account. I fear that if we set out to deliver that by abolishing tiers of local government in respect of which there is a sense of local community and a local political process and replacing them with regions so that my constituents in Leicestershire are asked to go into an east midlands region where there is no sense of local regional community, that will lead to a further divorce between voters and the people responsible for the core public services. Not only will those public services be less efficient, they will be less accountable. If we manage to take those two tricks together, we shall do a huge disservice to democracy.
      I do not regard the Bill as simply a minor party political quibble but as a major threat to good and accountable governance. As I said earlier, I think that it is inappropriate—a massively inadequate word—for us to address these issues in a debate lasting two and a half hours under a guillotine.
      Mr. George Howarth: I seek your indulgence, Sir Michael, and hope that you will allow me to spend a few moments explaining my position on the Bill. It will then be more obvious why I will be supporting—or not—the various amendments to it.
      I abstained when the House voted on the Bill's Second Reading. I thought long and hard about it. I certainly did not mention anything to do with regional government in my election material—in fact, I was careful not to do so. However, I accept that my party manifesto contained a commitment to regional government and I thought that the wisest course of action on Second Reading was to absent myself and not to oppose the Bill.
      I have objections to the Bill in principle. I respect my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, whose views on this are long held. Indeed, I have opposed his view for an equally long time. I believe that the Bill is like sleepwalking piecemeal into constitutional change, the long-term consequences of which we have not fully worked out. However, the Bill has had its Second Reading, and from here on in, my approach is to consider the amendments proposed to it, see what it looks like on Third Reading and make an appropriate decision then.
      902
      6.45 pm
      I have genuinely tried to see whether there is any scope for me to support the Opposition's amendments. I listened to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) carefully, and I hope that he accepts that my interventions were not debating points but a genuine attempt to find out what was behind his thinking. Amendment No. 46 is the key amendment in the group. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are very sensible, and if the amendment had confined itself to a review of the boundaries and setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies, I would have been minded to support it. I listened carefully to what he said about paragraphs (c) and (d). I am sure that it is not intentional, but if the amendment were accepted, paragraphs (c) and (d) would effectively turn it into a wrecking amendment. They would set unrealistic targets and I do not believe that a Bill that has had its Second Reading should include such draconian targets.
      Mr. Hammond: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the target of no additional public expenditure, which was a Labour party manifesto commitment in 1997, is unrealistic?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there would be bound to be differences of opinion as to what such an audit was measuring. What was included in an audit could be a cause of continuous and protracted argument. I am not opposed to gauging the opinion of the business community—that should happen regularly and frequently—but why single out business when other sections of the community should be consulted?
      Jim Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives' new clause 3(2) describes the relevant interests that the Secretary of State should consult as professional bodies, trade unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, political parties, business organisations and community organisations? They have already thought of a perfectly adequate way of describing the people whom the Government should consult but they choose to pick exclusively on the business community.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's presumption that I had not bothered to read new clause 3. If he will forgive me, I will discuss that when we come to it, and confine my remarks to the amendments before us.
      I would be happy to support paragraph (a) of amendment No. 46, and this is the core of the position that I hold. A proposed regional assembly for the north-west would be almost meaningless in that the north-west exists purely as a point on the compass. I am proud to represent a Merseyside constituency that contains parts of two unitary authorities, Knowsley and Sefton. Although people may from time to time take issue with something that either Knowsley or Sefton does, those unitary authorities work perfectly well. I know that the Bill does not propose to take any powers away from either of them, but some remote other layer of government would not service Knowsley or Sefton particularly well, if at all.
      Mr. Clelland: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is opposed to regional government in principle or

      903
      because it does not suit his area. The Bill is not about setting up regional government but a referendum. I assume that he has respect for his electors, so why does he not have enough respect to allow them to decide for themselves?
      Mr. Howarth: Had my hon. Friend allowed me to develop my argument further, he would have understood my position better. To repeat my earlier point, although my instinct is against the whole process in principle, the Bill has received its Second Reading, so I want, over time, to achieve an accommodation that would allow my constituents to feel comfortable in a region other than something called "the north-west". That is the point that I was trying to develop.
      My objective is to find out whether it would be possible, through the processes proposed in the Bill, to end up with a greater Merseyside authority that would have responsibility for some—if not all—of the powers set out in the White Paper. Such an authority would work more effectively for my constituents and would make more natural sense. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) are listening attentively to the debate. Although my hon. Friends are better able than me to speak for their constituents, such a proposal might suit Manchester and Lancashire better, too. I do not presume to speak for Cheshire, as no Cheshire Member is in the Chamber, but I am sure that they will be here in due course.
      The Opposition amendment does not quite fit into the argument that I have developed, so I do not feel able to support it. I intervened on the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in relation to amendment No. 24, which is not at all suitable because its basis for gauging opinion is unspecified. It would provide for an open-ended process whereby everyone's opinion would have to be taken into account. That would be okay in some ways, but it offers the prospect of protracted argument about the weight to be given to public opinion at any one time and it would not make sense. I realise that he was constrained by what he described as the architecture of the Bill, nevertheless the amendment would not be sensible at this stage. In any case, I am informed that we will not be able to vote on it separately so it would only be vexatious to argue about it.
      I am not inclined to support the Opposition on this occasion. However, as I said earlier, I am inclined to support one of their amendments to clause 3 and, if I get the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chairman when we debate it, I shall explain why.
      Mr. Curry: I, too, want to address myself to amendment No. 46 and to the Liberal Democrat amendments.
      The only difference the measure will make to my constituents is to reorganise their local government. The regional assembly will not make the blindest bit of difference to the overwhelming part of the lives of the overwhelming number of my constituents. Its powers are wholly unspecified. The powers spelled out in the consultation document somewhat optimistically entitled "Your Region, Your Choice" are entirely
      904
      advisory. They are all about strategic purposes—advising about this or consulting on that—but what can the assembly actually do? The answer is practically nothing.
      What matters to my constituents is the one thing that will have an immediate impact on their lives: local government reorganisation. The White Paper may talk of "Your Region, Your Choice", but it would offer neither to my constituents or me. North Yorkshire is part of an area where every other council is already a metropolitan, unitary authority; we are the only part of the region that still has a two-tier structure, and the only part with a predominantly rural character. The sources of employment are mainly the tourism and catering businesses, the public service and small manufacturing. We are very different from the rest of the area.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: May I emphasise my right hon. Friend's point about the lack of powers for regional assemblies? Is he aware that when we gave our first example of that in the Standing Committee, the Bill fell at that first hurdle? The White Paper stated that transport should be one of the strategic functions of regional assemblies, yet a decision about a bypass in a region would be made not by its assembly but by the Government.
      Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend makes a very effective point. Almost 90 per cent. of the electorate who will decide whether we in North Yorkshire are to have a change in our local government structure will have nothing whatever at stake because they already have unitary authorities. Their vote will change nothing in the practical details of their daily life, but the change will be significant for my constituents—for the very reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell).
      Mr. Clelland: The right hon. Gentleman says that his constituents will not have a choice, but they will have a vote. I understand the point that he makes about the weighting, but where was he when the Conservative Government abolished metropolitan county councils? Where was he when the Conservatives abolished the Greater London Council and Cleveland county council? What choices were people given then?
      Mr. Curry: I lay claim to the authorship of the abolition of Cleveland and Humberside—and I am delighted to do so. My argument is not about whether unitary councils are good or bad; on the whole, I have some sympathy for unitary local government. My argument is about who should take the decisions. Decisions on unitary authorities were taken by the House. Orders were passed in this place. However, the Bill proposes a referendum process in which people who may have no interest in the matter, who do not represent anybody else and who have not been elected will take decisions for my constituents.
      Important issues will be involved. Health and social services are probably the most important of all. As we know, the Government are constructing a whole new architecture to manage them and, as the Minister will know, North Yorkshire has experienced chronic underfunding in those sectors.
      Mr. Raynsford: Just as the abolition of Cleveland was effected by the House so, too, any proposal arising from

      905
      a referendum will be effected through the House by the Secretary of State. There is no difference whatever from what the Conservatives did when they were in government.
      Mr. Curry: Of course there is a difference: it is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood spelled out. There will be what the French call a "présomption préalable"; in other words, a preliminary question will have been put. There will have been a referendum that will set a process—a motion—in train. The Minister says that if there is a positive vote in the referendum, he can decide that he will not pursue that course of action. That is radically different to the circumstances that obtained at the time when we created unitary government. That is my first concern.
      My second concern is about the sampling process that will relate to a regional assembly whose powers we know not. That is the closest thing to "Blind Date" that has ever been attempted in politics. We do not know what powers the assemblies will have. The White Paper was extremely circumspect. Whenever someone mentions strategic powers, one should reach for one's gun because we know that they cannot work out exactly what such powers should be.
      Whom will the Government sample? I suppose they will sample the chambers of commerce and no doubt the faith groups, as we must now call them—perhaps even the Women's Institutes, although that be rather dangerous. The Government might sample the constitutional conventions, which are self-appointed, and perhaps the Soroptimists and the Rotary clubs. Will we be inviting people to make non-submissions if they do not have a view?
      What about the person described colloquially as "the punter"? We constantly talk about consultation and the Government are always calling for great public debates about things. It is always daft for Governments to do that: sensible Governments do not want great public debates because they know that such debates will be dominated by self-interested organisations and NGOs.
      What about the punter coming back from St. James's park after watching Newcastle United do rather well this season? At least, the team has been doing well until now—sadly, it looks as though it might soon be exiting from the European cup. What about the punter at the optimistically named stadium of light where Sunderland plays? Sunderland is fourth or fifth from the bottom and may be struggling for survival in the premiership, Mr. Butterfill—I know that you follow such things closely, even from your base on the south coast.
      Will those punters be asked what they think they have at stake? The problem is that they will be asked about something in which they have no stake, because nothing is at stake yet: there are no powers. This is a proposal for a referendum on an assembly whose powers we do not know, followed by an invitation to people to vote for elected members to an assembly whose powers they probably cannot define. That is a recipe for an extremely low turnout, and we are all agonising about that now.
      7 pm
      My final point relates to regional identity. I hope that we shall not get ourselves caught in the arguments about that. We have great arguments about identity, usually in
      906
      relation to Europe. Identity and organisation do not go together and are not the same thing. It is a mistake to assume that people identify with some sort of geographical construction. In fact, many people in the regions are much more interested in differentiating themselves than identifying themselves with one another. My constituents in Craven do not need to differentiate themselves from London, because they are different from London—but by golly they want to differentiate themselves from Bradford, for reasons that I will not explain in any detail tonight.
      I draw the Minister's attention to what I might call the postcode wars. He represents a constituency on the edge of London, but those of my constituents who are in the southern part of North Yorkshire have a Leeds postcode. That is tantamount to a declaration of nuclear war. Some people in Bentham in the north-west of my constituency have a Lancaster postcode. That is worse, if one can envisage such a thing. It might be suggested that such things are perfectly logical, but people identify themselves not in that way, but on a much more local basis. They may well broadly describe themselves as coming from Yorkshire, but they are probably thinking of a concept of Yorkshire produced in a previous reorganisation—or even the reorganisation before that—when they say it.
      So let us not pretend that people will vote on the basis of regional identities, even in the north-east. My whole family comes from Durham, Northumberland and Teesside, and the notion of the north-east identity is no more coherent than that of the Yorkshire identity. People identify themselves with much more local areas, so I hope that we will not let ourselves be diverted down that route.
      I hope that the Minister will say that there is no reason whatever why a two-tier system could not persist in an area such as North Yorkshire, even if there were a regional assembly. If the regional assembly has as few powers and is as light—"Government Lite"—as he says, I can see no reason why we should go to all the hullabaloo of regional reorganisation, which removes accountability and prevents people from being relatively close to their local councillors, simply to elect people who represent 350,000 people, topped up with a drop of proportional representation.
      I can see no way in which that will develop accountability or promote the economy, given that the gap between regional performance has increased since the now Minister for Sport said that the regional development agencies would have failed if they did not close the gap in regional performance. So the two great claims for the proposals will simply not be delivered.
      Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman suggests that no reorganisation should proceed, will he tell the House whether he regrets his role in the Banham process?
      Mr. Curry: No, I do not. I brought a great deal of sense to the Banham process, if I may say so.
      I have explained the differences in the constitutional procedures, but there is only one thing that tempts me to vote for the proposal: the possibility of touring the south-west, urging everyone to vote yes, so that the Minister has a major local government reorganisation

      907
      on his hands throughout that area. I would find that a wonderfully entertaining spectacle. Having got the tee-shirt, I would lend it to him with enormous enthusiasm, and it would come back with just as many holes having been made in it as when I wore it myself. I do not regret that, but I believe that there are more urgent pressing issues.
      As I said on Second Reading, intellectual arguments can be made for devolution. I have never said that the whole idea is absurd. I have said that this proposal simply is not worth the candle, and the downside is significantly greater than any conceivable benefit that people may derive from it. Five or six years down the road, if my constituents are asked what the regional assembly has done for them, they will say, "What?"
      Mr. Borrow: In view of the number of other hon. Members who wish take part in this important debate, I shall only speak for a few minutes.
      I wish to speak initially to amendment No. 46. I have considerable sympathy with paragraph (b), which refers to the need for the people in any region to know what they would get if they voted yes in a referendum before doing so. I shall repeat the point that I made on Second Reading, and I will continue to make it. Referendums will be successful only if the powers of the regional assemblies are clearly specified in Bills before they take place. Such Bills may not need to receive Royal Assent before the referendums are held, but draft Bills will be needed at the very minimum.
      The White Paper, which is all we have at the moment, is incomplete, so it is absolutely essential for Members of Parliament to have the opportunity to debate the powers outlined in the White Paper, to discuss them in detail and to firm them up before the referendums are held. The proposed powers are fundamentally flawed in many ways, and I would find it very difficult to agree that everything in the White Paper would set up the sort of regional assemblies that I would wish to see set up.
      I repeat to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues that we will return time and again to that issue. We need clear evidence about what will happen if people vote in favour of regional government in a referendum, and at the moment we do not have that evidence.
      Amendment No. 24, which says that the Deputy Prime Minister should reach the view that at least 25 per cent. of a region's electorate want to vote in favour of regional government, is totally superfluous. If an opinion poll in the north-west produced a figure of 26 per cent. and the Deputy Prime Minister said that it formed part of the evidence for a referendum, he would be very foolish.
      The opinion poll evidence produced by the BBC in March this year showed that the minimum amount of support for regional government in the south-east was 49 per cent, so amendment No. 24 is totally meaningless. Before putting any region through a referendum,
      908
      the Deputy Prime Minister needs to form a proper judgment, using all the evidence, to show that a majority of people favour regional government.
      Mr. Hammond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misinterprets amendment No. 24. It would require that 25 per cent. of the total electorate, rather than 25 per cent. of those who voted, were expected to be in favour.
      Mr. Borrow: The hon. Gentleman failed in his speech to clarify how that 25 per cent. could be arrived at. How would we judge whether 25 per cent. of the electorate are in favour of regional government, apart from conducting a referendum, which is what we want anyway, or an opinion poll? The opinion polls that have taken place have shown that more than 25 per cent. of the electorate in every region of the United Kingdom are in favour of regional government. That in itself is not enough for the Deputy Prime Minister to call a referendum, so amendment No. 24 is unnecessary and we should not be tied to the idea of a threshold. We could discuss the arguments about thresholds—I do not happen to agree with them—but amendment No. 24 is totally meaningless.
      I am also concerned about the business community showing substantial support before referendums are held. I would like to think that there was substantial support in the business community in my region before a referendum was held in the north-west. However, if there was clear support in the north-west for a referendum and in favour of regional government, I would not want the business community to have a veto because of a lack of substantial—whatever "substantial" means—support for regional government.
      In October, a few other Lancashire MPs and I met our local chamber of commerce to discuss the implications for business of regional government. It made the point that it wanted some input into regional government, and felt that it should have some say in whether there was regional government, or some membership in terms of a regional assembly. But democracy works on the basis of one elector, one vote, and businesses do not have votes and blocking powers to stop the electorate reaching the decision, so I do not really understand why the proposal has been included unless its purpose is to seek to obstruct the views of the electorate and to stop them getting what they want.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: As far as that proposal is concerned, if regional economic development is isolated in the question for a referendum proposed by the Government as one of the principal functions of a regional assembly and the largest element of its proposed budget—in practice, the only power that we can identify is the power to appoint members of the regional development agency and to instruct them as to the economic strategy—does it not make sense that the business community should be supportive of that move?
      Mr. Borrow: There is a lot to be said for the business community of a region being in favour of and supportive of a regional assembly. We should not, however, deny the people in a region the possibility of a regional assembly because there is not overwhelming support from the business community. To give one

      909
      section of the community a veto over the rest of community, which, in effect, is what the proposal does, is not what we would want in a democracy.
      The only other issue on which I want to touch briefly is local government reorganisation. I have some sympathy with people who argue that local government reorganisation should be decoupled from this process. I recognise, however, that if we had a referendum in my region, and we still had the possibility of an ongoing two-tier local government system, the opponents of regional government would use the fact that there were two tiers of local government as a strong argument against regional government. As politicians, we must make a judgment on the balance of good and bad. I am strongly in favour of unitary local government. What is happening now, however, is that the possibility of local government reorganisation is bringing strong opposition from those vested interests in the county councils that may support regional government in theory but are more concerned at the moment about losing the institutions to which they belong.
      Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that by linking change in local government to regional referendums, and ruling out change occurring separately, we will be preventing places such as Shropshire, which want unitary authorities, from having them until a regional referendum takes place? That is what the Minister said.
      Mr. Borrow: Lancashire suffered the botched local government reorganisation of the early 1990s, when two of its largest towns, Blackburn and Blackpool, went unitary, but it is nonsense to say that there is strong support for the existing two-tier system in Lancashire. The institution of Lancashire county council, which had previously always strongly supported the concept of regional government, under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), is now showing signs of objecting to regional government. I am sure that much of the reason for that is that it sees an end to its existence, and those who are members of, officers of or close to an institution will always seek to defend it.
      7.15 pm
      The same support does not exist across the county of Lancashire for Lancashire county council as an institution. For instance, Preston, where I live, was previously a county borough and was not part of a two-tier Lancashire county council system prior to 1973. Parts of the existing county of Lancashire were in the old county of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The idea that people have an overwhelming desire to be part of a county and for the county council structure to continue is therefore nonsense. People have a strong affinity with the area in which they live and with the county in which they live. Such loyalty is not affected by whether a county council exists.

  DEFERRED DIVISION
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Butterfill): I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
  910
  On the motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 275, the Noes were 153, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today's debate.]
  Mr. Key: If I have understood the Government's motive correctly in introducing this Bill and their regional government proposals to the House, it is to improve the machinery of Government and the delivery of services, to bring them closer to the people, and to improve accountability. I agree with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and I shall seek to explain why I fear that the Government's ambitions will be frustrated by local people who will be able to cast their votes.
  The game was given away by the publication earlier this month by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the handbook on the soundings exercise, paragraph 24 of which points out:
  "The Secretary of State will be taking account of a very wide range of views, information and evidence in reaching his decision. It is not practicable to set a 'pass mark' above which a region would automatically hold a referendum and below which it automatically would not. In some cases the Secretary of State may have to balance several factors. Ultimately, these must be matters for the Secretary of State's judgement."
  Paragraph 25 states:
  "These soundings are initially to inform the Secretary of State's decision".
  It does not therefore really matter whether people vote yes or no—the Secretary of State will make up his mind anyway depending on factors that he will not tell us about. That is one of my real problems with the Bill.
  I do not believe that the Bill is a European Union conspiracy, as the United Kingdom Independence party believes—it recently held demonstrations at the southwest constitutional convention and told us that we were quislings for even daring to discuss the issue, even though some of us are opposed to the concept. Nor do I think that the cuddly image of accountability will work in the future. The real argument is about whether we are addressing a democratic deficit or voter fatigue. I believe that it is voter fatigue. My hon. Friends have already explained clearly that the Bill provides no new policy making, no new powers, no new money—apart from perhaps some more council tax—and no economic and social partners in the future, which we at least have now.
  My principal objection, however, is that people will not vote for the proposals in a referendum if they do not identify with the region. That is the basic point. As far as my area is concerned, the south-west region does not exist. The fact is that the economic planning regions of the United Kingdom date back to the second world war when lines were drawn on maps for the better delivery of wartime administration. That grew during the socialist years of the 1960s when the economic planning regions were developed, and we got stuck with those lines on maps—that is all that they ever were.
  Cornwall, for example, could certainly have its own identity in relation to a regional assembly, as it has a very real identity. In Salisbury, my part of the world, we do not consider ourselves to have very much in common with Gloucester or the Isles of Scilly, because we are

  911
  Wessex, and we always have been. Bristol is a city state, and Gloucestershire is in the west midlands as far as I am concerned.
  Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Tory amendment in relation to new clause 3 simply proposes to replace sanitised, bureaucratic, convenient regions with standardised regions of a different nature?
  Mr. Key: Let us discuss that when we debate new clause 3. I promised to be brief so that the Minister can wind up, but it was a perfectly reasonable point.
  Unless there is an identifiable region that has legitimacy, the proposal will not work and people will not vote for it. It should not be imposed on them. The counties have legitimacy because they represent the geography, geology, dialect, buildings, architecture, customs and practice, heritage and traditions of a distinct part of our nation. Local government is built on the rock of national identity. In Wiltshire, we call ourselves moonrakers, because of particular events in our history. All that still means something to people today.
  I know that modern culture homogenises our nation and that television, in particular, homogenises the western world. However, most of us are busy seeking roots, particularly when the going gets tough and things go wrong. The Government are making a grave mistake in suggesting that we should be forced into a completely phoney and meaningless local government system. The south-west region is a line drawn on a map. Regional government will simply be a castle in the sand that will be swept away by the tide of history.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. Can you advise me as a Back Bencher on how I might proceed? Several Members on both sides of the Chamber rose to speak, and I want to make what I believe to be important points about this group of amendments. However, because of the timetable motion from which we are suffering, I will not be able to make those points. How can I challenge legislation introduced by the Government when they show such contempt for Parliament?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Butterfill): As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me. The orders of the House clearly prescribe the timetable for this Bill, and I am obliged to conform to them.
  Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate around a diverse range of amendments. Many separate issues have come up, including the definition of boundaries, the powers of elected regional assemblies, the reorganisation of local government, the principle of devolution, the extent to which people have absolute clarity when they come to vote in referendums and the importance of choice. I will try to tackle each of those issues while rightly focusing on the amendments before us.
  912
  I will start with amendment No. 46, which is the most substantive of the Opposition's amendments. It would insert a new subsection (3) in clause 1, replacing subsections (3) to (8). The new subsection 3(a) would refer to the procedure for determining regional boundaries. It would require that the review of boundaries be undertaken before any order for a referendum could be made. The regions, for the purposes of the Bill, would no longer be those specified in schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Rather a region would become one created by order under new clause 3, but the apparent intention is to exclude Greater London because clause 26 would be retained in the Bill.
  That obviously creates a problem for the Opposition. They are arguing for consistency between the number of people in each of the regions. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a strong point of that in his speech after conceding that the north-east probably was a natural region with a sense of identity and that it probably had an aspiration for regional devolution. If that is so, I ask him how he would achieve the numerical parity that he seeks—let us note that the population of the north-east is 2.5 million whereas that of London is 7.1 million—without a revision of the London boundaries.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is going to respond to that point.
  Mr. Hammond: I will not address the London issue but, as the Minister knows, new clause 3 says that the commission would have regard to the desirability of the regions being approximately equal. It would also have regard to the need to reflect identities and interests. As we recognised in Standing Committee, there are tensions and there will not be an easy solution, but both factors must be taken into account.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is moving away from the preoccupation with numerical parity. That is the argument that he pushed in Standing Committee and in this debate. When he was challenged on that point by Liberal Democrat Members, he stuck firmly to that line. However, I am glad that wisdom is beginning to prevail and that he recognises that regional identity will involve regions of a very different size. One cannot have a one-size-fits-all simple arithmetic formula.
  Andrew George: The Minister accepts that one size does not fit all. As he will acknowledge, one region has expressed a greater desire for a regional assembly in the responses that he has received to the consultation exercise. That region is Cornwall, so why have the Government set their face against an assembly for Cornwall? He is denying an assembly to the one region that wants it.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not yet persuaded those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to agree that Cornwall is a viable region. His party's spokesman was cautious and guarded on that point when I specifically asked him the question. We have

  913
  debated the issue with the hon. Gentleman and I have much respect and understanding for the aspirations of the people of Cornwall and for their cultural identity. As he knows, I have recently agreed to recognise the Cornish language, and that is one part of the process. However, we believe that Cornwall is too small an area to be viable as a region with regional powers. That takes us straight to the fundamental point that regions have different functions to counties and districts, which are the traditional local government structures that can best address local issues. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with me, but that is the Government's view.
  A key aim of elected regional assemblies is to bring under democratic control the work of existing regional bodies. Who would believe from what we heard from the Conservative Opposition that they set up the existing regional structures—the Government offices for the regions—a decade ago and that they are perfectly happy for them to continue? The Government offices are unaccountable and unresponsive to local opinion. They simply answer to Ministers here in Westminster. That is the Conservatives' position; they are opposed to devolution.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I have very little time. I have given way twice already, so I must press ahead.
  The Conservatives oppose devolution and giving people in the English regions the opportunity to govern their own affairs. That is the main charge that I lay against the Conservative Opposition. Our aim is that regional assemblies should be strategic. We want to ensure that the spatial and demographic size of the regions is sufficient to enable them adequately to perform such a role.
  The provisions of amendment No. 46 would mean that the Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies would have to be in place before a referendum could take place. I hear the argument about clarity and about the importance of people being aware of what they are voting for before they vote in a referendum. We agree entirely on that. That is why we are holding the structural review of local government in those regions where there is an interest. That review will be decided and the Government will make their decision as to whether to carry it forward before people vote in a referendum.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made great play of this issue. He described the process slightly pejoratively as the boundary committee doing calculations on the back of an envelope. It will not be like that. He was a senior Minister in the Government who introduced the 1992 legislation that established the principle of structural reviews, so he will know that they examine the structure of local government and not just the boundaries. The reviews will have a responsibility to produce a wholly unitary structure, determining exactly how the responsibilities that he described will be discharged. That information will be available to people in the regions before they vote, as will a statement from the Government, based on our White Paper, setting out what powers the elected regional assembly would have.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that the whole process was worthless because it contained no powers. He was a former
  914
  housing Minister, so he will be aware of the housing capital allocations made to registered social landlords and local authorities. Those powers will rest with the elected regional assemblies. Is that worthless? The right hon. Gentleman very much underestimates the measure's significance.
  Mr. Clelland: My right hon. Friend mentioned the powers. He will recall that I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago about the suitability of a draft Bill for the regional government legislation. Labour Members have made that point twice in the debate. Does he not think that, in view of the new systems of examining legislation, a draft Bill would be appropriate in this case?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: We said that that is not ruled out and we will certainly consider it. Indeed, it may be one way to provide the extra clarity that some hon. Members want. Clarification will, of course, be provided in the White Paper, the boundary committee's structural review and the Government's statement before electors vote. It is possible that we will also choose to adopt a Bill that receives pre-legislative scrutiny.
  Mr. Dorrell: The Minister clearly has sympathy for the proposition put by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). Will he consider that, with a view to making such a commitment, and give the House a firm decision on Report?
  Mr. Raynsford: We are prepared to consider that, but I do not want to be committed to a timetable. As a former senior member of a Government, the right hon. Gentleman knows about the constraint of legislative programmes.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way. I have little time left.
  Amendment No. 46(3)(c) states that the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied
  "that there is substantial support from the business community"
  before holding a referendum. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a specious argument about why business was not represented. People might not necessarily live within the local authority from which they run a business, but I do not think that many of them will not live in the same region as their business. So they will be entitled to vote and will have every opportunity to express their view.
  We want business to engage with elected regional assemblies. We said that in the White Paper and have specifically consulted on ways in which stakeholders can become involved in the work of the elected regional assemblies. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the CBI this evening, but he was much less enthusiastic about it in Committee when he said:
  "The CBI is looking at these matters from the narrow perspective of business … cannot be a conclusive perspective in constitutional matters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 30.]

  915
  That was his view a fortnight ago and I am surprised that he is taking a totally different approach today. Perhaps that is indicative of the Conservative party, however. Consistency is not one of its great virtues at the moment.
  The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36, which are consistent with their overall approach to have intensive consultation, reviews, discussions and talking shops—in fact, anything but action. I am afraid that the consequences of those amendments would be to delay the process of establishing elected regional assemblies to which they say they are committed. That would be a complete nonsense because we would have a protracted period of debate and discussion with no action. We have no hesitation in urging the House not to support those amendments.
  Amendment No. 24 would replace the condition in clause 1(4) requiring the Secretary of State to consider the level of interest in holding a referendum with something entirely different. Instead, it would require the Secretary of State to conclude
  "on the basis of the evidence available that it is probable that at least twenty-five per cent. of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum … would vote in favour of an elected regional assembly".
  But that would mean the Secretary of State looking into a crystal ball and predicting the outcome of a referendum. It is a pretty novel approach to the democratic process. It is also totally impractical because people in the region may be interested in a referendum, but may not have formed or expressed a view. The ballot is secret. It would be wrong to expect people to express a view on which way they were going to vote in order to inform the Secretary of State. It is a curious and perverse proposal, and it is not at all practicable. It is our desire to encourage as many people as possible to vote so that referendums reflect the real view of people in a region. Clause 7 enables the Electoral Commission to do what it thinks necessary to encourage voting.
  Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are technical. I suspect that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will not regard them as crucial, so I shall concentrate on other issues raised. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked why North Yorkshire should not have two tiers of local government in addition to a regional tier of government, but if we are introducing a tier of regional government, two tiers of local government below it are too many. We need rationalisation to ensure that there is clarity for the electorate and to avoid the proliferation of bureaucracy. I could understand that approach from the Liberal Democrats, who are only too happy to have a proliferation of different tiers of government, but I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. He supported unitary authorities in the 1990s, but he is now singing from a different hymn sheet.
  We believe that every region should have a choice. It should be free to determine its future and way forward. That is why we have introduced the proposals, which are right and democratic. I commend the clause to the Committee and urge it to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister failed to respond to our concerns. He said that he did not have time, but whose
  916
  fault is that? The Government could have allowed us two days on the Floor of the House. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in pressing the amendments to a Division.
  It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day]
  The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 352.

  Division No. 35]

  [7:36 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hendry, Charles

  Amess, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bacon, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bellingham, Henry

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cash, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, rh Francis

  Conway, Derek

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Curry, rh David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Redwood, rh John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Ruffley, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Selous, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grayling, Chris

  Shepherd, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Greenway, John

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Gummer, rh John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hague, rh William

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Swayne, Desmond

  917

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend. Michael

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walter, Robert

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chaytor, David

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Banks, Tony

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Crausby, David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blackman, Liz

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Denham, rh John

  Breed, Colin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Doughty, Sue

  Bryant Chris

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burnett, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Burnham, Andy

  Efford, Clive

  Burstow, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Cairns, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, rh Derek

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Challen, Colin

  Foulkes, rh George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  918

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Stephen

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grogan, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Heath, David

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Heppell, John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Holmes, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, rh Alun

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moore, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hutton, rh John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Organ, Diana

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keen, Ann (Brenfford)

  Owen, Albert

  Keetch, Paul

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Perham, Linda

  Kidney, David

  Picking, Anne

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pugh, Dr. John

  919

  Purchase, Ken

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Purnell, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thurso, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Ward, Claire

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Singh, Marsha

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watts, David

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Willis, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Woolas, Phil

  Southworth, Helen

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, rh John

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Joan Ryan and

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Derek Twigs

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).—[Matthew Green.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 47, Noes 310.

  Division No.36

  [7:50 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Barrett, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Harvey, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Heath, David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hermon, Lady

  Burnett, John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burnside, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Keetch, Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Doughty, Sue

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  920

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Willis, Phil

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurso, John

  Tom Brake and

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Mr. David Chidgey

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Connarty, Michael

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allen, Graham

  Cruddas, Jon

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barnes, Harry

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, rh John

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Benn, Hilary

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Follett, Barbara

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Burgon, Colin

  Burnham, Andy

  Foulkes, rh George

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Cairns, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Challen, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  921

  Hewitt rh Ms Patricia

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heyes, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Miliband, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Great Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, rh John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Picking, Anne

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Purnell, James

  Lepper, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Salmond, Alex

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  MacDonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Helen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spellar, rh John

  922

  Squire, Rachel

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Stevenson, George

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ward, Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Derek Twigg and

  Joan Ryan

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  DEFERRED DIVISION
    Clause 2

      REFERENDUM QUESTION
      8 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 2, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert
      'Any order made pursuant to section 1 shall direct the Electoral Commission to determine the question or questions to be put in the referendum.'.
      The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
      No. 29, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'is' and insert 'are'.
      No. 55, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—

      '(1A) A supplementary question shall be asked of persons eligible to vote whose address on the electoral register is in the administrative area of a district council for any area in which both district and county councils have functions.

      (1B) The supplementary question referred to in subsection (1A) is—

      (a) "do you agree with the proposals to reorganise local government in your area into unitary authorities which the Government intends to implement if an elected regional assembly is established".'.
      No. 19, in page 2, line 23, at end insert
      '(the (insert name of region) region comprises (insert names of all counties, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authority districts within the region))'.
      No. 30, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
      '() Do you agree with the recommendations of the Boundary Committee for England to reorganise (insert name of county council) and (insert name of district council or district councils) into a single tier of local government for your area?'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

      923
      '(2)The question on the ballot paper shall be preceded by a statement, in a form to be prescribed by the Electoral Commission, conveying such information as the Electoral Commission believe is requisite to enable electors to understand the question and to ensure that electors understand the conclusions of the Boundary Committee review of the region.
      (3)The statement to be prescribed under subsection (2) may not include any statement about the intended functions or powers of the proposed elected assembly unless such functions and powers are defined in an Act of Parliament.'.
      No. 31, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 54, in page 2, leave out line 26 and insert—
      'This referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly for the'.
      No. 49, in page 2, line 27, leave out from second 'region', to 'be' in line 30 and insert
      'If an elected assembly is established, it is intended that—

      (a) the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development; and

      (b) local government would'.

      No. 50, in page 2, line 29, leave out from 'development' to end of line 33.
      No. 20, in page 2, line 33, at end add
      'It is not proposed to establish an elected regional assembly in any region until at least three regions have voted in favour of the establishment of such assemblies in referenda conducted pursuant to section 1 above.'.
      No. 22, in page 2, line 33, at end add—
      'In the [insert name of region] region this will entail the abolition of [insert names of local authorities recommended by the Boundary Committee report to be abolished] and the creation of [insert number of new unitary authorities recommended by the Boundary Committee report to be created] new unitary authorities.
      The table below shows how the new unitary authorities recommended by the Boundary Committee will relate to the authorities to be abolished—

      Name of new Unitary Authority

      Old authority areas or parts of old authority areas included

      [insert name of each new Unitary Authority as recommended by the Boundary Committee]

      [insert name of each constitutent existing local authority district or ward]'

      No. 38, in page 2, line 33, at end add—
      'The Boundary Committee has recommended to the Secretary of State that if an elected regional assembly for the [name of region] region is established, the electoral districts which would return directly elected members to the assembly would be as shown below:

      Name of Electoral District

      Description of areas included

      Approximate number of electors

      [insert name of each electoral district recommended by the Boundary Committee pursuant to s.19(3)]

      [insert description of the districts/wards or other administrative units included]

      [insert approximate number of electors in each proposed district]

      924
      No. 51, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
      '(3)In those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils the following additional question shall be asked—
      Do you agree with the proposal to reorganise the county and district councils in your area in to a single unitary tier of local government.'.
      Mr. Hammond: Clause 2 deals with the question to be put in a referendum and the preamble, so called. That is a piece of Government spin that will be placed on the ballot paper by primary legislation.
      This is a mixed bag of amendments grouped together and covering a number of issues. Some of them deal with the procedure; some of them are substantive in the only sense possible, given the architecture of the Bill: they seek to amend the preamble, making substantive changes to the Government's stance, as expressed through the preamble. The preamble is a one-paragraph summary of what an elected regional assembly will be, as the Government would like electors to see it. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to comment on the wording of the preamble.
      Amendment No. 39 is a pretty uncontroversial proposal. It proposes that the Electoral Commission should determine the question or questions to be put. The purpose of the referendum is made clear by clause 1. Surely the whole purpose of creating the Electoral Commission and giving it a role in dealing with referendums is to ensure that an impartial body not connected with Government, who are highly partial in relation to these referendums, should frame the question.
      As it happens, we do not have an objection to the wording of the question proposed in the Bill—it would be rather difficult to have an objection to it, as it is a simple and straightforward question. However, we believe that an important principle is at stake for future referendums, which must be dealt with.
      Mr. John Gummer: My hon. Friend says that he does not have an objection to the question. May I point out to him that those of us who live in Suffolk have a strong objection, because if the question were asked in relation to East Anglia, it would suggest that Rickmansworth was in East Anglia? When one refers to a region that contains both Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire as if it were East Anglia, the question itself is entirely wrong.
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right, but unfortunately, as he knows, we have already had the debate on the possibility of revisiting the regional boundaries and, despite heroic efforts on the part of the opposition, have lost that argument to the Government.
      Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it shows the Alice in Wonderland state of the Conservative party when the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was the architect of the regions, now describes them as preposterous?
      Mr. Hammond: Not at all. As the Minister well knows, the regions were created for an entirely different purpose and are completely unsuitable for the arrangements that the Government propose.
      Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the regions were created by putting together

      925
      what had always been Government sections, and that they were created because the previous Government had had a series of regions, none of which were coterminous for any single purpose. The regions were created for the sake of clarity. An elected assembly ought to cover an area that people recognise as being an electoral area. Nobody in Rickmansworth has anything to do with Trimley St. Mary in my constituency.
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. That is our fundamental objection to the Government's proposals: the regions that are being used as the basis for elected regional assemblies were created for quite a different purpose, and do not deliver the sense of identity that is required if the Government's agenda is to have any chance of success.
      Amendment No. 11 would give the Electoral Commission the slightly more difficult task of writing the preamble to the question. I am extremely sceptical about the idea of a preamble on the ballot paper, but if there is to be a preamble, it must be written by a body other than the Government, who are highly partisan in the matter.
      The preamble as drafted in the Bill is highly contentious. It goes well beyond the supply of information, which is what the Government would have us believe it does. It states that regional assemblies
      "would be responsible for a range of activities",
      yet we have not seen those powers enshrined in any legislation. Indeed, in the Standing Committee yesterday the Minister conceded to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that the regional assemblies would have influence on central Government, not responsibility in the sense that most electors would understand it.
      The preamble states that the activities would be activities
      "currently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
      The Minister knows that that is highly contentious. Many Opposition Members believe that the regional assemblies will suck more power up than will be devolved to them from central Government. The reference to local government reorganisation in the last couple of sentences of the preamble will not be intelligible to any ordinary elector, unless he happens to be an aficionado of local government terminology.
      Under amendment No. 11, the Electoral Commission would be required to draft a preamble that conveyed the information requisite to a proper understanding of the question and a proper understanding of the boundary committee conclusions for the region. I do not see how that could be contentious.
      The amendment would also specifically exclude any speculative statements about the functions or powers of elected assemblies yet to be created by Parliament. We simply do not know about that, and it is arrogant of the Government to pretend that simply because they include something in a White Paper or consultation document, they will be able to secure its approval in this place. Many regional referendums might take place after the next general election, and even if the
      926
      Government can get their proposals through this place, they certainly cannot guarantee their unscathed delivery through the other place.
      Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are prejudging the decision of Parliament by including this passage in the preamble:
      "An assembly would be responsible for a range of activities that are currently carried out mainly by central government bodies"?
      Until the Bill dealing with the powers of regional assemblies has been introduced, we will have no idea of what they will entail.
      Mr. Hammond: In a strict sense, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even the Minister who is promoting that agenda concedes that the provisions deal not with responsibilities as ordinary people understand them, but with abilities to exercise some influence on central Government. That is precisely what the Minister said yesterday.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening when I responded to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who raised that question earlier. I pointed out that there were a number of significant powers and responsibilities. When I raised the matter in Committee last week, as the hon. Gentleman said—
      Mr. Hammond: Yesterday.
      Mr. Raynsford: Indeed. I said that the role of the elected regional assembly would be to influence government and that there would be a combination of direct delivery powers and considerable powers of influence. It is certainly not true to suggest that the assemblies will not have powers.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not see any evidence of that in the preamble as it is currently drafted, which states:
      "An assembly would be responsible for a range of activities that are currently carried out".
      Perhaps the Government will table an amendment on Report saying that the assembly will not only be responsible for a range of activities, but will have the ability to influence central Government in respect of another range of activities. However, that is not what the Bill says.
      Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has just made his case for him? People voting in the referendums will not know where an elected regional assembly has influence, power, responsibility or decision-making ability. It is all in the lap of the gods. The Minister waves his White Paper in the air, but White Papers and draft Bills do not bind anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an Act of Parliament to spell out the responsibilities, powers and functions of the elected regional assemblies? Failing that, people will be voting in the dark.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Electors will be invited to vote for a pig in a poke. That is one of the major problems with the Bill.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Hammond: I must make a little progress.

      927
      The Government's reluctance to introduce a Bill that Parliament can scrutinise, so that we can ensure in legislation that everyone understands precisely what the powers and responsibilities of regional assemblies will be, contrasts with their insistence that, before they can conduct a referendum, they must carry out a process of local government organisation review in each region. By their own admission, that process will take a year. Why can they not parallel-track with their current proposals the Bill to implement the regional assemblies, so that we will all know exactly where we are when the question is put?
      Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the House debated the Greater London Authority Bill, we found that its measures on the powers of the authority were very different from those in the White Paper that was published before the Bill was introduced. In the Bill, the powers of the Greater London Authority were very circumscribed, as many powers were retained by the Secretary of State. Indeed, the Bill mentioned the Secretary of State more times than the Mayor himself. He is therefore making exactly the right point, as people will be voting for an assembly that will not have the powers that the Government set out in the White Paper.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Hammond: That is precisely what Opposition Members fear. We would prefer the Electoral Commission to write the preamble, but if the Government resist that proposal, the next few amendments would introduce specific improvements to help the existing preamble to be clearer and fairer in putting the situation to the voter on the day of the referendum. I would prefer the Electoral Commission to draft the preamble, but if it cannot do so, I would rather I did it than the Government.
      Mr. Michael Jack: Many interventions have concentrated on the function of the regional assemblies, but does my hon. Friend agree that the first line of the preamble,
      "You can help to decide",
      is also important, because it gives no information as to the degree of the decision-making function of the person who is asked to vote? Does he agree that there is a great deal wrong with that statement?
      Mr. Hammond: I do indeed. If my right hon. Friend looks at some of the other amendments, he will see that they seek to remove the first line from the preamble.
      If the Government resist the proposal to allow the Electoral Commission to write the preamble, the other amendments would make improvements. Amendment No. 19 would provide information about the region in the interests of ensuring clarity for the elector. The regions that the Government are using are so arbitrary and unconnected with people's everyday lives that voters simply will not know the extent of the regions in which they live. Of course, I concede that someone who lives in Manchester is likely to understand that they live in the north-west region, but I am prepared to bet the
      928
      Minister that if he goes out on to the streets of Manchester and names at random a few communities on the periphery, people will not know whether they are included and will not have any idea of the extent of the region in which they live.
      We therefore propose that the preamble should include specific information about the extent of the region. It is not appropriate to ask whether people are interested in a referendum on a regional assembly when we do not even know at this stage whether people understand what region they live in and what other communities are included or excluded. We need some transparency, including more detail on the ballot paper than the name of the region, which is all that the Government propose that it should include.
      Amendment No. 22 seeks to insert in the preamble detail of the boundary committee recommendations. Again, it is vital that before electors make their decision about how to vote, they understand precisely how they will be affected by the boundary committee's recommendations. That can only be achieved by setting out the information in a simple tabular format, with the names of the proposed new local government units on one side of the table and those of the old local government units, or those parts that are included in the new region, on the other. That will ensure that each elector who at least knows which local government unit he currently resides in will also know which one he belongs to if the boundary commission changes proceed.
      Amendment No. 38 would do the same for electoral areas in a region. That is another Government omission. The Government propose that, although the minute detail of the changed local government structures will be known to the elector if he takes the trouble to find out about them when he votes, he will not have any information about the likely electoral divisions in the region. I suggest that those divisions are equally important to him, as he will need to know how his community will find its voice in any putative regional assembly. He will need to know about the split between rural urban influences in any such assembly.
      The Minister is defending an utterly illogical position. We are being asked to engage in a referendum with no Act defining the powers of the regional assemblies and no electoral districts telling people how their limited influence on the assembly will be exercised or with whom they will be grouped in exercising it. However, a boundary committee is an absolute requirement and the full detail of the local government reorganisation must be worked out in advance of the referendum. I suggest to him that electors will not be making an informed decision unless they understand the detail of the local government reorganisation and the electoral divisions in the region, and the powers that such a regional assembly will have.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although those specific details do not appear in the amendments, because that would be to take a step too far at this stage, without them it will be impossible to know what the transitional and future establishment costs of any future configuration of local representation will be? To lay the charge of the administration at the door of local people through their

      929
      council tax and other taxes, without their knowing the cost of those changes, would represent a considerable absence of information in their decision making.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that the Labour manifesto at the 1997 election, which committed the Labour party to going down the route of elected regional government, said that it would do so only if it could produce an independent auditor's report confirming that no additional public expenditure would be involved. That commitment has been quietly dropped. It will be blindingly apparent to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that the local government reorganisation that the Government are making a prerequisite for elected regional assemblies will indeed involve a significant additional amount of public expenditure.
      Amendment No. 54 would change the opening lines of the preamble to deal, in part, with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The words inserted by the amendment would say explicitly to the elector, whom the Government would like to mislead by saying
      "You can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly"—
      [Interruption.] Well, it would be misleading. Under the amendment, the elector would be told:
      "This referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly."
      By changing those lines, we would introduce clarity and a bit of honesty into the preamble that is to be put to the voters.
      Amendment No. 20 is something of a probing amendment.
      Mr. Edward Davey: It is a wrecking amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: It is not a wrecking amendment; it is a probing amendment. It proposes a clear statement in the preamble against a single-region settlement. The device that we have used is to write a Government intention into the preamble. The purpose is to get the Minister to address the issue of critical mass. Part of the argument for regional assemblies is, and has always been, that they would provide a counterweight to the centralised, London-focused system of national Government. We have no argument with the desire to devolve power downwards, so long as it is downwards, so long as it is devolved to coherent units, and so long as it is power, and not just responsibility without any real power, which would allow the Government to keep the power and lose the accountability. That is what we fear will happen here.
      If we had a one-region solution, with one region opting for elected regional government and no other region following, we should not have a critical counterweight. There is a need for critical mass if this function is to be performed. I therefore invite the Government to consider setting some kind of threshold, so that, if we are to have elected regional assemblies as part of our constitutional settlement, there cannot just be one, or—I would suggest—two. Before the assemblies are established, a number of referendums need to be conducted and won.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he conceives of London as having a role in this
      930
      concept? Does he believe that the people of London should be involved in this process? Or does he believe that the fact that a quasi-regional body already exists in London means that one region already has an assembly, and that that should be taken into account when making the calculations set out in the amendment?
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister would, I think, struggle to argue that a devolved assembly in London helps to provide a counterweight to London. That is the argument that has been advanced for elected regional government in other parts of the country.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, when we were debating the Greater London Authority Bill, we challenged the Minister on many occasions by saying that he was creating regional government. He insisted at the time, however, that it was city-wide government, and local government. He would not allow it to be linked to the regional agenda, as we were trying to do.
      Mr. Hammond: I shall not intervene in this lovers' tiff between the Liberals and the Government. No doubt they can sort it out afterwards.
      I contend that it would be very odd if we ended up with a dramatic change in our constitutional arrangements, the end effect of which was simply that one region was the odd man out in an otherwise unitary England. These proposals highlight the inappropriateness of changing our constitutional arrangements for one, or perhaps two, regions.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hammond: I must make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own contribution in due course, and I look forward to it.
      Amendment No. 55 and the amendments tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats deal with the possibility of separating the testing of opinion on local government reorganisation from the testing of opinion on regional elected assemblies, and propose that, in two-tier authorities only—where change to a unitary structure will be required—a separate question should be put to the electors, asking whether they are in favour of the unitarisation of their local government arrangements. That seems eminently sensible. It would allow the Secretary of State, when making his decision following the advisory referendum, to know whether there was support for the idea of an elected regional assembly, and to balance that support against the strength of opposition to the reorganisation of local government in the parts of the region that would be subject to it.
      The Liberals have argued against compulsory unitarisation of local government, and we have a great deal of sympathy with their argument. Unfortunately, they have drawn the wrong conclusion. They would be happy to introduce yet another tier of government, more elected politicians, more expenses, more headquarters buildings, more tax, more spending and more bureaucracy. So the Liberals have identified the issue, but drawn the wrong conclusion. We draw the conclusion that the Government's proposals are

      931
      fundamentally flawed and do not present a stable, sustainable solution for government below the national level in England. This amendment would not directly address that issue, but it would allow the Secretary of State separately to measure opinion in those areas. I shall leave the Liberals to say more on that in due course. I commend this diverse group of amendments to the Committee.
      Mr. Davey: Given that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was so kind about some of our amendments, even though he could not bring himself to support all of them, I shall start by saying that the Liberal Democrats support his amendment No. 39. The idea that the Electoral Commission should draw up the questions is eminently sensible. I have to say that, when his party was in government, it was not very keen on the idea of sub-contracting out decision making to an independent body. If it has had a conversion in favour of restricting the power of the Executive, however, we welcome that.
      In approaching the clause and in considering the question and the preamble before us, we should reflect on the advice that the Electoral Commission has proffered to Parliament and to the Government. Although the Minister is aware of the advice that has been sent to him, I shall read it out. I think that he will use it as a defence, but I hope to show that it is weak. The commission
      "takes the view that, as the issue is complex and potentially unfamiliar to many voters, the intelligibility of the question is dependent on the inclusion of a preamble providing extra information. Given that a preamble is to be provided, the proposed question meets the Commission's assessment guidelines."
      In other words, the preamble is essential, otherwise the question would not he intelligible.
      Mr. Jack: May I probe the hon. Gentleman's understanding of intelligibility? At what reading age should the question be set?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Davey: That is a good question. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Electoral Commission's assessment guidelines on questions. There are 10, although I am afraid that they do not consider reading age, so that does not help him. However, they refer to the question being well structured and not too long. That might help him, and I am more than happy to show him the guidelines if he has not seen them.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the importance of the preamble and quoted the Electoral Commission's advice, which he says is important. In quoting that advice, he has shown why it believes that a preamble is necessary. Will he now tell us why he has tabled amendment No. 31, which would delete the preamble?
      Mr. Davey: I do not know whether the Minister was listening properly, but I said that I would come to that. I do not think that the Electoral Commission will be given enough scope to analyse the issue properly. I shall return to that, as we need to refer to other primary legislation.
      932
      What is particularly interesting is the fact that the Electoral Commission advice goes on to suggest that the Government's proposed preamble is not that intelligible. The Minister ought to listen, as the commission is an independent body that was set up by his Government and it has criticised his preamble. The Electoral Commission has suggested an alternative, which we have set out in our amendment No. 49. He may want to intervene on this point: will he accept that amendment, which would put in the Bill, word for word, the advice proffered by the Electoral Commission?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, because we believe that it is right to listen to the views expressed in the House as well as those expressed by the Electoral Commission before deciding on an appropriate amendment to table on Report, which will no doubt pay considerable heed to the commission's views. It would be wrong to pre-empt Members of the House, who have an opportunity in the debate to influence our thinking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
      Mr. Davey: That is a very odd argument. I thought that the House was giving the Minister its advice now. We already have the Electoral Commission's advice so, presumably, we ought to vote on this now rather than delay any further. I am surprised that he wants to wait until we consider the Bill on Report, but if he insists, we shall table our amendment then.
      As to whether we should take the Electoral Commission as the final word on the matter, I am afraid that I do not think we should. We should consider what the Electoral Commission is allowed to do. It is allowed only to comment on the particular question in the Bill and any subsequent preamble. It is not able to take a view on how many questions ought to be included in a referendum to put across the point being made and the issue on which people are being asked to give their opinion. If the Electoral Commission had been asked to do that, my view is that, rather than go for a preamble and a question, it would probably have gone for two questions, as that is what is being asked.
      The Government have not allowed that issue to be debated by the commissioners either in respect of the underlying legislation that set up the Electoral Commission or, as I understand it, in any other directions to the commission, so I must press the Minister. Are the Government prepared, before the Bill is considered on Report, specifically to ask the Electoral Commission whether two questions would be clearer, more intelligible and more sensible as a way forward to decide those matters than one question and the preamble?
      Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a dangerous precedent will be set if that is not done? Are we to have general elections involving a preamble to explain why this or that Member might or might not be suitable for this or that constituency? If we are to have a referendum on, let us say, the euro, will there be a nice explanation of why it would be good or not so good for Britain so as to enable people to make up their minds? Is not that a serious constitutional concept?
      Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman has a smidgen of a point, although he stretches his argument a little far

      933
      in relating it to the general election. I do not think that even this Government would go that far, but I take his general point that we in the House must be careful before accepting preambles linked to questions that we ask the electorate. We must think carefully about whether we could discard the preamble and just ask the electorate—the grown-up, mature electorate—the questions. Trying to hide a question in a preamble is not transparent or open.
      The debate is about the fact that the Government are trying to hide the issues from the electorate. Because the Electoral Commission did not have power to consider the issue more widely, I am not sure that the advice I read out can be the last word.
      Mr. Streeter: Is there not another point to be made? In a sense, the last place where a preamble needs to appear is a ballot paper. One would hope that most of those voting in person would have made up their minds about the arguments before entering the booth. How many people arrive at a polling station not knowing how they will vote? Is it not more important to convey proper information to the electorate in advance about what is involved—the powers, the functions, the districts, the geography, the whole works—before they reach the stage of voting?
      Mr. Davey: I agree to an extent, but let us remember the reason for the preamble. Something is being hidden from the electorate. If they were asked two clear questions, no preamble to either would be needed. Someone, somewhere, is trying to hide something from the voters, and what worries me most is that lack of transparency.
      Mr. Hammond: Surely the reason for a preamble rather than a question is that voters are being given no choice on the second, hidden part of the question.
      Mr. Davey: Indeed. In fact, I was going to invite the Minister, if he is not prepared to ask the Electoral Commission whether two questions would be preferable, to make a slightly different inquiry about whether a second question would obviate the need for a preamble. If we knew on Report that the Minister had made that inquiry and had received assurances—which, of course, he would publish, being such an open and transparent Minister—we would be much more likely to accept the clause. Is the Minister going to tell us that he will do that?
      Mr. Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats continue to astonish me. The hon. Gentleman will know, because there is already advice from the Electoral Commission, that we have consulted the commission. It has made its recommendations, which we will heed carefully because we think them sensible. However, we will wait to hear all the opinions expressed in the debate before making a final decision on how the preamble should be framed and whether amendments will be necessary on Report.
      Mr. Davey: The Minister is very able and is respected in all parties, but he knows that the original Act did not enable the commission to say that two questions would be better in this instance. It was only able to comment on the one question and the preamble, and the
      934
      intelligibility of those. I am challenging the Minister on whether he is prepared to return to the commission to clarify the point. If he is so worried about how the House feels, as he ought to be, he should reflect its concern by doing as I suggest.
      Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 50 are linked in many respects. They are all intended to secure that second question. If the Minister is not prepared to go to the Electoral Commission, let us try to put that question on the ballot paper ourselves. Not only would it provide greater clarity, and avoid potential allegations that the Government are trying to hide something from the electorate; it would, in my view, bring about greater democracy.
      We should give the electorate the chance to make their decision in separate questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said earlier, we want people to have power to make decisions about the government they want. We want them to have not just the power to vote for a regional assembly, but the power to decide what structure local government should have in their areas—to decide whether they want unitary authorities, and whether they want county and district councils to be restructured.
      Matthew Green: Does my hon. Friend also accept that separating out the question would increase the number of people who are likely to vote yes to regional government, because they would not be diverted by the issue of whether they want a change to local government? The proposal would therefore assist the Minister in his aim of achieving regional government.
      Mr. Davey: Absolutely. If the proposal were accepted, the Minister would for once be saying that the Government were going to trust people. They would not be imposing a restructuring of local government in the manner of the previous Conservative Government; they would actually be asking people in those areas what they think.
      My personal opinion is that it would be better to see some reorganisation and to move to unitary government, but I see no reason why I, the Minister or anyone else in the House should foist that on people. If people do not want to pay more—the issue that seems to concern the Conservatives most—they will vote for unitarisation.
      Mr. Beith: The problem is worse than that. First, the people concerned will be asked to vote for a specific scheme of unitary government that is not necessarily the one that they would choose; secondly, the decision will he made not by them but by the great majority of people who already live in unitary areas, such as those in the northern regions. Those people have no interest in the outcome, but because they are voting on the regional issue they will determine what kind of unitary system the minority, who currently live in two-tier areas, will get.
      Mr. Davey: My right hon. Friend is of course exactly right, and he brings me to the final amendment that I wish to speak to.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the

      935
      simple solution is to force the conclusion that it is right to vote against the Bill; otherwise, one is simply exacerbating the problem that has been highlighted.
      Mr. Davey: What we are trying to do is to amend the Bill so that it is in line with our views and our policy. We voted for it on Second Reading because unlike the Conservatives, we are in favour of regional devolution. We want to democratise existing regional government, but it was the Conservatives who set up a whole series of quangos that govern the lives of our constituents. Those quangos cannot be held to account, so we need regional democracy, which is why we support the Bill.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman was very generous to me, so I shall be generous to him.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his aspiration, but if, as we must anticipate, he is unsuccessful in achieving it and the Government proceed with the Bill on the basis that the price for elected regional assemblies is the compulsory unitarisation of all local government in the regions, will the Liberal Democrats support that process, or will they join us in opposing it?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are anticipating not just tonight's voting, but voting in another place. I can assure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we will urge our colleagues to amend the Bill to make it more democratic, and I hope that he will ask the same of his. My concern is that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the other place may be trying to wreck this Bill, and that they do not in fact want to democratise regional government. That is the issue before us.
      Mr. Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and it is a delight to let him in.
      Mr. Foster: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. I invite him to speculate, were there to be a second question, on the size of the preamble that would seek to explain to the electorate the various alternatives that local government might imply for them and their families.
      Mr. Davey: Well, we do not have to look very far to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the preamble becoming too long. We need look no further than amendment No. 51—I was about to discuss it—which would insert a second question for those affected by local government restructuring. To them, the county councils and district councils that would be mentioned in it are very real, because they have voted for them for several decades. If that question were provided for those people, a preamble would not be necessary because the question would be so clear.
      936
      Amendment No. 51 not only deals with the problem mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: ensuring that the referendum result is fair, and that people from the majority part of the region are not imposing local government restructuring on the minority part; if amendment No. 51 were accepted, we would be more likely to get what the Government desire: a yes vote in the referendum on the regional assemblies. By decoupling the issues and creating greater democracy, we are more likely to gain the people's trust and then get the right result for the Government.
      8.45 pm
      Joyce Quin: I support the idea of decoupling the issue of local government reorganisation from regional government, so the principle behind the amendments is one that I understand and support. However, the way in which they are phrased does not attract me, because they involve a choice between one solution of unitary government—the one that the boundary committee recommends—and the status quo, which would still leave the areas concerned with two tiers.
      One way of dealing with that might have been to have a separate question for the areas affected by local government reorganisation, to the effect that there was a choice between one or other form of unitary government. One of the Liberal Democrat councillors in the north-east, Chris Foote-Wood, has proposed such a formula for a second question. Since I, like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), am a supporter of unitary government, that might have been one way of dealing with it.
      I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will not close their minds to the possibility of decoupling the issue from the main debate on regional government. Failure to do so would send a message that regional government had something to do with local government, whereas—as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows—those of us who have been keen on regional government for a long time see it as something important in its own right, something that could be supported on its own merits and something that would bring a new form of democracy to our country.
      I do not accept any of the arguments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). It is a shame that someone with the historic name of Runnymede in his constituency title should be so resistant to any constitutional innovation, and I am disappointed by his narrow-minded attitude to regional government. However, I hope that the Government will look at the ideas behind the Liberal Democrat amendments, even if, like me, they are not attracted by the specific amendments.
      I want to refer to the comments made by Conservative Members about their fears about the destruction of the counties, and they often refer to the idea of the historic counties. Having been born and brought up in the historic county of Northumberland, and representing now two towns in the historic county of Durham, I know perfectly well that the historic counties have not existed for a long time. Indeed, they were effectively destroyed by the then Conservative Government in the 1970s. I do not recall the Conservatives taking into

      937
      account at the time the feelings of identity that people had with those historic counties. Their argument about counties is misplaced, and the previous Conservative Government compounded the matter by some of the decisions they took, understandably, to allow unitary areas in other parts of the former historic counties. We should not be attracted to their points of view. None the less, I urge my hon. Friends to accept that it is important, in the campaign to establish regional government in this country, that a clear distinction be drawn between the role and functions of regional government and those of local government. It is possible to believe strongly in the need for stronger and more effective local government—as Labour Members do—without that contradicting the principle that we must have an equally strong regional democratic government in those areas that want it.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge argued that it would not be possible to have regional government in only one area of England. I found that argument incomprehensible. At present, we already have what is referred to as an asymmetrical form of devolution in this country. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly each have their unique powers, and a special arrangement is in place for London. A number of special arrangements exist: if such an arrangement suited the people in north-east England, for instance, why should they be denied something to which people elsewhere in the UK have been given an entitlement?
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seemed to take the view that England must be standardised. That is entirely wrong. Indeed, that standardisation approach has bedevilled previous local government reorganisations, as it does not take account of regional and local feeling.
      Mr. Lansley: Does not the right hon. Lady accept that the Government are offering devolution only on their own terms? Other parts of the UK may not want to adopt the standard model—for example, they might prefer central Government powers to be devolved to upper-tier authorities such as county councils. If people in the north-east want, and vote for, regional government, that would be okay for them. However, that may well be the exception and the Government would not allow others a different form of devolution.
      Joyce Quin: I do not accept that. The Bill allows a certain form of regional government for areas that decide that they want it. However, why should not a future Government listen to different proposals that may come forward from areas that decide otherwise? As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton noted, there is no reason why a future Government should not produce proposals for unitary local government in areas that do not want to move to regional government. That is another reason why the two issues should be decoupled.
      Mr. Lansley: The point that the right hon. Lady makes is contradicted by the specific example of planning. The Government propose that regional planning will be conducted either by the elected regional assemblies or by unelected—nominated—regional planning bodies. People will not have the option to say
      938
      that the devolved planning responsibilities in their region should be conducted at a sub-regional level or by counties. That option is simply not available.
      Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about one aspect of this decentralisation process. However, although I believe that the proposals will suit my part of the country, the north-east, it is perfectly possible that, in the future, different proposals could be formulated that would suit other parts of the country. It is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to see the decentralisation process as a one-off event that closes the door on any future innovation.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I want to substantiate the point made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If people in north Cumbria—the old county of Cumberland—had to suffer regional government, they might prefer to be part of her north-east regional assembly than a north-west assembly. How would that be tested if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asserts, there is no possibility that one region of England can go it alone?
      Joyce Quin: I strongly support the Government's approach of proceeding on the basis of the regional boundaries that we have because that is the way to make progress with regional devolution. However, I am perfectly relaxed about the prospect of having an elected assembly in the north-west and one in the north-east or even not having an elected assembly in the north-west and yet there being a sufficient desire to reopen the boundary issue at some point. My perspective is different from that of the hon. Gentleman; he seems to imagine that regional boundaries are prisons from which one cannot escape. That is an absurd notion. Why should a north-western region not co-operate with the north-east over transport links and economic links in border areas of the regions?
      This is not an entrapment mechanism; it will enable regions to look at their needs and to co-operate. The devolved structures in European countries and elsewhere in the world often have structures that allow regions to co-operate with each other. To see regions as something from which one can never escape or to believe that it is impossible for them to have a dialogue with central Government or other regions is an absurd way of viewing the situation.
      I hope that we can make progress on the Bill. Despite hoping that Ministers will look at local government reorganisation somewhat differently, I strongly support the Government's overall approach to the issue.
      Mr. Gummer: It is important, when considering the referendum question, to recognise that the regions were first established for the convenience of Government to deal with elected counties in particular and unitary authorities. That is why they are drawn as they are—it is for the convenience of Government, while counties, districts and unitary authorities are the elected convenience. If we turn that round and take away the elected counties, we are doing something very different. That is why I draw a distinction between the regions as a Government convenience—it was more convenient to have a common Government local region rather than

      939
      having different regions for different purposes—and the Minister's suggestion that the regions to which individuals naturally show some allegiance are convenient for Government. Historically, people did not do that because they were in a county or district, depending on the issue, or a unitary authority.
      Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gummer: In a moment.
      In many parts of the country, the region itself holds no particular attraction. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). I am sure that in the north-east and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the north-west, there will be those who see some connection between themselves and a place called the north-east. We have all found that in our travels around the countryside, and in our business and political life. However, I hope that she will accept from me that that does not exist for some regions. I am not trying to have a row with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. We can have a bit of badinage, but he knows perfectly well whether there is a connection between Rickmansworth and my constituency. Rickmansworth is to a great extent part of greater London, with which it connects itself and has no connection with my part of the country.
      It is likely that if there were a referendum, most of the people of the so-called eastern region would vote no to the first question put to them. They would be more likely to vote no if there were not a second question. Even more antagonism is created by the idea of local government reorganisation of the kind we know that the Government have in mind.
      9 pm
      In my constituency, before the last general election, a proposal was floated—and chatted out by the local Labour party—that there should be a new unitary authority called Greater Ipswich. If there is one thing that the people of Felixstowe like less than the idea of being part of a region called East Anglia that includes Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, it is becoming part of Greater Ipswich. Anyone who has ever experienced the complete incompetence of Ipswich borough council will understand why the people of Felixstowe do not want to be part of it. The Minister may make faces, but one reason that people do not want that change is that their council tax will go through the roof.
      Mr. Lansley: Another thing that my right hon. Friend's constituents may not like is the fact that they could be asked such a question at a time when they did not know where the seat of regional government was to be. If they would not like to be part of Ipswich, they would probably not like to be governed from Cambridge—part of which I represent—or still less, from the big new city the size of Milton Keynes that the East of England planning body proposes to establish in the eastern region. Perhaps the East of England is proposing the Brasilia option.
      Mr. Gummer: Without following my hon. Friend too far down that route, I merely note that although the East
      940
      of England planning authority is proposing the establishment of that new city, it is unwilling to tell us where it would be, in case the proposal is unpopular with anyone who lives there at present.
      If two questions are not included in the referendum, the Government will get a much lower vote in a number of areas. People can see the difference between the two questions. I shall vote no to both of them, but that will not be true of everyone in my constituency. Obviously, I want to give the proposal a fair wind; I should not dream of doing otherwise—I want people to have the chance to choose. I am sure that the vote will be overwhelmingly against it, but we should let people have the chance.
      What is wrong with asking two questions when the alternative is the interesting preamble to the referendum question set out in clause 2(2)? I want to make some points about the preamble, Mr. Winterton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Nicholas."]—I beg your pardon, Sir Nicholas.
      Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) emphasises the importance of giving people choice. Will he tell the House how much choice he gave people at the time of the Banham review, over which he presided? Was there an option for a referendum in any electoral district of the country under the Conservative Government's reorganisation?
      Mr. Gummer: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because I have told him privately on several occasions, I neither wrote the terms of the boundary commission's operation, nor did I approve of the way in which they were drawn up or of the people who drew them up. If he thinks that I shall defend the structure, he has another think coming—I have never done so anywhere.
      Happily, we are not discussing the Banham review but the Bill. I realise of course that the Minister would like to discuss something else because he does not like the Bill. That is the problem. I always know when the right hon. Gentleman does not like what he has to do; his smile becomes broader and deeper and he becomes more avuncular and much more charming than he ever is when he is really keen on something.
      The right hon. Gentleman is not keen on the Bill and the reason is the extremely peculiar piece of writing to which I referred. I am sure that he did not write the statement himself—it is not elegant enough. Why was it included? Because the Government are very afraid that faced with the simple question,
      "Should there be an elected assembly for the region?"—
      the East Anglian region, or wherever it is—many people will say, "I don't know", or even worse, "I don't care". So we have to start with a bit of indoctrination explaining why people should know and care.
      I do not know whether the Minister has noticed how long it normally takes people to vote at a polling station, but if they all have to sit down and read and understand the statement—
      Mr. Lansley: There will be no queues.
      Mr. Gummer: Of course not, because so few people will vote that there will be plenty of time. Perhaps that

      941
      is what the Minister hopes. Perhaps he hopes that less than 20 per cent. of the electorate will bother to turn out so the queues will not be too long.
      Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. Friend see a picture where someone may seek help and an interpretation of those words at the ballot box? How would that matter be resolved?
      Mr. Gummer: I do not know. Indeed, those who are unfortunately disabled in one way or another may need the normal arrangements that help them to vote to be extended in some way, and I do not know what the Minister would do in those circumstances. Will someone be there to read the preamble to anyone who is partially sighted, for example? That is a serious question. This is a different kind of voting from that which we have had before.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the Minister. The Minister wants a lot of people to vote; it is No. 10 Downing street that does not.
      Mr. Gummer: None of us can entirely know what is going on in No. 10 Downing street, so I should not like to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path.
      The preamble exists because the Government are uncertain that the public will understand what they are being asked to do. The preamble might be justified if it helped to make things certain, but it does not, which is why I support the amendments that relate to the preamble's wording.
      First, the preamble says:
      "You can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly in"
      whichever region it is. That may or may not be true, but it is certainly not what the public think help means. They think that, if they mark their crosses on the ballot papers and there are more crosses in favour than against, they will have helped to create an elected regional assembly, but that will not happen. What will happen is that the result will be communicated to the Secretary of State, who will decide, so the public are only helping to advise the Secretary of State.
      The referendums will be advisory. At the very least, the preamble, if we are to have one, must say that the referendums are advisory and that the public are partially helping and making a bit of a contribution. However, even fewer people will vote when they understand that, but saying it is worth while.
      The preamble then says:
      "the regional assembly would be responsible for a range of activities".
      I am always suspicious when people use the phrase "a range of activities". What the blazes does a range of activities mean?
      I noted the fact that the Minister referred to a number of very real powers, but he did not mention what those powers would be. He also said that there would be a number of opportunities to advise, but which opportunities, which circumstances and would anyone
      942
      bother to listen? All that is unclear. The preamble is a load of old guff and, what is more, those reading it will realise that it is.
      Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who will vote in the referendums do not need a preamble? What they need is an Act of Parliament to be passed, spelling out the functions and responsibilities of the elected regional assemblies, and an executive summary to be made available to them so that they know exactly what they are voting for.
      Mr. Gummer: I want to ask why that will not be done, because it is so obvious. I suspect that it will not be done for exactly the same reason as why the Government were so coy about the powers of the Mayor of London: they do not want to say what the powers will be.
      Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gummer: No.
      The Government do not want anyone to be too certain about the powers because they may not wish to provide so many powers, or they may wish to be more vague about them, so that they can find out who voted for the regional assembly before defining them. I noticed that, when the person whom the Government had hoped would not be chosen was elected as Mayor of London, he got rather less power than the mayor might have got if another gentlemen had won. I think that that is what this is all about.
      The Bill is about not defining the powers too precisely so that the Government can see what happens. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) should remember that, if they were defined in an Act of Parliament, there would not be much give and take at the edges. If they are defined simply by a few words from the Minister and Labour party headquarters and by a comforting remark from the Prime Minister, no doubt, the powers can be adjusted according to region.
      Do we know whether the powers will be the same in every region? Or perhaps those regions that generally seem to be on the Government's side may be given a bit more power and those that do not support them a bit less? A real, constitutional reason therefore exists for saying that the preamble is a fudge designed to make sure that the Government do not get hoist with their own petard.
      My last point is in relation to the reorganisation of local government as hidden in this preamble. I have said that I would like two questions, but I do not know who will understand this preamble. A single tier can mean a range of things. In Suffolk, people would generally prefer the counties. Whatever the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, in Suffolk, when the local reorganisation to which she referred took place, the historic county was replaced, because, in the 1870s, it was divided into two—East and West Suffolk—and the historic county came back into operation in 1974. I want to remind her of her history, however, because the proposals of the then Conservative Government were much closer to the historic counties than the proposals put forward in the Redcliffe-Maud report, which was a very socialist report—I think that

      943
      you and I, Sir Nicholas, are the only two Members present who can remember those great days. That report would have swept away many of the structures that we are discussing, and would have been a recipe for a new socialist Britain, much of which, happily, we managed to defeat.
      The fact of the matter is that those of us who live in historic counties do not want to lose them. I know that because of my experience in local government reform. I did not choose that task—it was one of those things that was handed on—and I have always believed that local government reform is a disaster for anyone who does it, in any circumstances, ever since it has been done. This Government will find that as well. It is one of those things: a fact of life. It is no good thinking that is a party political question. Whatever the Minister says about the last Government, local government reform is always difficult because there are lots of people out there who want something totally different from lots of other people, and there is no way of satisfying everybody. The Minister will be very unpopular, and nobody will like the reforms much, but that is the nature of local government reform, not the nature of the Bill.
      This Bill and question, however, are worse than most. That is because they do not do the job that the Minister wants. He should think about his love of history and the accumulated wisdom of the past, about which I have heard him talk on a number of occasions, and say to himself, "Isn't it odd that this will be the first kind of referendum that needs a whole lot of guff before we can get anybody to vote on it?" Would it not be better to throw it out and replace it with two simple questions? The first question should ask whether there should be an elected assembly for the East Anglian region—I use my region as an example—and list the counties of which that region would consist. Everybody would then know what was being talked about. When one refers to East Anglia in Suffolk, people think that that means Norfolk, Suffolk and possibly Cambridgeshire. It certainly does not include Essex, as we never include Essex in any circumstances, and none of us has ever thought that Bedfordshire was in East Anglia.
      The second question would be very simple: should the local authority now be a unitary authority called, for example, Greater Ipswich? One of the reasons my majority increased at the last election was that I mentioned, because I thought it right, to everybody in Felixstowe that the Labour party wanted a Greater Ipswich. The vote on that subject was very satisfactory. I cannot therefore promise the Minister that he will make progress very fast in that area.
      Mr. Raynsford: I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's love of history. He has commented on the possible electoral consequences of his actions, so does he think that the Labour party's remarkable electoral success in Berkshire in the 1997 election owed anything to his decision to abolish the historic county of Berkshire?
      Mr. Gummer: The Labour party's success in Berkshire owed more to its success in the United Kingdom as a whole. As the Minister well knows, there is no indication that the Labour party did better in
      944
      Berkshire than elsewhere. After the next election, it is unlikely that the Labour party will be able to point to any part of Berkshire that is represented by a Labour Member. That will have nothing to do with electoral reorganisation either.
      There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was wrong to say that the proposal was like buying a pig in a poke. If we buy a pig in a poke, we at least find the pig and the poke. With this proposal, we do not know what we are buying. When we buy a pig in a poke, we know that we are not getting a horse. With this proposal, we have no idea. Decent constitutional needs require simple constitutional questions, so can we have two simple questions in all parts of the country? In most parts of the country, people will say no, but let us ask them, trust them and not give them guff.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I shall seek to be helpful to a Committee of the whole House. Several Members wish to contribute to the debate. If they are brief, more of them may be able to speak before we run out of time than would otherwise be the case.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: I shall try to heed your instructions, Mr. Winterton.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in his tigerish manner, suggested that the politics of identity were important. He hit on an important truth. We often define our identity not so much in terms of whom we associate with but of whom we do not want to be associated with. I served for a couple of years as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland, and I am well aware of the truth of that, sad though it may often be.
      I grew up and spent most of my young life in Huyton. Until I was a young man, it was part of Lancashire but, in 1974, it was put into Merseyside. I slightly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. Although a Conservative Government introduced the legislation, it made more sense for the people of Huyton to be in Merseyside than it ever did for us to be in Lancashire. That is as true today as it was then.I now live in Prescot. It used to be in my constituency but, because of the vagaries of boundary changes, it no longer is. Many people who live there consider that they live still live in Lancashire. Because there is no natural border with Lancashire, they have a somewhat vain hope that they will return to it.
      I should have said at the outset that I intend to support the Opposition's lead amendment—amendment No. 39. There should be a second question on the ballot paper in my part of the world. People should be asked whether they would prefer to have a Greater Merseyside assembly or authority. I shall try to work out the details of the question, but my current argument is that that option should be available.
      I noted that my right hon. Friend the Minister was anxious to preserve the position of London. He challenged the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman several times on the implications of their amendments

      945
      for that city. If the arrangements in London—possibly minus Ken Livingstone—are satisfactory for people there, why can we not have something similar on Merseyside? For that matter, why can the people of Manchester or Newcastle not have something similar if they so wish?
      I made it clear that I object in principle to the whole process. However, the Bill received Second Reading, although not with my support because I abstained, and the Government's majority means that it is almost certain to end up on the statute book. As the argument develops, I think that more people will share my view. If I can convince the people of Merseyside to support me, I hope that they will have the ability to say, "This is the future we want." Current arrangements allow them some control over their transport and that would continue under the process that I advocate. No doubt they would want to have some influence over policing. We have a good relationship with the chief constable and all the local authorities have a good relationship with the police through partnership arrangements. They would want to have local control over other things as well.
      I object to the Government's proposal because there is no natural sympathy between the people who live on Merseyside and the people of Manchester. There is no connection between the people of Cheshire and the people of Merseyside. There are connections for those people who have moved around, but they are different places with different histories, different backgrounds and, let us be honest about it, possibly different aspirations. The same is probably true of Lancashire. I cannot begin to describe what a strange relationship we have with Cumbria. It is a wonderful place. I love the people and am keen on my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent it, but there is no natural connection with my constituency other than the fact that we love to go there for our holidays, for a day out or to go camping or walking.
      I have grave doubts about the process, but my right hon. Friend could persuade me and some of my colleagues who are beginning to share my view to take a different approach if he at least gave the major urban areas the opportunity to carve out their own identity. Frankly, the one-size-fits-all arrangement will not suit Merseyside. I hope that he has listened carefully to my comments. I will support the Opposition on the amendment. I hope not to be put in that position repeatedly and that my right hon. Friend will give me a reason to support the Government again on this matter.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has held a consistent and reasoned view on the legitimate question of marrying identity with what feels right so that the local government configuration serves the mutual interests of belonging and accountability. He and I debated that recently on a north-west television hustings programme. Some 800 calls were taken during that half-hour programme. I know that the Minister is keen to establish whether there is support for regional assemblies and that he wants to take soundings on them. The idea of the programme was to test support for a north-west regional assembly. I argued against it and said that there was no need or demand for it. As it happens, my view came out on top. It might help to bear that in mind in terms of soundings.
      946
      I endorse the points made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and will vote accordingly. Speaking as the only Member whose constituency, Eddisbury, is named from the original hundred, it is clear that what the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East said about identity as the core will be uppermost in the minds of people who have to consider the decision. Those of us who are privileged and proud to represent seats in Cheshire—I say this, knowing very well that you are one of those, Sir Nicholas—are in no doubt about people's sense that they come from a county rather than from the north-west. No matter that some counties are only 25 years old and others are many hundreds of years old—or indeed that, following one reincarnation, some have been returned to their original state.
      I say that by way of providing a background to consideration of clause 2 and the referendum question. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) was unable properly to respond to that question because there will not be only a "one size fits all" approach but a difficult, desynchronised process intended to deal with the Government's proposed devolution arrangements for England. England is the entity being considered, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already having been addressed.
      The failure to give the people of north Cumberland, the residents of the old Cumberland county, the option of saying whether they feel it appropriate to be in the north-west, the north-east or perhaps a newly named north region is a major hole in the Government's proposals. Endorsing the erudite arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), it demonstrates why there should be two referendum questions, not least because that addresses so many of the questions asked in interventions.
      Despite the Minister's attempt to claim otherwise, the preamble will not meet the requirement under section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that the Electoral Commission consider the intelligibility of the wording of the referendum question. The preamble begins:
      "You can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly in the … region."
      That does not give the reader a sense that there is a real choice, as it would if it were rephrased—if it is to remain. I endorse all the arguments as to why it is guff. Any preamble should read, "You can help to decide whether there should or should not be an elected assembly." It would then be clear that there was a choice.
      The reason for my suspicion, and for my endorsement of the amendments, is the fact that the chief executive of the existing north-west regional assembly, a certain Mr. Steve Machin, has already conducted an exercise in which he sent out postcards that could be returned if the recipient were in favour of a north-west region. There was no option on the card to suggest something else or, more important, to state a preference for the status quo.
      Hey presto, the exercise is now being prayed in evidence by Mr. Machin and all those who are desperate for the establishment of a north-west region to justify their jobs, so there seems to be a high percentage of support for the proposal. Having corresponded with Mr. Machin, I have placed on record my view that that

      947
      was an illegitimate way of securing support for the north-west region that he is so anxious to establish. He wrote back, saying, "Well, if you can get sponsorship for your question, we would be very happy to conduct a similar exercise."
      Mr. George Osborne: Mr. Machin's behaviour is one reason why the Labour party in the north-west is divided, as we have seen from the speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The behaviour of the current north-west assembly has put most people in the region off the whole idea of an elected assembly.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Even while protected by the privileges of the House, I shall only go so far as to say that I dare say he will share my aspiration that the Minister will conduct close, careful scrutiny of events in the north-west assembly. I gather that he has made a commitment on the Floor of the House that if there has been any use of public money for such arrangements, it will be regarded as a serious matter which could have consequences. Without evidence and absolute proof, it would be wrong to do anything more than simply ask the Minister to be aware that this matter needs deep consideration and close scrutiny.
      I shall soon conclude to allow others to speak, but I back the amendments tabled by my colleagues. There is no clear popular demand for north-west regional government. The process of taking soundings requires trust and must not be nobbled—one argument must not be favoured over another. It is therefore extremely important that we note the behaviour of some of those who are strong advocates of regional government in the north-west, as their actions and approaches have undermined my faith that the process has been undertaken in good faith.
      9.30 pm
      The Temporary Chairman: I urge Members to heed the exhortation I made a few minutes ago for brief speeches so that as many Members as possible can speak on this important amendment.
      Mr. Beith: I shall do my best to meet your requirements, Sir Nicholas.
      I am in favour of a regional assembly for my own region, the north-east, and therefore strongly oppose amendment No. 20, which is a clear Conservative fiat determining that even if the north-east voted by a large majority for a regional assembly and the legislation was in place, it would be denied the opportunity to have one, which is quite wrong. However, I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of my constituents and people in other parts of the north-east in the remaining two-tier areas who are a minority of the population. The Labour manifesto referred to "predominantly unitary" local government in regions that are to be allowed to proceed to a regional assembly. That condition is already satisfied in the north-east.
      In its present form, the Bill would require areas where it has proved difficult in the past to create unitary local government to have it. That decision would require the
      948
      people in the region who wanted a regional assembly to vote for unitary government, whether or not they wanted it in that form. However, the Bill ensures that the decision about whether they will get an assembly is made by the vast majority of people who live in areas that already have unitary government. That majority would be confused by the question and would have no desire to determine the local government of the remaining two-tier areas—they would not be in the least interested in the fate of local government in areas in which they do not live.
      I shall underline for the Minister's benefit the difficulties experienced during previous attempts to create unitary government in Northumberland. The county is too large and diverse to be a single-tier authority—it stretches from Berwick in the north across to Haltwhistle in the west—so there is strong opposition to the proposal. If a unitary Northumberland were the only option, some people might choose it to keep the name "Northumberland" and the association with the county, but it is a very large local government unit. The alternative of reducing six districts to three is often criticised from the centre because their population is relatively small, even though they cover a huge area. Either way, we are likely to face a worrying system of unitary government to which a section of the population is strongly opposed on fairly good grounds. We would be asked to decide the question of a regional assembly in the light of a wholly separate question. As the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) pointed out, that gives the confusing impression that this is all about local government powers: it is not—it is about central Government powers and how they can be devolved effectively.
      The Minister and the Government will put a lot of people in rural Northumberland in a difficult position if they tell them that they can have a regional assembly only if they have a particular system of unitary local government. If they do not want that system, they cannot have a regional assembly. Slightly more realistic, perhaps, is a situation in which people may not bother voting because their local government system will be decided by people in Tyneside, Teesside, Hartlepool and all the other unitary areas that make up the majority of the north-east's population. In fact, their votes may be crucial to our getting a regional assembly or not—it may be a close-run thing. In that case, they should be allowed to vote on whether they want a regional assembly. They may well have strong views—in my case, I am strongly in favour of an assembly—and we must not allow that choice to be subverted by a decision on an issue which the Minister must know has been difficult to resolve in previous local government reorganisations.
      There may well be a route to a workable system of unitary local government, but I can hardly imagine a worse way of going about it, or a worse way of hobbling the campaign for a regional assembly, than a decision that has nothing at all to do with it.
      The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has set a good example, which I hope will be followed.
      Jim Knight: I shall do my best, Sir Nicholas. I wish to comment on two aspects of the amendments, which I shall vote against.

      949
      The first aspect is the proposal to ask the Electoral Commission to come up with the wording of the question and any necessary preamble. I am proud of the fact that we live in a parliamentary democracy, and I believe that the wording and the preamble should be agreed here in Parliament, not delegated to a less accountable body, even one as highly regarded as the Electoral Commission.
      The other amendments on which I shall comment—at slightly greater length, if you will forgive me, Sir Nicholas—are those relating to the preamble. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in particular, questioned the need for a preamble. I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He will be delighted to know that this time next week, I shall be celebrating Christmas in his constituency—[Interruption.] I shall not be going to his house, he will also be pleased to know.
      If we do not have a preamble, the Government will be accused of hiding our motives. It is important that it be spelled out clearly to the electorate that they have a choice between the status quo and replacing the two principal levels of local government with a unitary authority and a regional assembly. That seems clear, but I draw the attention of the House to clause 8, dealing with the provision of information to voters. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). It would be wrong to have a long preamble. The choice should be made clear to voters in advance. Clause 8 makes provision for that, especially in subsection (2), which states:
      "The Electoral Commission may take such steps as they think appropriate to provide for persons entitled to vote in the referendum such information as the Commission think is likely to promote awareness among those persons about the arguments for and against each answer to the referendum question."
      That places a requirement on the Electoral Commission to provide exactly the information called for by the hon. Member for South-West Devon.
      I contrast that with the approach of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who has just left the Chamber, spoke about clarity and honesty. The amendments that he tabled would add a whole essay to the preamble. Amendment No. 54 would make it necessary to tell people that the referendum was advisory. Amendment No. 20 would inform them that there would be no action until three regions had voted for a regional assembly. Amendment No. 22 would provide a detailed description of local government reorganisation. Under amendment No. 38, the constituency of the directly elected members would have to be set out. Amendment No. 23 would explain the threshold that the Opposition wish to impose. All those together amount to an incomprehensible essay. I hope that, given his comments, the hon. Member for South-West Devon in particular will vote against this group of amendments.
      Finally, I shall add a comment of my own on the preamble, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider and deal with on Report. Subsection (2) states:
      "Where it is proposed to establish an elected regional assembly, it is also intended that local government should be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils."
      950
      I fear that that may be confusing to electors who live in areas with three tiers of local government, because it does not make it clear that parish councils would not be included in that reorganisation into a single tier. I am sure that most hon. Members would understand the provision, and later in the Bill the meaning is made clear, but as a preamble to the referendum question, it may be confusing to electors. I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on that.
      Mr. Streeter: I shall also be brief, Sir Nicholas, in the hope of winning your praise as well.
      I should like to focus on one issue relating to the amendments: getting maximum information to the people who may be voting in the referendums. I think that it was Ernest Bevin—I know that the Minister has modelled his political career on this Labour bigwig—pleaded many years ago with the Labour party not to send him naked into the negotiating chamber. If the Bill is enacted, we will be sending our constituents blind into the ballot box and they will be voting on a series of questions about which they have inadequate information. We all want to trust the people, but before we can trust them to make a decision, we must inform them and ensure that they have the requisite information to make an informed choice. We have to spell out exactly what they would be voting for, but the preamble and question as they are configured in the Bill simply do not do that. What people know as they take part in referendums in years to come will be dwarfed by what they do not know about the new elected regional assemblies and local government reform.
      Clause 19 gives us a clue about some of things that people will not know, as the information will be available after a referendum. For example, they will not know about
      "the electoral areas into which the region is to be divided…the number of electoral areas or the name by which each electoral area is to be known".
      We know how significant the name of a district or constituency is to local people. They will not even know
      "the total number of members to be elected to the assembly",
      so they will not have a clue what the assembly will look like. Perhaps even more worryingly—it is vital to spell out this information in a preamble or in some other way—people will not know about the precise powers, functions and responsibilities of what they are voting for.
      When I approached the Standing Committee some weeks ago, I very naively assumed that strategic transport decisions would be taken by the elected regional assemblies. I did so because I thought that that was what the White Paper said. It states that a transport strategy
      "will spell out plans to address congestion, improve public transport and road links, and ensure that the transport system supports sustainable economic growth".
      That appears to make it fairly clear that the regional assemblies will have significant decision-making ability and power in relation to transport decisions. In the Standing Committee, I asked the Minister whether the regional assembly would make decisions on where road bypasses were installed. He said no and told me that that would remain the province of the Government. Unless we spell out what is happening, many people will vote

      951
      for an assembly in the belief that the bypass that they have wanted for years is within their grasp because of the impression that local people will have power over such decisions. That is complete balderdash, as that is not what the Bill would give them.
      Unless we can spell out exactly what people will get, we will be leading the electorate up the garden path. I still do not believe that that explanation can be given in any form of preamble, as it will come at the wrong time. The ballot paper is not the right place for such information. I believe that we need an active Parliament that clearly defines all the powers, and that an executive summary should be sent to each potential elector well in advance so that he or she can make an informed and coherent decision. Unless the Minister can deliver on that tonight, I shall vote in support of the amendments.
      Mr. Key: I wish simply to underline all the comments that have been made about the importance of local government's delivery of services. I think that we will lose a great deal in that regard. Most people do not know that every single local authority has nominated a member of our regional chambers who will take decisions every day on the important strategic issues, including waste, transport and a range of other things. We will lose that under the Bill. I would rather ensure that every local authority was indirectly elected under the existing system than see its replacement by 30 people who have neither the dedication of local government councillors nor the desire to fight for a seat in this House. What sort of people will they be to take over those functions?
      Mr. Flook: In order to be brief, I wish to speak mainly to amendment No. 55 and about its recognition of the importance of the county and district set up, primarily as it exists in Somerset.
      The south-west region is very much a man-made construct that is of modern hue and has no connection whatever with anyone in Somerset. As the Bill stands, when a local voter goes into the polling booth, should the referendum ever take place, he will be confused even by the question of what region he lives in. Somerset is the county of cider, cricket, the renaissance of the Wurzels and Somerset clotted cream, rather than that of Devon.
      Mr. Streeter: Oh, come on.
      Mr. Flook: Somerset clotted cream is, as we know, far superior to that of Devon.
      The voter will also wonder, when he walks in to the polling booth, what a single tier is. He will not know that local authorities represent a single tier, because he has lived under the administration of Somerset county council and Taunton Deane borough council. Will he be aware, as he votes, that Bristol, Swindon, Torbay, Exeter, Gloucester and Plymouth are already unitary? Will he also be aware that he is at a disadvantage compared with his colleagues in the north of the so-called region of which he is part? Will he have thought that the urban areas will have different needs? The Liberal Democrats who control Somerset county council keep telling us that the area is rural, although
      952
      they never do anything about that. Will the voter also be aware that, if there are to be unitary authorities in Somerset, Taunton would be part of the west Somerset unitary authority—which, ironically, would be good for the Conservatives? Although I get on very well with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), I am not sure that the people of Taunton get on well enough with the people of Bridgwater to want to be in the same local authority.
      A regional area is a construct that has no relevance whatever to anyone in Somerset. That is not surprising, because the regional development agency, on which the regional assembly would be based, has been completely useless to the people of Taunton. When I wrote to the RDA asking what contribution it had made to the Taunton constituency, it tried to dress up its contribution, but in fact the money that it had spent had been given to it by English Partnerships. The real keystone, the Government office for the south-west, was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, for the convenience of Government. He also talked about an elected convenience of local authorities. In fact, we miss the point if we have regional assemblies based on a regional construct, because what we need is democratic ownership. That is why I shall be voting for the amendment.
      Mr. Jack: I firmly believe that the terms of amendment No. 39 should be supported. In relation to the preamble, anyone would find it difficult to agree on a word that everyone would be satisfied with, but simple questions are what referendums are about, and we should have two such questions: one on the regional assembly and one that makes people aware of what the local government implications are. My constituents would certainly not welcome finding the borough of Fylde subsumed into a city of the Fylde, dominated by Blackpool. There is antagonism of an historic nature there, and people need to be alerted to the situation.
      I agree with the comments that have been made about the need to ensure that people have full and adequate information before they reach the ballot box. Having this type of statement in the preamble is not the place to debate the issues of the moment on this matter. If, however, the amendments are lost and this statement does appear, the Minister should tell us at what reading age it has been aimed. I would like to know why, for example, no alternative form of display for this information has been proposed. It could have been displayed perhaps not in a paragraph but in bullet point form. Perhaps the skills of tabloid journalists could have been applied, in a positive sense, to convey a lot more information to people, so far as the text is concerned. The enthusiasm for regional government was demonstrated to me last Friday when I met members of the north-west CBI. In an altogether random but none the less interesting straw poll of about 60 business people, only two voted positively for this proposal. I believe that the use of two straightforward questions is the way forward.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate that has focused on three main issues: whether there should be a preamble and whether there were precedents for it; the use of a single question linking the issue of the

      953
      regional assembly to the unitary local government arrangement, as against the preference of some Members for two questions; and the definition of regions. I shall try to deal with all those points while responding on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
      Amendment No. 39 would require any order made under clause 1—that is, one to hold a referendum—also to direct the Electoral Commission to determine the question or questions. Amendment No. 11 would also leave the form of the preamble to the Electoral Commission, but Parliament, through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, gave a specific role to the commission. What we propose is entirely consistent with that role, which is to comment on the intelligibility of UK national and regional referendum questions and to be consulted when the question or preamble is set by subordinate legislation.
      The 2000 Act does not give the commission the responsibility to set the question and understandably so, as it is meant to be above the political fray such as that which we have seen today over the form that the referendum question should take. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) emphasised, such decisions should ultimately be taken by an elected Government who are answerable to an elected Parliament.
      As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained, amendment No. 11 has other implications.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as he has little time. If he rejects the notion of the Electoral Commission setting more than one question, will he at least allow the possibility of there being more than one?
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall come to that in a moment. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, as I want to try to address the point through a series of logical steps. Otherwise, I will not be able to cover the ground in the relatively short time available.
      I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on the importance of the electorate understanding the conclusions of the boundary committee review of their region. We also believe that voters should be aware of the implications for local government when they cast their vote, but our approach has been to keep the preamble relatively short and general, highlighting the intention to move to wholly unitary government if an elected assembly is to be established.
      However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House that we also intend to put out a factual statement to voters in the run-up to a referendum, which would include more detailed information on the local government changes recommended by the boundary committee. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I can say in response to the questions raised by a number of Members that we would be perfectly prepared to consider having a map to set out the whole region and illustrating it with further information on the number of counties and other districts in that region, if that would be helpful. We want to ensure that electors are fully informed of the implications.
      954
      Accepting amendment No. 11 would also mean that no statement on the intended functions or powers of the proposed assembly could be included in the preamble unless those functions and powers were defined in an Act. This is just another example of the Opposition's delaying tactics, which we have rejected. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have rejected them too.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister has conceded readily that conducting the boundary review will take approximately a year. Does he really think that it would be impossible for the Government to get their act together and put the legislation to set up the assemblies through Parliament within a year?
      Mr. Raynsford: As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman in many previous exchanges, we are following exactly the same precedent that was adopted in the examples of Scotland, Wales and London whereby a referendum was held to determine whether the Government should legislate to allow the creation of the relevant Parliament or Assembly. We are following exactly the same procedure and we will ensure that information is made available in a comprehensive form, so that people are fully aware of what they are voting on. We intend to publish a statement on the proposed powers of the elected assembly based on our White Paper proposals so that electors are properly informed before they cast their vote.
      Mr. Lansley: How can the Minister, based on the White Paper, assert in the preamble that the activities that would be carried out by the assembly are those
      "carried out mainly by central government bodies,"
      especially in respect of regional economic development? The only transfer of a central Government responsibility for regional economic development in the White Paper is the appointment of the chair and members of a regional development agency. Everything else is already done either regionally or locally.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a hugely important issue—the appointment of members of regional development agencies and the oversight of their work. Their work is crucial to economic development in regions, and we are giving the elected regional assemblies that role and responsibility as well as oversight of a number of other areas. [Interruption.] I have not time to elaborate on that this evening. In response to an earlier intervention, I have already given the details of the powers in relation to housing and I could give details about a number of other matters, but time is limited. Let me simply stress that the powers relate coherently to regional functions that must be discharged in a region. Powers relating to economic development, transport planning, housing planning, wider land use planning, environmental planning and cultural issues, for instance, are best discharged at regional level and will form the substance of the work of the elected regional assemblies.
      The Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 51 ask for a separate question on local government reorganisation. Amendments Nos. 30 and 51 set out two different formulations for the question. That is a fairly typical Liberal Democrat approach:

      955
      whenever there is a chance of being simple, avoid it and try to be complicated. Let us have a proliferation of questions and a proliferation of talking shops!
      I remember only too well the parallel situation involving the Greater London Authority. The Liberal Democrats wanted two questions then. They wanted to separate the mayor from the assembly: they did not want a mayor and an assembly working together. They always go for two questions rather than one if they can. It is a sad comment on the Conservative party—and it is probably why, according to the opinion polls, it now has only 27 per cent. support—that it has followed the Liberal Democrats down this fruitless path. Both parties are completely out of touch.
      I disagree with both of them. The move to a single tier of local government is an integral part of the regional assembly package. Without rationalisation, a regional assembly will add complexity to the structure of government and lead to an undesirable proliferation of tiers of government. We want a clear division of responsibilities between different tiers of government, and clear lines of accountability between those tiers and the voters. In all parts of the United Kingdom where we have devolved powers to Parliaments or assemblies—Scotland, Wales and Greater London—local government is unitary, and it is entirely logical to have a unitary framework of local government in any region that opts for an elected regional assembly.
      Amendments Nos. 19, 22 and 38 would all add information to the preamble. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is trying to achieve, at least in the first two amendments. He wants to ensure that voters know which local authorities are in their regions, and what local government changes would be intended to result if an elected assembly were established. I am, however, less impressed by the wording. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to list countries rather than counties, and why has he left out non-metropolitan districts? But I will pass over that. I have already given an assurance that we are happy to consider including a map and an appropriate description, which will ensure that people are properly informed.
      Amendment No. 38 is slightly different. It seeks to set out in the preamble what the electoral districts would be for directly elected members of an assembly. It is somewhat confused, in that the Electoral Commission, rather than the Boundary Committee, will advise on electoral areas. Clause 19 provides that the commission should give that advice after a referendum has been held and when an elected assembly is to be established.
      Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, I have no time.
      By contrast with amendment No. 11, the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 31 would remove the preamble altogether. That is a curious proposal, as I have already pointed out. [Interruption.]
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Committee may not wish to listen to the Minister, but I do.
      10 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats' wish to remove the preamble is curious, given their strong advocacy in the debate for the Electoral Commission's proposed preamble; but I do not expect consistency from the Liberal Democrats.
      Amendment No. 54 tries to redraft the first sentence of the preamble and emphasises the fact that the referendum is advisory, but our intention is to be guided by the referendum result. If people do vote yes, we intend to establish an assembly; if they vote no, we intend not to do so. That is why, in the wording of clause 2(2), we have said:
      "You can help to decide".
      By not stating, "You can decide", clause 2(2) already reflects the fact that the referendum is advisory. The Electoral Commission considered the wording and was content with this approach. Through other amendments, hon. Members are seeking to place great store by the commission's views on the wording of the question and of the preamble. So I trust that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will not press amendment No. 54 to a vote.
      Amendment No. 49 seeks to replace the current wording of the preamble with that proposed by the Electoral Commission. As I have said, we take the commission's views very seriously indeed, and we will consider its comments carefully, along with some comments made during the debate, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who made a valid point about parish councils. We will consider all such comments before deciding whether it is appropriate to amend the Bill, and if so, at what stage.
      Amendment No. 50, which was moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), would delete from the preamble any reference to local government reorganisation. I imagine that he intends it to be consequential on his other amendments, which add a separate question on reorganisation. I have already explained why we do not regard that as appropriate. We do not accept the Liberal Democrat wish for a continued proliferation of tiers of government, and for more talk, more talking shops and more politicians. We want streamlined structures, we want clarity, and we want action, not words.
      I turn to amendment No. 20. We have already discussed, under clause 1, the issue of a threshold. Now, the Opposition want to set another hurdle before elected assemblies can be established. If the amendment were accepted, three or more regions would have to vote in favour of an assembly before any could be established. We all know that interest in having an elected regional assembly varies in different parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) rightly made the point that if individual regions want an elected assembly, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be denied. It is a classic comment on the views of the Conservatives that they would deny individual regions the opportunity of an elected regional assembly. No wonder they have such little representation in the north-east.
      We heard an extraordinary contribution from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). In a speech that reminded me of medieval theologians

      957
      debating angels dancing on the head of a pin—given his very real interest in theology, he will probably consider that analogy carefully—he tried to justify his own current rejection of regions that he himself designated, as Secretary of State, in the mid-1990s. He ended up disowning the whole process of local government reorganisation over which he presided. That is the most extraordinary example, certainly since the time of Mr. Tony Benn, of a former Secretary of State disowning virtually everything that he himself actively promoted when in government. His own legacy was dismissed as—in his own words—a "load of old guff".
      I do not see a variation of interest as a reason to hold back progress in the regions where interest is most advanced. If people in one or two regions vote to establish a regional assembly, I see no reason why the Opposition should deny them that choice. We believe in letting people in the regions make a choice, and we want them to determine the future of their regions. The Opposition want to hold them back, and the Liberal Democrats want simply to delay and to have endless talking shops. So I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment, and if he does not I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Hammond: I will do no such thing. I realise that the Minister was under time pressure, but he has not replied to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made about the north-west regional assembly. I hope that he will write to him on it. I should also tell the Minister that, before trying to score a point out of a printing error, it is always a good idea to get the latest version of the Order Paper, rather than yesterday's version.
      We can sum up what the Minister told us at the end of this debate, which has been about making information available, ensuring that it is fairly presented, and ensuring that the significance of the question is correctly understood by electors.
      At the end of the debate, the Minister has conceded that the only significant power that will be devolved down from central Government to the newly elected regional assemblies will be the power to appoint the chairman of the regional development agency. I suggest to the Minister that if he had the honesty to put that in the preamble rather than talking about
      "activities that are currently carried out mainly by central government bodies"
      he would find that the level of interest—however low it might already have been—would decrease still further.
      The Minister has simply failed to address the concerns that have been expressed from my right hon. and hon. Friends and the concerns with which the amendments seek to deal; making sure that electors have the information that they need to deal with the question and that any preamble is presented fairly and objectively. It should be prepared, ideally, by an independent body; if not, it should at least at least include proper, factual information and not a lot of Government spin. If the Minister wants to know the definition of "guff", he only has to look at his own words. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment tonight.
      It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      958
      The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 296.

      Division No.37]

      [10:06pm

      Ayes

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Harvey, Nick

      Allan, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Amess, David

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Heald, Oliver

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Heath, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Bacon, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Baldry, Tony

      Hermon, Lady

      Barker, Gregory

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brady, Graham

      Keetch, Paul

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Brazier, Julian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Breed, Colin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burnett, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burns, Simon

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burnside, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Burstow, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Leigh, Edward

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cash, William

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Chidgey, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Loughton, Tim

      Clappison, James

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Maclean, rh David

      Conway, Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Maples, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Norman, Archie

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Doughty, Sue

      Öpik, Lembit

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Paterson, Owen

      Pickles, Eric

      Flight, Howard

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Redwood, rh John

      Garnier, hon. Edward

      Rendel, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Goodman, Paul

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Grayling, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Greenway, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Selous, Andrew

      Gummer, rh John

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hammond, Philip

      Shepherd, Richard

      959

      Simmonds, Mark

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spring, Richard

      Watkinson, Angela

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Wiggin, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Willetts, David

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Syms, Robert

      Willis, Phil

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tredinnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trend, Michael

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Coleman, Iain

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cooper, Yvette

      Austin, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cousins, Jim

      Banks, Tony

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Benn, Hilary

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Denham, rh John

      Borrow, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Doran, Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bryant, Chris

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burgon, Colin

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnham, Andy

      Efford, Clive

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Cairns, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Casale, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Challen, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foulkes, rh George

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      960

      Gilroy, Linda

      McKechin, Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McWilliam, John

      Grogan, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hanson, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hendrick, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Miliband, David

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Miller, Andrew

      Heyes, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mole, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hodge, Margaret

      Moran, Margaret

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Olner, Bill

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Organ, Diana

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Illsley, Eric

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Perham, Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purchase, Ken

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purnell, James

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lammy, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lepper, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Linton, Martin

      Ruane, Chris

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McDonnell, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McFall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      961

      Skinner, Dennis

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Soley, Clive

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Southworth, Helen

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Spellar, rh John

      Ward, Claire

      Squire, Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Starkey Dr Phyllis

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Steinberg,Gery

      Watts, David

      Stevenson, George

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Winnick, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Gillian Merron

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      ENTITLEMENT To VOTE
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 36, leave out from 'at' to second 'the' in line 37 and insert
      'a parliamentary election in any parliamentary constituency, any part of which falls within the region and his address on the electoral register falls within'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 37, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where there is a proposal to reorganise local government, only people living in the relevant local government areas may vote on such a proposal.'.
      Mr. Hammond: Amendment No. 48 would amend the franchise for the referendum as it is defined in clause 3. At first glance, the clause might appear unexceptional. Subsection (1) states:
      "A person is entitled to vote in a referendum held in a region … if on the date of the referendum he is entitled to vote at the election of councillors for any electoral area in the region."
      In other words, the local government—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Will Members who are remaining in the Chamber please be quiet while the hon. Gentleman moves the amendment?
      Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.
      The franchise that will apply is the local government franchise. However, throughout our deliberations on the Bill thus far, the Minister has told us that elected regional assemblies will not be about the exercise of local government powers sucked up from existing tiers
      962
      of local government. In fact, he has told us the contrary: regional assemblies will have as their business the exercise of powers—to use the words of the statement in clause 2—
      "currently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
      I put it to the Minister, therefore, that it is grossly illogical to use the local government franchise for the referendum on that question when he claims that elected regional assemblies will primarily dispense powers that were previously exercised by central Government.
      The two franchises are not identical. European Union citizens living in England are entitled to vote in local government elections, and would thus be entitled to vote in the referendum as the Bill is drafted, but not in parliamentary elections. Our amendment proposes that the franchise applicable should be the parliamentary franchise, and that an elector entitled to vote in a particular regional referendum will be any elector who is entitled to vote in
      "a parliamentary election in any parliamentary constituency"
      all or part of which is within the region. That allows for the possibility that a parliamentary constituency may fall within two regions. I do not expect that to happen, but it is always possible. The provision is qualified by the requirement that an elector, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum, should have an address on the electoral register in the region.
      If the Minister objects to that revision of the franchise, he must say why, given his claims, it is more appropriate to use the local government franchise for the referendum rather than the parliamentary franchise.
      If the Minister insists on using the local government franchise, it will tend to support the Opposition's suspicion that the elected regional assemblies will be more about taking powers away from local authorities and about a different way to exercise local powers than any genuine measure of devolution.
      Mr. Lansley: I am entirely following the point that my hon. Friend makes. I wanted to establish why the Government have proceeded in this way, so I read the notes on clauses, as one tends to do, only to find that there are notes on clauses 2 and 4, but none on clause 3. So I cannot even find out where the Government started on this issue.
      Mr. Hammond: We will look to the Minister for further elucidation. My hon. Friend will have discovered, as I have, that it is sometimes unwise to rely too much on the explanatory notes, which tend to tell the reader what the Government want him to think the Bill says, rather than what it actually says on a closer reading. The amendment seems pretty logical, and I look forward to hearing the reason why the Minister will resist it if, indeed, he wants to do so.
      Matthew Green: I obviously want to speak to amendment No. 25, but before doing so, I shall touch on amendment No. 48, tabled by the Conservatives. We are a little interested in that amendment because we believe—we seek the Minister's clarification on this—that British citizens who live in Germany can vote in that country's regional elections but not its national elections, so the group of people who can vote in local elections will be eligible. We wonder whether the

      963
      amendment is a bit of anti-Europeanism by the Conservative party. Conservative Members are desperate not to mention Europe these days.
      Mr. Swayne: I can clearly understand the argument for using a local franchise in elections to the assemblies, but we are talking about the determination of a constitutional issue, which is quite properly a matter for the parliamentary franchise. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that distinction?
      Matthew Green: I can see a slight distinction, but the amendment would rule out some European citizens who live in the United Kingdom being able to vote in the referendums, which, after all, are only indicative. Whether those people can vote will depend on the area in which they live. Perhaps I should use the phrase "region of Europe", although I know that Conservative Members will not be keen on it. The Conservatives obviously do not want any other European citizens to be able to vote in the referendums, so we know where they are coming from, even if they will not be so explicit themselves.
      I come now to amendment No. 25, which is my main reason for speaking. Under that amendment, where local government reorganisation is proposed so that a two-tier system will be reduced to a unitary structure, only people who live in that area could vote on that proposal. The Minister has said that he will consider our proposal for two questions, although he has not been persuaded by that argument. Under that amendment, if there were two questions, the franchise for the referendum would be restricted to those people who live in that area, thereby solving the problem in the Bill.
      We have heard that the north-east may choose to hold a referendum. Under amendment No. 25, the people of Newcastle, who already have unitary government, will be able to vote on whether Northumberland, which currently has a two-tier system, should have unitary government. So we seek to ensure that the decisions on changing local government are taken by the people who are directly affected. Once again, we are telling the Government to trust the people. If they are prepared to do that, they will find that there is greater support for regional government and that they are more likely to win the regional referendums.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I believe that the Committee may have made some progress this evening—
      Mr. Edward Davey: When the Minister was not here.
      Mr. Leslie: I have been here, for good or ill, throughout much of the debate today.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said in moving his amendment that one reason why we should use the parliamentary franchise is that powers will be taken from national level, not local level. I think that that was essentially his argument.
      Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the Minister would not want to disappoint me. He will know that I said that the
      964
      Government claim that the purpose of these regional assemblies is to devolve power down from central Government.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Leslie: I was so hopeful, but my hopes for the hon. Gentleman have been dashed on the rocks. What a great pity. I was about to welcome his acceptance, at last, of the truth behind our proposals: elected regional assemblies will take powers from Whitehall and from central Government, and not from local government. It is a pity that the Conservatives have not dealt with that.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows well why it is best to use the local franchise register in this case. It is not simply a case of quoting precedent, although that is important. The local register was used in the Scotland, Wales and London referendums, and is also the basis for electing Members of those assemblies. We plan to use the register for electing members of regional assemblies, too. A strong argument exists that there should be a common approach for all sub-national referendums and elections. That is an important point.
      The Liberal Democrat spokesman also spotted that the local register includes relevant citizens of the European Union who are resident, as well as life peers. Those are the only practical differences from the parliamentary register. What does the Conservative party have against life peers voting in these referendums? Why should not Councillor Lord Peter Smith, the leader of Wigan council and the former chairman of the north-west regional assembly, be entitled to vote for an elected regional assembly? Why should Lord Hanningfield, the Tory leader of Essex county council, be precluded from voting? What do the Conservatives have against those fine upstanding citizens?
      In terms of the European Union citizen provisions, I remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that those came into force in 1994 and 1996. Why should the Conservatives now be frightened of using their own provisions? Regional government is sub-national, sub-parliamentary government.
      Mr. Lansley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made clear, the reason is that what we are discussing is not a decision but an advisory referendum to the Government in relation to the exercise of a parliamentary responsibility. Lord Hanningfield, good man that he is, has an opportunity to comment on and decide on this matter in another place. He does not need to have a vote in the referendum to do that.
      Mr. Leslie: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. I had a feeling that he was slightly warmer towards our European friends and neighbours than some others on the Conservative Benches, and I am most disappointed with that particular argument. These are reciprocal arrangements for sub-national government arrangements, and I do not see why the advisory referendum for elected regional government should be any different.
      In respect of amendment No. 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the argument is familiar, and we have rehearsed it in discussions about

      965
      clause 2. The Government do not believe that we should have a separate question on local government restructuring, so the amendment would be redundant. In any case, we believe strongly that unitarisation is integral to the creation of elected regional assemblies. It is part of the package in relation to streamlining the system, and it is necessary if a new regional tier of elected government is to come into place. Two tiers of local government below regional assemblies would be one too many. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are setting their face against that. No other local government reorganisations have been subject to a vote by people in the areas affected, so at least this referendum is adding the option for people to express their views on the total package proposed. Amendment No. 25 is unnecessary and redundant.
      A very strong case exists for using the local franchise register. I urge the House to reject amendment No. 48.
      Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, which was not difficult as he did not say very much. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made the point concisely that a parliamentary responsibility will be discharged by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice given in a referendum. It is not appropriate that persons who are excluded from voting in a parliamentary election should be entitled to vote in that referendum.
      I now come to the great logical flaw in the Minister's position. An EU subject or a peer, for example, cannot vote for a national Government to exercise powers such as the power to appoint the chairman of a regional development agency. If those powers were, by any chance, devolved to an elected regional assembly, the use of the local government franchise would enable those people to participate in electing the body that would exercise the powers. That is completely illogical and gives the lie to the Government's assertion that the bodies are mainly about transferring powers down from central Government. It underscores what the Opposition have always suspected: the bodies will be more akin to overblown local authorities than to devolved centres of power coming down from Westminster and Whitehall.
      In view of the timetable arrangements and the fact that a Division would leave us with virtually no time to debate the next group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      REFERENDUM PERIOD
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 3, line 7, at end add —
      'after taking account of the advice of the Electoral Commission as to the period required for the proper conduct of the referendum having regard to all relevant circumstances'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment: No. 27, in page 3, line 7, at end add—
      '( ) Any order issued under subsection (1) above must set a referendum period lasting not less than 30 days, excluding weekends and bank holidays.'.
      Mr. Hammond: Clause 4 deals with the referendum period for the purposes of part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It says that
      "the Secretary of State must by order determine the referendum period for a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1."
      That relates to the order that will call a referendum in a given region.
      The referendum period is a significant time window that must be defined. It will have an impact on matters such as the recording of election expenses and the publication of election material, and will constrain the participants in the election, with one notable exception. The Government, masquerading inappropriately as a neutral party, will be allowed to continue publishing material and doing things that would not be permitted by other participants right up to the 29th day before the referendum is held. They will be able to use the power and the purse of the state to pursue a partisan position in the debate that the referendum will address.
      Because of the Government exemption, it is doubly important that the referendum period be correctly set. The Electoral Commission has been appointed to become involved in such matters and in the conduct of a referendum in the attempt to inject impartiality and objectivity into the process, so it would be wholly appropriate for the commission to advise the Secretary of State—we do not suggest that the commission should take the decision—on the time that will be required for the proper conduct of the election. That is appropriate to ensure that the period is set in an impartial fashion that is not biased in favour of one side or the other.
      We must bear in mind the fact that, whatever the referendum period, the Secretary of State and the Government will be in the unique position of being able to distribute their material unconstrained until 28 days before the referendum. It is not appropriate that the Secretary of State, who is partisan in such matters, should have the loudest voice in determining the referendum period. It is, however, entirely appropriate that the Electoral Commission should have a voice that is heard.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Amendments Nos. 47 and 27 are two ways of doing a similar thing. We want to restrain the Government's power by ensuring either that someone other than the Government sets the period for the referendum—amendment No. 47 suggests the Electoral Commission—or that there is a minimum period for it. There is a danger that a Minister could push through a referendum quickly, which would stifle debate, the campaign and the very democracy that lies behind the Bill. As I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, we tabled amendment No. 27.
      Our amendment would ensure that there is a minimum period for the referendum of not less than

      967
      30 days, excluding weekends and bank holidays. That is effectively a six-week campaign. We could have gone for a four or five-week campaign, but referendum campaigns are unusual beasts. They are one-offs. Campaign organisations are not like normal political parties. They are set up purely for the purpose of fighting a particular referendum. Although those organisations might begin to get prepared before the referendum is called, they need a little longer than a normal general election or council campaign to uphold the democratic process established in the Bill.
      Mr. Hammond: It has just occurred to me that the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In practice, the yes campaign will not be a purely local campaign set up for each referendum; it will be a rolling campaign, based on the Campaign for the English Regions. It is the no campaign that will have a standing start and will be disadvantaged.
      Mr. Davey: I am discouraged—or encouraged, perhaps—that the hon. Gentleman believes that the no campaign is so badly organised, primarily because I thought that the Conservative party was the no campaign. However, I do not want to be ruled out of order and shall return to the amendment.
      I well remember the 1997 general election campaign when I was first returned to the House. That was a six-week campaign. The previous Prime Minister, John Major, must regret the fact that he let us have that campaign.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: How does the six-week campaign fit with the clear and vehement opposition that the Liberal Democrats portrayed in Committee to all postal ballots?
      Mr. Davey: The two things are completely different. The ballot relates to the actual vote on the ballot paper. I am talking about ensuring that there is a minimum period during which we can engage the electorate in the debate. We would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether it should be 20, 25 or 30 days. We are not theological about that. What we want to do is to ensure that the Bill stipulates a minimum period so that a referendum cannot be rushed through. The Minister keeps stressing the importance of the Bill, and we need a minimum period to allow the people of a region to engage in the debate.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Swayne: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a need for a maximum length for the campaign. Has he not noticed that people are already campaigning? Indeed, the whole process of taking soundings is, in itself, a surreptitious campaign. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that there is agreement. The Minister was involving the peers in that, at least from a sedentary position, in the debate on the previous amendment. Bishops—bishops, I ask you—have been
      968
      campaigning for this nonsense for months with absolutely no constraint whatsoever. Back to their vestries with them.
      Mr. Davey: Well, bless my soul. One felt like saying "tally ho" to that intervention.
      Matthew Green rose—
      Mr. Davey: I do not want to detain the House much longer on this relatively minor matter, but my hon. Friend wants to make a very important point, so I will let him intervene.
      Matthew Green: Does my hon. Friend agree that a campaign of reasonable length, and not a very short one, will increase the chances of a reasonable turnout in the referendum, which we would all like to see? There will be time to get the messages across, and that may encourage turnout.
      Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A reasonable campaign would certainly help with turnout, and the Government would like a good turnout. They are taking measures in this Bill and elsewhere to encourage people to participate democratically. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening not only to his Whip but to the power of this argument, and that he will accept amendment No. 27 or, if not, return with his own amendment on Report.
      Mr. Leslie: This is an interesting debate, but I am conscious of the hour, so I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
      Clause 4 is needed because the 2000 Act does not set a technical referendum period, but leaves it to be set by the provisions of another Act; hence it appears in the Bill. The Conservative amendment would require the Secretary of State to take account of advice from the Electoral Commission before making the order setting the referendum period. Although the 2000 Act does not explicitly set out how a referendum period is to be determined, it sets a timetable for designating assistance to the official yes and no campaigns. It also sets out arrangements for the date of the poll. Taken together, those periods in effect give a standard referendum period of 10 weeks, so in general our intention would be to set that as the referendum period.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am rather concerned that suddenly the Government have turned volte face, and having criticised the Liberal Democrats for wanting more consultation and discussion, they now want to delay and extend these times, when we requested a minimum campaign of a mere six weeks.
      Mr. Leslie: I am troubled by the anti-democratic tendencies of the Liberal Democrats in seeking to curtail a fair and reasonable campaign period. I believe that 10 weeks strikes the right balance, and in any case—this answers the questions asked by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—it is for the Government to decide the referendum period, subject of course to parliamentary scrutiny.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 weeks is a good length of time to ensure that the

      969
      campaign receives both the vigorous debate that we want and the maximum turnout in a region? The Liberal Democrats' view reinforces their anti-democratic stance in being opposed to all postal ballots.
      Mr. Leslie: That was indeed a very worrying development among Liberal Democrat Members in the Standing Committee. Their expressed intention to turn their face against all postal ballots calls into question the very title of their political party, but we should leave that for another day.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Leslie: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Swayne: The Minister is very generous. I entirely understand the argument for a 10-week campaign. It will clearly be advantageous to have such a long campaign, particularly for the no campaign because previously, of course, the Government were able to distribute information in a way that the no campaign was not, and it gave them a good start. However, why will the Minister not include in the Bill his choice of campaign length, or at least give an indication of it? As someone who questions the whole enterprise, I ask him to imagine that campaign—those 10 weeks of misery and exhaustion.
      Mr. Leslie: If only I had time to detail what we learned about the hon. Gentleman in Committee and his history of fending off allegations of rigging ballots in Scotland. I know that he was given an honourable discharge—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Leslie: On amendment No. 47, if we are to use the expected 10-week period, what is the point of requiring the Electoral Commission to provide advice on the issue? In effect, it would be required to second-guess why the 10-week period is implicit in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The amendment is unnecessary, but of course we are happy to discuss with the commission any practical implications of a longer or shorter campaign. However, I do not see the case for enshrining in statute the need to seek its advice on our intentions.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) tabled a reasonably probing amendment in amendment No. 27. While in theory it is possible to shorten the designated period for an official campaign, I cannot see that there are circumstances that would lead us to set a referendum period significantly shorter than the 10-week period I mentioned earlier. We would not wish to do so, and even if we did and went for a period of less than 10 weeks, an order would have to be introduced, debated and receive assent in both Houses. No doubt, tough questions would have to be answered then.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: In looking at the referendum period, will my hon. Friend consider the paucity of the Opposition's argument against regional government, particularly in the north-west of England? Can we be spared the ordeal of having to
      970
      campaign too long against the Opposition's absurd posturing, particularly as some hon. Members are inclined to use the privileges of the House to attack people outside it?
      Mr. Leslie: I suspect that there is a longer story to be told, but I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. Amendment No. 27 is unlikely to have much practical effect and, together with amendment No. 47, is unnecessary. I therefore urge the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Kingston and Surbiton not to press them further.
      Mr. Hammond: We have had an interesting debate. I am not sure that I followed the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but generally I am never quite sure that I do. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was indeed the culprit in the case to which the Minister referred, lest hon. Members fear that any outside party was being impugned.
      The Government are once again giving themselves extraordinary power and, in this case, do not even want to take advice. In our debate on clause 1 we did not get a chance to talk about the amendment that would delete subsection (9). I know that you would not want me to cover that ground now, Mrs. Heal. Effectively, however, as the Bill stands, once the Government see how the land lies, they have the power in a run-up to the referendum to cancel it. If, a couple of weeks from a referendum, things are looking a bit iffy, the Secretary of State, under clause 1(9), can simply call it off, which is an extraordinarily flexible power. At the other end of the process, he has complete flexibility in setting when the referendum period should begin.
      The Minister told us that he would normally expect that period to last 10 weeks. The initial and understandable reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was that that is a long time. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the Government, until the referendum period begins, will have free reign to distribute literature and information supporting their position and the case for elected regional assemblies without the no campaign being able to respond and distribute counter-information.
      Perhaps 10 weeks is the right period. I am happy to concede to the Minister that that may be about right, but why does he not write it into the Bill? The unconstrained power of the Secretary of State to determine the start of the period, the end of the period and, having called a referendum, whether to let it go ahead or not, under the terms of clause 1(9), seems an excessive amount of discretion for the Secretary of State to have.
      I invite the Minister to consider the impact on local government and other institutions in the region while such a campaign is going on. There will be serious disruption.
      Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend consider that it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister gave an indication of the circumstances under which it would be proper to have a campaign of less than the 10 weeks

      971
      that he suggested, and the circumstances under which it would be proper for the campaign to last longer than that?
      Mr. Hammond: I am sure that that would have been helpful to the Committee. If the Minister wanted to intervene on me, I should be happy to take such an intervention.
      To return to the point about the disruptive effect of the campaign, that will be the final straw in the long disruption created by the whole process: the Secretary of State's consultation, then—most disruptive of all—the boundary committee's work, the jockeying for position, and the political battles that will be fought between districts and counties over the various combinations of unitary authority solutions that might or might not be proposed. All that will be a huge distraction from the issue that really matters to the people of this country—the delivery of good quality public services. That is what they want their local authorities to focus on. That is what they want their county councils, unitary councils and metropolitan borough councils to focus on.
      That is what people would like the Government to focus on, instead of diverting their attention time and again to the pet project of some Minister or other and leaving the public to look in dismay at the innumerable broken promises and missed targets that represent the Government's abysmal failure to improve the delivery of public services, especially in those parts of the country that have suffered a further squeeze as a result of the Minister's appalling recent local government settlement.
      My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West raised the important question of the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the Minister to propose a period longer than 10 weeks or shorter than 10 weeks. The Minister could speculate endlessly on different scenarios that might or might not arise in relation to any particular referendum. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister; I shall not speculate endlessly on those scenarios. I do not need to, because I have proposed the solution: that the Electoral Commission should advise the Secretary of State of the appropriate referendum period, taking into account all the relevant factors.
      The Electoral Commission, working from the Minister's preferred period of 10 weeks, and the period of approximately 10 weeks implied in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, would be able to consider any particular circumstances in relation to the particular regional referendum in question, to decide whether there were any circumstances that called for a shorter period or, conversely, a longer period.
      Mr. Swayne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that his proposal is the best way of solving the problem. None the less, while it would not be possible for the Minister to speculate endlessly about the circumstances that might apply in respect of a shorter or longer period, he might at least give us the benefit of his speculation for five minutes.
      11 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I would be most willing to take a short intervention from the Minister, but he does not seem willing to confide to the Committee his innermost thoughts.
      My proposal would ensure that, having taken into account any particular and pertinent circumstances in a region, the Electoral Commission would give its advice to the Secretary of State. I can inform the Committee that during the Standing Committee deliberations, we ascertained that the Electoral Commission has clearly stated that it will always be its intention to place in the public domain advice that it gives to the Secretary of State in connection with the Bill, principally by placing it on its website. That is significant because, as the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will take a decision on his own in accordance with criteria that will be invisible to the watching public and Members of the House. He will do so on the basis of information and advice provided to him by the Electoral Commission, which will be available to members of the public to analyse, so the decision that he takes will be capable of being scrutinised in the light of that advice. While I do not suggest that that is a likely outcome—indeed, I would not advocate such a scenario and I hope that it does not come to that, as I for one am anxious not to increase the litigious tendency of our society—it would, at least in theory, ensure that the Secretary of State's decision was practically capable of judicial review where he had not taken the advice of the Electoral Commission or where his decision was clearly at odds with the advice that it had given.
      Mr. Leslie rose—
      Mr. Hammond: I am delighted to see that the Minister at last wishes to intervene. Perhaps he will share with the Committee his thoughts about the circumstances in which a longer or shorter period might be appropriate.
      Mr. Leslie: I can certainly share my view about having a longer or shorter period, as I believe in making all contributions as short as possible. The hon. Gentleman is clearly stringing out his contribution to make it as long as possible, so that we will go to the wire on the very last occasion when we will have to sit until this hour on a Wednesday. I think that it is important that we note that point.
      Mr. Hammond: It is important that we note what the Minister has said. I am prepared to make a small bet with him that this will not be the last time when we are debating in the Chamber at 11 o'clock on a Wednesday, because I suspect that the Government will find that in their rush to get legislation through the House, they may occasionally have to ask some of their long-suffering Back Benchers to stay a little longer in future than they think they have been promised. However, time will tell.
      The problem with this debate, as the Minister knows, is not only the overall timetable, but the intermediate guillotines, which have meant that although the rather small issue with which the amendments deal has perhaps

      973
      had adequate time for debate, discussion of some of the very significant issues that had to be dealt with earlier in the evening was curtailed and at least two major groups of amendments were not debated. That is a disgrace.
      Having listened to what the Minister said and having—I hope—made my views well known to the Committee, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I say to the Minister, however, that when we have studied the precise implications of a longer or shorter period, we will return to the issue on Report, possibly by tabling an amendment seeking directly to constrain the Secretary of State's flexibility, rather than simply to pass the issue over to the Electoral Commission for advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Swayne: I have one question for the Minister on clause stand part. Will he explain the status of the order and tell us what opportunities will be afforded to us for its scrutiny?
      Mr. Leslie: It is a statutory instrument. The clause is self-explanatory.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill (Clauses 1 to 4) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

  PETITIONS

    Natural Health Products
    11.6 pm
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 600 people in Dover, Deal and elsewhere, who are supporters of Consumers for Health Choice. I am pleased to give the petition my full support.
    The petition reads as follows:
    To the House of Commons
    The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
    And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
    To lie upon the Table.
    11.7 pm
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am delighted to present two petitions. The first is from Janis Larkun of Marple and contains 199 signatures of constituents of
    974
    mine. The second is from Debra Allan of Hazel Grove and contains 221 signatures of constituents of mine. Both are petitions from Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters. The petition declares that:
    Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies, and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The Petitioners therefore Request That the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
    And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
    To lie upon the Table.
    11.9 pm
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I have the honour to present petitions on the part of Mrs. Pamela Ellis of Bio-Five-O in Hastings and Mr. Crawshaw of Rye in precisely the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). I shall not repeat the words, but I request that the House take note of them.
    To lie upon the Table.
    Tom Brake: I rise also to present a petition, and Members will be familiar with the text of said petition. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has introduced the same. The petition is from Noah's Health Food Store, and it carries the signatures of more than 500 constituents in Carshalton and Wallington. The petition expresses their concerns about the potential impact of European Union legislation on traditional herbal medicinal products.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Affordable Credit
  11.10 pm
  Andrew Selous: I rise to present a petition on affordable credit on behalf of several hundred of my constituents in the Dunstable area.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of Constituents Concerned about Debt on our Doorstep.
  Declares that millions of people in the United Kingdom struggle with poverty and debt; that this issue should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Social Exclusion Unit to tackle the issue of extortionate lending and to support affordable credit.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Football Head Injuries
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  11.11 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I rise to introduce a debate on football head injuries, which have emerged as an important issue not only to the football world, but to many people up and down the land who are concerned about events that happened some years ago and which demand a Government reaction. First, however, let me describe the background.
  In the treatise "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", usually called the "Principia", Isaac Newton proclaimed the three laws of motion and the law of gravity. He addressed the problem of the drag on a spear moving through a medium. One of his laws states that change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place along the straight line in which force acts.
  Loosely translated, that means that a football's behaviour is covered by the statement that the rate of change of momentum of a football is equal to the applied force. That is often translated as describing football rotation in terms of change of angular momentum brought about by an applied torque. It is Christmas, so I am allowed such a deliberate physical and mathematical analysis of a ball moving through the air.
  A book entitled "The Science of Soccer" by John Wesson has just been published. It describes how David Beckham can bend a ball in mathematical and physical terminology that I would not dare to translate in the House. Although I have great respect for the Hansard writers, they would not be able to take down the mathematical terms. I do not want to defer to them, as the problem is real.
  The book describes the ideal bounce of a ball, kicks, bending the ball, intercepting a pass and rebounds from the crossbar. There is a phenomenon to describe, as it would excite people. Equations have been developed in relation to those particular events. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who represents Norwich, South, is looking for a way to excite people so as they understand physics and mathematics. What better way than understanding such issues as how a ball is thrown in, the torque involved and the forces that apply to a football as it rotates through the air? I suggest that they might return the interest of many young people to science.
  Heading, which is the subject of our debate, is also described in the book, which states:
  "Sometimes the head is struck by an unseen ball,"—
  my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport might avidly remember that from his youth, as he paraded around the playing fields of England—
  "or before the player can prepare himself".
  That would certainly be true of my right hon. Friend, although earlier this year I managed him very successfully through 45 minutes of sheer magic as he kept out the forces of the British embassy on a Japanese playing field.
  976
  The book continues:
  "It is then possible for all the ball's loss of momentum to be transferred to the head. In a severe case of a 50 mile per hour ball, the head could be moved an inch in a hundredth of a second., the force on the head corresponding to an acceleration of 50g"—
  which would be some speed up the M6, and quite unachievable in transport-torn Britain today. It continues:
  "Accelerations larger than this can lead to unconsciousness."
  When a sodden leather ball used to hit people's heads, the lace faced a certain way—unless Stanley Matthews kicked it across the penalty area at Tommy Lawton's head; the lace was always facing the wrong way as far as the opposition was concerned, but it hit Tommy Lawton on the head at the right time. When the head is hit by a ball, it moves a few inches. The speed of the head's movement depends on the velocity given to the ball. The head cannot move faster than a kick, because it is restricted by being anchored to the body.
  The problem is that people mistime headers. If people are hit on the head by a ball, momentum may be lost and transferred to the head. Many footballers will remember how, in the early years of their careers, they were hit by that sodden leather ball that came out of the sky, and their heads moved back. That sometimes resulted in unconsciousness; it often resulted in sore heads and blackouts, and players in the 1950s and 1960s were frequently taken off the field for such reasons.
  Let us think in terms of medical science. The brain can be likened to a blancmange in a bowl. When a certain part of it is hit, it wobbles. It is not restricted to one area; it moves around the circumference of the brain. I would expect the force of a wet ball to be some 180 lb. That might cause bruising, damage to the brain and some bleeding.
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I am glad that my hon. Friend initiated this debate. As he may know, January saw the tragic death of Jeff Astle, the former West Bromwich Albion centre-forward, renowned for his heading abilities during the era of hard, wet, heavy leather balls. At his post mortem the neuropathologist made it clear that years of heading a ball had contributed to his premature death at the age of 59. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Football Association should provide a fund to benefit the families of footballers who have effectively been victims of industrial injuries?
  Dr. Gibson: Other players have sustained similar injuries, and they deserve respect and a response from the Government.
  The worst that can happen is more extended bruising to the brain. A subdural haematoma can occur—a sort of blood clot. That has happened to many players. In this regard football is not unlike boxing or horse riding. Many injuries are caused to people falling off horses. I am quite sympathetic to riders as long as they do not chase foxes, if I may refer to a debate we had earlier in the week.
  We have heard anecdotes about players of the 1950s and 1960s who played with heavy balls before they were changed in the 1960s. The leather coating then became polyurethane, the bladder disappeared, and players now use a completely different kind of ball. In my

  977
  professional footballing days, I remember being rather frightened at having to head a ball; however, it was something that we did because, after all, we were real men, we did not flinch and we went for the ball. I remember many of my young colleagues at school being frightened to head a ball, and being called a sissy as the ball descended on them.
  A few years ago, Billy McPhail of Glasgow Celtic, who scored a hat trick in the Scottish cup final, tried to take up this issue in an industrial tribunal and failed. He tried to claim that some of his health problems were caused by his frequent heading of a football. The deaths of Alf Ramsey, Danny Blanchflower, Joe Mercer and many other great names have been considered, and it has recently been shown that degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's were associated with their problems in their latter years. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) said, the Jeff Astle case marks an epic moment in this struggle to get recognition of the effects of heading.
  Mr. Tom Watson: Does my hon. Friend share my view—it is doubtless also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey)—that Jeff Astle was the best header of a ball since Dixie Dean? Of course, in this day and age the modern footballer would not be subject to the challenges to which Jeff was subjected, because a modern ball weighs only 14 to 16 oz. The new FIFA-standard ball does not have the absorption of older footballs, and the FA is conducting a 10-year study, under the stewardship of Dr. Miles Gibson, on the effects of heading a ball. The study is in its second season, and hopefully recommendations will be made throughout the 10-year programme.
  Does my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) agree that another reason why modern footballers would not be subject to such head injuries is the impact of modern coaching? Now, far more young people are taught proper heading techniques, which were not available in Jeff Astle's day. Such coaching is in part the result of the legacy of the late Sir Bert Millichip, who sadly died earlier today. He was a great son of West Bromwich Albion football club—a life president and former chairman—a former chairman of the FA, and a great advocate for the black country. My hon. Friend will doubtless agree that this House should pay tribute to the great man, and wish his family all the best in their hour of need.
  Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I of course go along with that. Many people say that there is danger in playing football and that such risk is part of the fun, but the real difference is that the technology has changed. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the ball has changed and the risk factor has gone down by an inestimable amount. In that sense, the risk factor differs from some others that have been discussed in relation to rugby football.
  The coroner at Burton-on-Trent ruled that Jeff Astle died of a degenerative neurological disease, and of an industrial disease, after 20 years of heading a heavy ball. Perhaps it is time to consider how we can declare a disease an industrial disease. Many Members on both sides of the House will remember the difficulties
  978
  associated with getting diseases such as asbestosis declared industrial diseases. Securing recognition of the correlation between a particular event and a particular disease involves a long, hard fight.
  The neurologist who gave evidence at Burton-on-Trent said that the damage to Jeff Astle's brain was localised at the front. He said that, although it was hard to prove,
  "from the evidence the persistent heading of the ball could be a factor in the loss of Mr. Astle's faculties and his behaviour."
  Although only 59, Jeff Astle was indeed in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Death by industrial disease was recorded, and at that point the whole argument moved forward 100 years in terms of defining what an industrial disease might be. That is why we should take this verdict very seriously.
  It is not just professional players such as Jeff Astle who are affected. Many amateur players have headed the ball 2,000 to 3,000 times in a season. I am aware of studies that are being carried out now, but they are studies of young people who are playing the game with a different football and will be studied over their careers. What about the people who played in the 1950s and 1960s and were subjected to this pressure? It is no use glamourising football in those days. Players did not get £25,000 a day; they got £12 a week maximum, for delighting crowds with their skills and performing in front of much bigger crowds than we sometimes see today. We owe them a lot in terms of the heritage of association football.
  A psychiatrist said in relation to Jeff Astle:
  "It seems obvious to me that a repetitive mild head trauma over the course of an amateur or professional footballer's career may increase an individual's risk of developing dementia."
  If we think in terms of 1,500 assaults on the brain in a year, it is clear that something dramatic could happen to someone's brain cells, and those cells would not be replaced as the individual developed in their 50s and 60s as they would have when they were in their 20s and 30s.
  There are those who have tried to ridicule the matter, saying that the next thing we will want is headgear for the players, as for boxers. We do not want that; we want a recognition that the technology has changed and that those people, for whatever reason, were subject to that kind of physical assault on their brains.
  I still coach footballers—one or two people in the House tonight have been subjected to my coaching through the parliamentary football team, and rough I am—and we sometimes play with the ball being kept below shoulder height. If that became a rule, it might destroy the Nationwide first division. Having watched my local team, I see that it is a question of getting the ball out to the wing and crossing it for someone to get their head on to it and, with a bit of luck, it will go in the net. It would be good if players could keep the ball below shoulder height.
  The question is how we measure an industrial injury. At what point do we take this seriously and not try to ridicule it? At what point do we recognise that players in the 1950s and 1960s were subjected to a hazard that no longer exists? We should recognise that young people heading a ball may be doing damage to their tender brains, and think about some kind of compensation for the older players.

  979
  I know that Jeff Astle is not the only player affected. A famous Norwich City full—back, Bryan Thurlow—one of the great "59ers" who took the giant-killing Norwich team to the semi-final, beating the mighty Manchester United on the way—died recently from Alzheimer's disease. His nickname was "Unconscious" because he spent a lot of time heading the ball off the line and doing all sots of amazing things because he loved heading a ball. He was fearless and that heavy, water-soaked ball probably did something to his head.
  Many people here will remember being taught how to dubbin a ball. How to lace up a ball was a skill that we learned at our father's side, and someone who could do it was real star. Those days are passed, but dubbin did not do much to make the ball less of a deadly weapon.
  The dizziness, headaches, stars and unconsciousness came from that ball, as did the later problems that have developed in the brains of players. That seems a rational explanation. An inquiry should be carried out and we should do a real assessment of the players involved who might be developing illnesses now.
  I did a programme last night in Norwich about Bryan Thurlow and the station received some 20 calls in which the families and widows of players from Southend, Colchester and so on talked about some of the brain diseases that the players had developed. It seems to me that there is a really good project in that. We should consider whether there is a case to be made for recording such injuries as industrial injuries. In this country, we treat many other illnesses as industrial diseases, and we should compensate the players who have suffered in the way that I have described. We owe it to them and to sport in general to show that we care about people.
  The Government could act in concert with the Professional Footballers Association or the Football Association, I do not care which. We should show some respect for the many great players whom many hon. Members grew up watching. They deserve a proper assessment of what, in some cases, seems to have killed them.
  11.30 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for securing this Adjournment debate. The subject is clearly important, and I know my hon. Friend has a great love of football: as he said, he continues to coach the Commons football team.
  It is fitting that we should be discussing football in the Chamber tonight, and I want to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said about the late Sir Bert Millichip, who made a major contribution to football in the UK. We are grateful for that, and send our condolences to his family.
  When he described the subject under discussion tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North demonstrated the skill that one would expect from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It was a great lesson in physics.
  I should like to say at the outset that the Government recognise that all sport contains an element of risk, and it would be neither possible nor in many cases desirable
  980
  to remove that challenge. However, it is essential to look at how sport can reduce and manage unnecessary risks and, in particular, reduce the incidence of serious illness, injury, permanent disability or even death.
  As Minister for Sport, I have been actively looking into ways in which we can help sport develop the most up-to-date and responsive safety and medical support in the UK. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity to debate these issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. My hon. Friend mentioned the death of the great Jeff Astle, as well as the circumstances of other ex-footballers. Football has been aware of this issue for some time, but the loss of Jeff at the young age of 59, and the subsequent coroner's report, have brought this matter to the fore.
  It is clear to me that football is taking this matter very seriously. Both the FA and the Professional Footballers Association recognise the importance of this subject and have already undertaken significant work on heading in football. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East noted, those organisations have invested in a 10-year study to investigate fully the possible dangers of heading the ball. The study started in 2001 and involves 33 elite footballers, who are the subject of regular MRI scans and neurological assessments. As Minister for Sport, I welcome this very important initiative.
  Indeed, both FIFA and UEFA have commended the FA's proactive response to this subject. It is only fair to say that England is leading the way in this type of research.
  I am also aware that the football authorities have taken significant steps to improve the game, while at the same time making every effort to protect players involved in what is, after all, a hard physical sport. Those steps have included the development of the modern football, which is now non-porous and produced to very strict FIFA criteria. Indeed, the laws of the game regulate the weight and size of modern balls used for both training and playing. Also, the improved football coaching standards to which reference has been made already have included the development of heading techniques, with a strong emphasis on the quality of training and not the quantity. In 2001, FIFA sponsored a symposium on sports injury and safety issues which considered, among other things, head injuries in football.
  In my view, football has recognised the importance of the issue and is responding at a national and international level. However, the effect of heading on former professional footballers is a complex matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North understands. There is evidence documenting subtle brain injuries among people who have played football for many years, while other studies have suggested that there is no significant risk. A number of experts believe that although there may be risks from heading footballs, these are likely to be relevant only to a small minority of professionals with prolonged careers.
  Over the past six years, the FA has monitored papers submitted to it or published by scientific journals on heading footballs and whether that could cause changes in brain structure and function. The FA has given full consideration to the medical evidence and the scientific information on this subject. I am aware that the FA

  981
  takes the view that many of these reports and articles have been of questionable quality, based on very small samples of amateur players. Furthermore, as all the studies have been retrospective, the findings can be affected by many other variables.
  What is clear is that most experts agree that the data collected so far are inconclusive and that further longer-term studies are required. Clearly, the joint FA/PFA study will go a long way towards addressing the lack of concrete information.
  I understand that the Professional Footballers Association is looking at compensation for injuries on behalf of former players, to which my hon. Friend referred. I take the view that it is only right that sport give full consideration to these cases, but many in football would agree that that must be done in the light of greater understanding of the medical and scientific evidence on the subject.
  My hon. Friend has focused on football. The Government recognise that safety and medical issues affect all sports at all levels. Improvements in sport safety and medical services not only increase performance but lead to the reduction of unnecessary illness or injury caused through participation in sport. Those in sport have for some time recognised the vital role that those services play in providing the highest standards of care for our top athletes, as well as ensuring that sport in the UK can be safely and sensibly enjoyed by all.
  The Government are therefore committed to ensuring that sport can reduce and manage the necessary risks through the development of appropriate safety and medical support. Greater confidence in the quality of these services can increase the number of participants in sport as well as leading to longer participation. That requires a co-ordinated approach and, as such, the Government are promoting a number of key initiatives across the UK to help sport improve its safety and medical services.
  In recognition of these issues, the Government commissioned a working group on safety and medical provision for sport in the UK to look at how best we can prevent the incidence of serious injury, illness, disability and death in organised sport. The working group was chaired by the consultant neurosurgeon Peter Hamlyn. Its report raised a number of important issues in relation to sports safety and medicine and highlighted the need for extra help and support to be given to governing bodies to assist them in managing safety issues in their sport.
  This work also formed part of the Government's cross-departmental accidental injury task force, which published its report earlier this year highlighting the ways in which the Government are providing a co-ordinated response to injury prevention across society.
  982
  The work is being taken forward by UK Sport, which will be producing guidance information on health and safety issues for sport. The aim is to provide support which will be of assistance to governing bodies but which will avoid overly bureaucratic systems and procedures. It will cover three areas. First, there will be a summary of existing legislative requirements for governing bodies. Secondly, there will be sports-focused risk assessment templates that governing bodies could use and disseminate among their member organisations. Thirdly, there will be case studies covering health and safety policies and practices for different types of sport.
  That is not the Government's only involvement in such work. My Department is currently working closely with UK Sport, the National Sports Medicine Institute of the United Kingdom, the British Olympic Association and other key sports medicine professional organisations to look at ways of improving the training and development of sports medicine practitioners. In particular, the recognition of sports and exercise medicine as a distinct and essential medical discipline would have a significant impact on the safety and medical support that we are able to provide to people participating in all levels of sport—from school playing fields to people taking part in elite sport. My Department will also be working closely with Department for Health and the Department for Education and Skills on that development.
  Those initiatives provide examples of the way in which the Government are addressing the issues raised by my hon. Friend this evening, but I should like to leave the House with these thoughts. We live in an increasingly risk-averse society and there is concern that, because of that, many people involved in sport, either as participants or organisers, may give up their favourite pastime. They may have concerns about personal injury or, possibly, fear of litigation resulting from a sporting accident. Such action is becoming increasingly prevalent in sport in the UK.
  Clearly, safety is paramount in all sporting activity, and it is important that we both recognise the risks involved in sport and acknowledge that sport has a duty to reduce and manage those risks. However, I believe that all the wonderful benefits that involvement in sport can bring to our society, such as improved health, social inclusion and education—to name but a few—greatly outweigh the risks. We have to put the risks in context. Sport can come to the rescue of so many youngsters who might otherwise get involved in drugs or other undesirable activities and take them off the streets. We have to keep things in proportion. The great desire to achieve—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT)ACT 1993
    That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2002 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment)Act 1993.
    The House divided:Ayes 275, Noes 153.

    Division No. 34]

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Ainger, Nick

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bailey, Adrian

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Barnes, Harry

    Doran, Frank

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Battle, John

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Bayley, Hugh

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Edwards, Huw

    Benn, Hilary

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Blackman, Liz

    Farrelly, Paul

    Blair, rh Tony

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flint, Caroline

    Borrow, David

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Follett, Barbara

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bryant, Richard

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Burden, Richard

    Burnham, Andy

    Foulkes, rh George

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Cairns, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Caplin, Ivor

    Godsiff, Roger

    Casale, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Challen, Colin

    Grogan, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Chaytor, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heppell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Heyes, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Hodge, Margaret

    Coleman, Iain

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Colman, Tony

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Connarty, Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Corston, Jean

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Crausby, David

    Cruddas, Jon

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hutton, rh John

    984

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Picking, Anne

    Jamieson, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Prescott, rh John

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Purnell, James

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kidney, David

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lammy, David

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Leslie, Christopher

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Salter, Martin

    Linton, Martin

    Sawford, Phil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Sheridan, Jim

    Love, Andrew

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Singh, Marsha

    McCabe, Stephen

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    McDonnell, John

    McFall, John

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McGrady, Eddie

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McKechin, Ann

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    MacShane, Denis

    South worth, Helen

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Squire, Rachel

    McWalter, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McWilliam, John

    Stevenson, George

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Stringer, Graham

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Martlew, Eric

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Merron, Gillian

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Miller, Andrew

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Mole, Chris

    Timms, Stephen

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mountford, Kali

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Mudie, George

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Mullin, Chris

    Trickett, Jon

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Olner, Bill

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Organ, Diana

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Owen, Albert

    Ward, Claire

    Perham, Linda

    Wareing, Robert N.

    985

    Watts, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wishart, Pete

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Woolas, Phil

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Winnick, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Conway, Derek

    Amess, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Cotter, Brian

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Curry, rh David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Bacon, Richard

    Barker, Gregory

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Barrett, John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Berth, rh A. J.

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Bellingham, Henry

    Doughty, Sue

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Flook, Adrian

    Burns, Simon

    Francois, Mark

    Burnside, David

    Gamier, hon. Edward

    Burstow, Paul

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Burt, Alistair

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Gidley, Sandra

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Goodman, Paul

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Cash, William

    Grayling, Chris

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Chidgey, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Chope, Christopher

    Gummer, rh John

    Clappison, James

    Hague, rh William

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawkins, Nick

    Collins, Tim

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    986

    Heald, Oliver

    Randall, John

    Heath, David

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Rendel, David

    Hendry, Charles

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hermon, Lady

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Holmes, Paul

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Jack, rh Michael

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Selous, Andrew

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Spring, Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Steen, Anthony

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Streeter, Gary

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Lidington, David

    Syms, Robert

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Loughton, Tim

    Tredinnick, David

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Trimble, rh David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Viggers, Peter

    Walter, Robert

    Moore, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Moss, Malcolm

    Watkinson, Angela

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Whittingdale, John

    Öpik, Lembit

    Wiggin, Bill

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Page, Richard

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Paice, James

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Paterson, Owen

    Young, rh Sir George

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Rwanda
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
9.30 am
Ann McKechin: I am grateful to have secured today's Adjournment debate on an area of the world that continues to demand the attention of the international community. Rwanda is a country that suffers from all the problems endemic throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but it also has to cope with the effects of one of the most horrendous incidents of genocide in the 20th century, in which more than 1 million of its population were massacred in about 100 days in 1994. The failures of the international community at that time are well documented, but the question now is how we are contributing today and what we shall do in future to ensure peace and justice for that troubled land.
In October this year, I was fortunate to be part of a cross-party delegation organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am delighted that several colleagues who were part of that delegation are here today—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who so expertly led that delegation. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who is chair of the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention and has done enormous work to highlight the problems facing Rwanda, is unable to be present. However, I am sure that hon. Members will recall from her address sponsoring the Queen's Speech this year that our delegation faced some unusual challenges, including a closer than expected encounter with a group of silver-backed gorillas who managed to instil more terror in our party than an invitation to a personal meeting with our Chief Whip.
I believe that I can speak for all members of the delegation when I say that our visit greatly increased our insight into the scale and depth of the challenges that face the Rwandan nation. I wish to concentrate on one particular day during our visit. It brought it home to me that the reconciliation that so many seek is not only a personal desire for justice, but essential to the survival of the nation. The day started with an unscheduled meeting with President Kagame, who answered our questions candidly. We focused on relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a matter to which I shall return.
We then travelled to the genocide site of Ntarama. The site was an abandoned Catholic church where terrified Tutsis and moderate Hutus had gathered, under the false belief that they would gain sanctuary from the rampaging mobs. Churches were often the site of horrendous massacres in 1994. More than 5,000 people—mostly women and children—were killed at that site alone. Their skulls and bones were laid out on shelves, a dreadful reminder of the legacy that the people
240WH
of Rwanda have had to cope with as they struggle for survival. Even eight years on, the atmosphere of death and despair was overwhelming. That the survivors had deliberately left the remains of their families and friends where they fell was an accusation to the world that had abandoned them and a warning for the future. All they ask for is a proper memorial to the dead.
We continued our journey to one of the Gacaca courts that is made up of local lay justices. It was set up this year to deal with the outstanding backlog of cases—about 115,000—from the genocide period. At first glance, the scene seemed almost idyllic. Women in brightly coloured clothes sat on the ground in the shaded wooded area, along with numerous babies and toddlers. More women, together with men of the rural community, stood at the back or at the side of the loosely formed square—about 500 in all. On the other side of the square, perched on small wooden chairs, sat 18 men and women with a man sitting next to them, huddled over papers on an unstable wooden table. The sun streamed through the trees as the children of the local school ran up to stand behind the seated dignitaries. My eyes were then drawn to the four men sitting on the bench dressed in bright pink shirts and shorts—the prisoners.
After a short introduction from the president of the judges and a minute's silence in honour of the victims, the prisoners walked up to the desk in turn and were asked to identify the killers of two local people. They gave out a list of names dispassionately, and returned to sit on the bench. However, the president called back one of the prisoners, Martin. He looked as though he was only in his early 20s, which meant that at the time of the genocide he would have been in his early to mid teens.
Martin was asked to give an account of his actions on a particular day. He stated that he was part of a group that went out to look for and kill some of the local Tutsi population. The victims were put into an irrigation ditch and the group started to attack them with machetes. A local senator came along carrying a gun. He asked Martin whether he had ever used a gun before. Martin said no, at which point the senator suggested that he try it out in an attempt to kill off the remaining victims.
The assembled community heard the confession in silence. Suddenly, a woman who was sitting behind us walked up to the judges and stood beside the prisoner. Some of the women assembled gave her a quiet handclap of support. She asked how her father, one of the victims, was killed. Martin did not look at her but confirmed that a sword was used to kill him. Then she stated that the mob had cut off her sister's breasts before she was killed, and that her mother had been stripped of her clothes. Again, Martin did not deny the contention.
Still outwardly composed, the woman asked whether Martin had killed her three children. Due to a mix-up at that point, she was forced to hand the microphone directly to Martin. He stated without showing distress that he had murdered 13 people on that day, including her three children. She walked back to her seat, where she later broke down in tears. The clerk wrote a statement for Martin to sign and the president announced the end of the hearing—hearings are held weekly—and the crowd dispersed.
It is difficult to guess the feelings and reactions that must have been raised in the community by that stunning confession. Many are still deeply traumatised

241WH
and find it difficult to discuss their loss. Many are afraid that the current peace will fail and that the country will again descend into violent revenge. Some who took part in the genocide but remain free are afraid of being identified by the prisoners. To us in the west, such a lack of outward emotion from both the victims and perpetrators seems incredible, but the courts are the first nationwide attempt since the genocide to recognise the truth and achieve some form of comprehensive reconciliation among the Rwandan people.
Two days later, we visited one of the country's prisons. Inside were gathered more than 700 prisoners—men, women and children—who were literally squashed in appallingly squalid and tiny accommodation. Even after only a few days' stay, it was glaringly apparent that the Government do not have the resources to maintain so many prisoners while such a large proportion of the population outside is living in abject poverty. That is the main reason why the Government have offered such a generous deal to those prisoners who agree to confess.
Martin's punishment will be determined not by the local Gacaca court, but by a superior district court. The maximum penalty for those who murdered under the direction of others and have confessed is 20 years, of which one half will be served in the prisoner's community. As Martin has been imprisoned for more than seven years, he can expect to return home in less than three years. In turn, the victims' families and the local community are encouraged to accept the confessions and, in a few short years, to allow the perpetrators to live among them again.
The United Kingdom Government have assisted in funding some independent research into the new system, and that research is being piloted in various areas throughout Rwanda. Although the initial reaction has been largely favourable, significant problems still exist in achieving consistency and implementation. It is clear that the meetings revive very painful memories that can lead to even more trauma for the witnesses, and the support offered to them is still weak. Prisoners can appear emotionless or even aggressive when giving evidence. In many cases, that is probably a symptom of traumatic stress, which many of them are experiencing in corning to terms with their participation in the killings and many years of brutal imprisonment.
In addition, many of the local judges are illiterate, and at present they receive a maximum training of only 36 hours in Gacaca law and the legal process. Understandably, their decisions are at times unsatisfactory, and they find it difficult to respond to complex questions about the process asked by members of their community.
The Rwandan Government have still to find much of the funding for the scheme, including the implementation of the community service programme. By contrast, this year the international community will contribute $177 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which was established in 1995 at Arusha in Tanzania to try the leaders of the genocide. To date, only nine cases have been fully processed, although in a welcome step the United Nations agreed in August this year to treble the number of judges to speed up work on the backlog. It is unprecedented for the Gacaca system of justice to be applied on such a scale
242WH
and the risk of failure is high. The necessity of establishing an international tribunal regarding the ringleaders is not in question, but there has been a weak response from the international community to the struggles of ordinary Rwandans in coping with the aftermath of the genocides.
The UK's record of assistance was consistently commended by everyone whom we met during our visit. I would, however, urge the Secretary of State to persuade our European colleagues to take greater heed of the need for justice. Despite the inherent risks of such a process, it has received widespread support and it is, at present, the only viable solution whereby reconciliation might be achieved. Time is not on the Rwandan Government's side. The transitional Government will come to an end next year and, for the first time since the genocide, there will be elections for both the Parliament and the President. There is growing cynicism in Rwanda about the work of the international tribunal, which is expressed at the highest levels from President Kagame down.
Last month, Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, visited Westminister. She reported that the Rwandan Government and their agencies were increasingly reluctant to co-operate with the tribunal's investigations, particularly with those that related to inquiries into crimes of retribution by forces that are loyal to the Administration. There is mounting speculation that the Rwandan military are putting pressure on the President and his Government to block inquiries.
Carla del Ponte rightly mentioned the old maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is closely followed by the Serbian population, but there is little access to television in Rwanda. Accordingly, most of the people there are unaware of the extent of the complex and expensive work that is carried out by the tribunal and of the scale of the evidence against the genocide ringleaders. Despite the criticisms, the tribunal has achieved the first finding in international law of the crime of genocide. Anyone who meets Miss del Ponte will quickly become aware of her professionalism and her determination to fulfil her remit. She herself acknowledged the inherent weakness of instituting such proceedings many hundreds of miles away from the nation, and from the victims who suffered the dreadful crimes.
I am concerned that the remit of the UN regarding the tribunal and the scope of the inquiries should take some account of next year's political changes, because at the end of the current, transitional Government a new constitution will go to a referendum for approval. This is not to suggest that any person should escape justice, but to accept that it is important that none of the international agencies provide—even inadvertently—causes for destabilisation in this sensitive and vital period of change. The Secretary of State might want to comment on whether she would consider it appropriate for the UN to suspend direct investigations in Rwanda for a short, defined period until all elections are complete and then to propose that all further hearings of the tribunal be moved to Rwanda, wherever possible.

243WH
Internally, the Rwandan Administration must become sensitive to avoiding a build-up of tension and mistrust among their own population. The restrictions on political and civil liberty, which are to some extent understandable in view of the fragile security situation following the aftermath of the genocide, are radicalising opposition in such a way as to stifle reconciliation and hinder the transition to democracy. It is counterproductive and even dangerous to clamp down on institutions of common ground, where both Hutus and Tutsis can meet, talk and, hopefully, agree on their nation's future.
I would refer to the independent monitoring document that was commissioned by the Department for International Development last year, which commented that the law on non-profit associations, the press law and severe constraints on important political parties limited the scope for genuine political dissent. We must bear it in mind that 115,000 prisoners will be released into the community in the next three to four years, and it is also anticipated that there will be an influx of demobilised soldiers. It would be disastrous if those people were the focus of recruitment into an aggressive anti-Government sect. It would be preferable for the current Rwandan Patriotic Front regime to permit more peaceful public criticism and debate. I hope that the Secretary of State will use her best endeavours to encourage the Rwandan Government to permit a more open political system.
Another important aspect of long-term peace is the cessation of conflict in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Rwandan Government are to be commended for the prompt withdrawal of their troops following the agreement that was reached between the two countries earlier this year in South Africa. Yesterday's announcement of a new peace deal between the warring factions within the DRC is very welcome and to the tremendous credit of the South African negotiators. However, as President Kagame made clear to us at our meeting, the eastern DRC has not been an effective state for many years. It will take time to address the root causes of that situation. If the militias that are operating in that part of the DRC are not disarmed, and if they continue to pose a threat, the President says that there is a strong likelihood that Rwandan forces will have to re-enter to secure their own borders. That may be understandable, but the consequence is likely to be a collapse of the Pretoria peace process and renewed conflict.
Despite yesterday's announcement, and contrary to the pronouncement of the DRC Minister of Information, I believe that the continued presence of an international peacekeeping force is vital to facilitate an effective disarmament. The recent UN decision substantially to increase the MONUC force is very welcome; but as the Secretary of State well knows, the current force is under strength and there will be great difficulty in persuading neighbouring states to provide further forces unless the richer nations of the world—including our nation—are prepared to provide the appropriate finance. The UK is in a strong position to influence decisions in the area and I am pleased to note that the UN recently considered providing finance for a peacekeeping force in neighbouring Burundi. I hope that our Government can argue a similar case for forces in the DRC.
244WH
Sadly, the humanitarian situation in eastern DRC has not improved. There is an urgent need to address the political vacuum and protect the civilian population. The conflict has claimed the lives of 3 million people since 1998. The suffering continues. Most commentators feel that there will not be sustainable peace in the region until economic factors, such as mineral exploitation, are taken into account.
The recent report by the UN panel of experts—about which the Secretary of State has reservations—and last month's report by the all-party great lakes group, provide disturbing evidence of the involvement of Rwandan-backed military groups and companies in large-scale mineral exploitation that provides no benefit for the local population. For example, in recent years there have been noticeable increases in production and export figures in Rwanda for certain minerals that are not found in large quantities in Rwanda itself. It is alleged that such economic interests have been funding as much as 80 per cent. of the Rwandan army's operating expenditure. There is also strong evidence of the involvement of a number of European Union companies in that type of exploitation. That involvement is in clear breach of the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for multinational enterprises. In the light of the reports, will my right hon. Friend tell us how her Department intends to respond to the recent recommendations? What assessment has she made of the reports?
Given the recent history of the great lakes region, does my right hon. Friend agree that none of the problems faced by any one country can be assessed in isolation? Should the Government not now be taking a more integrated, regional perspective by producing a regional policy paper? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan Government should be strengthened in the area of conflict resolution to cover human rights issues and mineral exploitation? With a lack of local, national and international regulatory bodies in the DRC, certain western companies have paid little or no regard to the rights and concerns of the local community.
The most recent report from the UN panel of experts named 12 UK businesses that are considered to be in breach of the OECD guidelines. I urge the Government to carry out a review of those businesses and to contact them to remind them of their corporate responsibilities and the need to abide by the OECD guidelines and the UN declaration of human rights. We must not forget that there has been a mass of human rights abuses by all sides in the current conflict. As in Rwanda itself, the right to justice must be addressed if reconciliation is to be achieved.
Carla del Ponte suggested that such issues might properly be investigated by the new permanent International Criminal Court. I hope that the UK Government, and the Secretary of State, will take an active role in setting up an appropriate international mechanism to bring the culprits to justice.
The UK Government—and my right hon. Friend in particular—have taken a commendably pragmatic view in assisting the Rwandan Administration to develop essential public services. The UK has made a major contribution to its reconstruction. However, the

245WH
approach of the European Union, which has major influence in that part of the African continent, has been disjointed and slow.
Not only does Rwanda suffer from all the major problems that afflict sub-Saharan Africa, but the overwhelming majority of its adult population witnessed acts of violence during the genocide. Their scars are deep, and unless the global community—and the west, in particular—is prepared to support with substantial measures their search for peace, democracy and justice, the possibility of further genocide cannot be discounted.
9.50 am
Mr. James Paice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I failed to secure it last week, but she has succeeded this week. We applied for it for the same reason; we were both part of the group to which she referred. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she expounded on many of the various issues that we learned about in Rwanda and the rest of the great lakes region.
It is a testament to the importance of the debate that the Secretary of State herself is replying to it, because that is not the usual practice in this Room. She has visited Rwanda several times, and she has probably seen far more of it than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and me. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill has comprehensively explained the situation as we found it and as it has developed since our visit, I will not speak for long.
Unlike a couple of other members of our delegation, I had never been to Rwanda before and I had not taken a great deal of interest in its affairs, so I was on a very steep learning curve. I was quickly struck by one thing: there is a recognition that one does not talk about Tutsis and Hutus because Rwandans are trying to blot out the tribal distinctions as part of the reconciliation process. It was also regularly pointed out to us that people from both backgrounds were actively involved in that process.
There was a great deal of discussion about the origins of the denomination of Tutsis and Hutus. It frequently referred back to when Rwanda was controlled by the Belgians, who issued all Rwandans with identity cards on which their race was stipulated. The story goes that the designation of their race depended entirely on how many cows they had, which was a measure of wealth. I do not know whether that is true, or whether—as others would argue—the origins of that distinction can be traced back to tribal movements in Africa many hundreds of years earlier.
One of my first impressions of Rwanda was that it is very different from anywhere else in Africa that I have visited: I do not pretend to be very widely travelled, but I have been to several countries. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, I was astonished by what we saw of the Gacaca system of justice. It looked as though it might have a chance of working, and I hope that it does. The memory of that man admitting to the slaughter of so many people, including the children of a lady who
246WH
was present, is seared on my mind, and her deportment as she simply turned and went back to her seat—instead of trying to strike him, or bursting out screaming—was a huge testament to her inbuilt strength of character.
I do not think that many of us would have behaved in such a way. I cannot help but reflect that when a person in this country is accused of a horrendous crime against—for instance—children or women, large crowds gather outside the court and people scream, shout, push the police and thump the passing vehicles. Sadly, an event such as that happened in my constituency, but regardless of how dreadful the crime is, that is not responsible behaviour. It contrasts starkly with the ability of people from a less educated and poorer background to be much more resilient. Perhaps we have a lot to learn from them.
As our visit continued, I began to be struck most obviously by what I can describe in public only as a question of whom I should believe. Everything seemed to be too good because we constantly heard about reconciliation. However, something in my mind made me think that the people who came to power since the genocide were the winners. They had done a tremendous amount to put that behind them successfully, but at the back of my mind I wondered whether another—perhaps larger—group of people was somewhere feeling huge resentment because it was on the other side. However, we saw that the process of reconciliation was genuine, determined and successful.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are groups that have been overthrown. They are organised in the DRC and several are determined to return and to complete the genocide. They are out there and organised, which is part of Rwanda's problem.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I was fully aware of that and I was going to mention the groups outside. I was not referring to armed groups but wondering about the level of resentment in the general population. In other words, I was wondering about the level of support that the outside groups would have if they came back.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, the Rwandan Government should be congratulated on the withdrawal of their troops from the Congo under the terms of the Arusha accord. However, we challenged the President and others on the basis of several stories about such things as plundering mineral wealth. They flatly denied that such events had taken place, but I understand that there is clear evidence that they did.
I shall cite another example about which I do not know the truth—I can call that only misinformation. A person who made the visit with us and works with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and the great lakes group went on to Burundi. He said that
"the Rwandan Government claimed in a letter to the UN SC on the 17th October this year that Uvira"—
which is in Burundi—
"was attacked by Interahamwe and ex-FAR forces using military boats with rocket launchers operating on Lake Tanganyka. However, I was in Bujumbura—close enough to see Uvira clearly across the lake—on the 18th of October and no-one had seen these boats. Equally, journalists in Uvira reported that the town was captured by Mai-Mai forces, not Interahamwe or ex-FAR."

247WH
I do not know the truth of that, but every time that one hears such conflicting information it raises the question of what one should believe.
I want to discuss food and agriculture, a subject that those who made the trip will recall was of particular interest to me, and to share my thoughts with hon. Members and, especially, the Secretary of State. I have visited several African countries and, indeed, countries that are well known for their agriculture such as Britain and Australia, but I have never seen land so comprehensively cultivated as that in Rwanda. Every hill and slope is cultivated. The downside is that there has been considerable erosion of the natural jungle, which, to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, is the haunt of the rare mountain gorillas. It is important to address the conservation of the gorillas, but the gorillas might also be valuable for tourism in Rwanda. I hope that the Rwandan Government will recognise that and not allow further erosion of the jungle.
It was obvious to me that although Rwanda is a poor country, it is not food-poor. We did not see anyone who appeared malnourished in any way. Everyone, including the 7,000 prisoners to whom the hon. Lady referred, was healthy and well fed. It is not a country that starts off with food poverty, as so many others do, and it is obviously an agrarian community. We were asked several times by people whom we met how Britain could help them to develop their agriculture. That is my question for the Secretary of State. The more I pursued my questioning with them, either with our group or privately, the more I realised how basic were their needs.
The Rwandans had read that the common agricultural policy was not allowing them to export to Europe, which, without getting into the realms of the CAP, is only partly true. We know that many African countries are exporting fruit and vegetables to Europe—I have seen that for myself elsewhere in Africa. The CAP is not in itself a block, but there are huge problems.
Having spent 10 years working in an agricultural cooperative in this country before coming to the House, I have strong views about encouraging working together and farm co-operatives. What struck me was that the Rwandans would not require a high-powered delegation, or aid workers trying to impose a system from on high. Although I do not suggest that that is being done, it often has in the past.
It struck me clearly that all that the Rwandans wanted in so many areas was for a few people with good, solid, basic experience of encouraging people to work together, to go in to help build the local organisations. That will take time. Those people should teach the Rwandans about the need to produce consistent products in a reliable supply, so that potential buyers will be interested. That would take the Rwandans beyond the largely subsistence level of agriculture that they have at present.
From the parts of the country that I saw, I realised that Rwanda would never be a country with a huge, large-scale agricultural industry in modern technological terms because the landscape is not suitable, although I understand that parts of the eastern side are much flatter and might be more easily mechanised. However, there is great potential.
248WH
Rwandans have suffered dramatically as a result of the collapse in commodity prices for coffee and tea, which have been their only real exports in the food world. Coffee prices have collapsed, so over the past five years the export value of coffee has all but halved, which is terribly serious because it is virtually the only source of export earnings. We must help the Rwandans to find a replacement for coffee; because of the lack of other natural resources, other types of agriculture must be regarded as the main contender, along with tourism.
I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the Rwandans' need is at a low level. They do not appreciate or understand world markets. They require not lectures but on-the-ground help from a few people who are prepared to go there and commit themselves. Those people must have a considerable knowledge of what happens elsewhere. It would not be expensive and is something that we could do to help the Rwandans in the long term. It may be more effective than anything else that we can do and is well worth considering.
I hope that Rwanda comes through the end of transition next year satisfactorily. For all the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, I hope that the Rwandans can resist potential incursions from extremist Hutu forces outside their country—I hope that they stay outside the country.
Rwanda has huge potential but, as the hon. Lady said, it requires a lot of support from the rest of the world. I believe that Britain should be a significant provider of that support.
10.4 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who was a member of the IPU group that visited Rwanda two months ago. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) not only on her participation in that excellent group but on her good fortune in obtaining the debate and on her excellent speech. I join her in expressing our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), a proactive member of our group who continues to follow those interests in the House; we look forward to her return after the Christmas recess in full health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill gave a moving account of some aspects of our visit to Rwanda. She reflected on the terrible genocide that took place there, and then brought us up to date by speaking of yesterday's talks in Pretoria. I hope to touch on that subject during my brief remarks.
I first visited the region in 1994; I went not to Rwanda but to Uganda. Given that 1 million of Rwanda's population of 9 million were lost in 100 days, the spin-off to the neighbouring country of Uganda was dreadful. Sir David Steel, I and others saw the bodies floating down Lake Victoria, and saw the mass graves and the refugee camps. We saw then, and we are reminded of it today, that Rwanda cannot be considered in isolation. Nations in that region have problems and ambitions.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be replying to the debate, because everywhere we went during our

249WH
IPU visit people had the highest regard for DFID's work and said that if its contribution could be emulated by other countries, within the European Union and elsewhere, even more progress could be made.
Given the problems of genocide, there are issues that clearly could not be resolved in the short time since 1994. Even today, they represent a major challenge to the international community. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill was right to remind us that, at our memorable meeting, President Kagame made some criticisms of the international community during that period of genocide; most of us felt that he had a point. We do not want to sit back and have the same criticisms levelled at us—with the same justification.
The Secretary of State is of course very much aware of the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, which is so important in trying to solve some of the problems. She will recall the major aspects of that memorandum—respect for human rights, media independence and transparency. Some progress has been made but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, we would be greatly mistaken if we thought that we had made anything like the progress that we would wish to see. Certainly, the evidence of the Gacaca courts was impressive.
On one point, however, it is important that we place our frustrations and impatience on the record—the achievements of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Regardless of what we have heard—the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made some relevant points—we must bear in mind the tribunal's lack of achievements. It has not indicted one RPF member, and the fact that an investment of $800 million over six years has brought only nine convictions suggests that there are still serious problems.
We know the pressures on the Rwandan Government, but there are still questions about their role. I have no doubt that people are genuinely committed to the reconciliation about which we have heard so much, but I would add one point to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill made about justice. If there is to be reconciliation, we must remember that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we were very aware of our responsibilities when we visited Giterama prison, which holds 7,000 to 8,000 people. We welcome DFID's contribution of resources, but it is clear to us all that we must encourage those involved to speed up the process of justice.
We had other opportunities to say how we felt. I hope that what we said was accepted with humility—as I hope that what I have said today about the role then and now of the international community will be. For example, we were glad to have the opportunity to raise a case of clear injustice on behalf of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who may catch your eye later, Mr. McWilliam. I am sorry that there has been a delay in responding, despite the promises that were made at the time.
We look to the future of Rwanda with realism and, I hope, more than a degree of optimism, particularly given the role of the Secretary of State. However, we
250WH
cannot forget the valid criticism that was made fairly recently in, for example, the UN panel report. Nor can we overlook the International Crisis Group report, which was published in November 2002. It said:
"The RFP wields almost exclusive military, political and economic control and tolerates no criticism or challenge. For the past three years, opposition political parties have either been dismantled or forced to accept the consensus imposed by the RPF, the independent media has been silenced, and civil society has either been repressed or coerced."
We are concerned about the July 2003 elections. We want pluralism to prevail, and Opposition parties, which seem unable to compete with the RPF, to be given the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, many people will regard the whole exercise as a mere sham.
I shall now mention the decision taken yesterday in Pretoria, because it offers great hope. There was a need for a peace process, and there is a need to ensure that it works this time. We recognise the role of the President of Rwanda, and he was very forthcoming when we met him. We welcome the withdrawal of his troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but I remember one of his comments in particular. He said that he would not hesitate to send his troops back if the Government of Rwanda thought that there was a challenge to the country's borders. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Burundi and in the whole region remains worrying. Any suggestion that Rwanda is isolated does not reflect the realities of the region.
I hope that we can examine the peace process in Pretoria and consider the opportunities there, including those for tourism. When some of us were at Lake Kivu, we observed the enormous potential for tourism in Rwanda. The mineral resources, properly shared, offer a great deal of hope to all the people of the region. The greed that has been associated with them may have been the source of some of the strife that has occurred, including the terrible genocide.
I hope that we can view Rwanda in a regional context and address it from that perspective. I pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the Secretary of State, and hope that, reflecting what was said during our visit, she will consider the possibility of a regional peace conference.
I end, given that we are in Great Britain approaching Christmas, by quoting the words of Charles Dickens:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".
What we saw and have debated represented the worst of times for Rwanda and for the region. However, given the tremendous opportunities ahead and the region's natural resources, I believe that, for Rwanda and its region, the best is still to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. If hon. Members keep their contributions short, I can fit them all in.
10.16 am
Patrick Mercer: I am privileged to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on having secured the debate.

251WH
I have never been to Rwanda, but I have had two experiences that I associate closely with the area. The first was in 1986, when I had the mixed pleasure of serving for nine months in Uganda with a British Army training team. That was when President Museveni's forces successfully defeated President Obote's and established what we hoped would be a new era of prosperity, hope, common sense and justice in that country.
I was a young man, and it was my first experience of genocide. Sadly, I seem to have become a genocide tourist ever since, having seen what has happened in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Balkans and various African countries.
Clare Short: It is not genocide in Northern Ireland.
Patrick Mercer: Well, one has to make a judgment as to whether that is genocide; it might be classified as such over the past 300 years. I first really understood what was meant by genocide when I saw the large corrugated metal platforms that were established outside Ugandan villages, laden with the bones, the skulls, the ribs and other body parts of those who had perished in Uganda under various regimes. It was a horrifying sight. Sadly, I recognised the names of some of the young Ugandan officers whom we had trained and who had served under us as being associated with the continuing problem and, perhaps, having contributed to it. I hope that they had not.
The second experience was, strangely, in north-east Nottinghamshire, where I am lucky enough to have an organisation called the Aegis trust working in a house outside the village of Laxton, sometimes known as the Holocaust centre. It started by examining specifically the problems experienced by Jews under Nazi rule in the second world war, but it has evolved and has generated itself into a much greater concern, opposed fundamentally, root and form, to genocide. It has, rightly, concentrated recently on Rwanda and the lessons that can be drawn from the genocide there for the whole of the world, especially the great lakes region of Africa. Thanks to that coincidence within my constituency and to my personal experience, I feel reasonably closely associated with the area.
I shall talk briefly about the extraordinarily dangerous situation that continues in the northern Kivu area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I need not tell the Minister what has happened there in recent years. The two nations of Rwanda and Uganda have elevated what might be called a tribal quarrel into a conventional conflict, bringing much additional misery to the region on top of the Rwandan genocide. Despite the several mentions that there is a sign of hope in the Congo and of the warring factions signing a peace deal, the area is still enormously dangerous. Both nations must accept that they cannot fight on foreign soil, kill 600 civilians, destroy the second largest town in the Congo and not be made to pay the reparations that are due under UN Security Council resolution 1304. I wonder whether the United Kingdom should review its aid policy to both Uganda and Rwanda if the reparations are not paid properly—perhaps some moral arm-twisting can help to redress the regrettable situation.
252WH
The governance of the two countries has been mentioned. Their military elements can distort the proper democratic rule if that can be seen to influence events. Can it be acceptable for international donors to be involved with nations that go to war on a whim? If there is a risk of renewed fighting in the area, the international assistance programmes should be scrutinised and, perhaps, suspended.
MONUC, the United Nations observers' mission to the Congo, has been mentioned. I am delighted to hear suggestions that the mission should be reinforced so that its already very effective job can be improved. With more personnel, better communications equipment and further transport, especially aircraft and helicopters, it might be even more effective—particularly, in view of the news of an upsurge in violence by insurgent groups in the area, through its monitoring positions established on the border, at Kanyan Bayonga and Lubero. By addressing all these points, we could help to prevent a recurrence of violence in the region.
I shall finish by concentrating on the work that has been done to commemorate the slaughter that has occurred in the past decade or so. There are more than 200 sites of mass killings in Rwanda, and a number of projects are trying to put money into turning seven of them into appropriate permanent monuments to the folly of genocide. It is hoped that they will instruct nations near and far about the effects on countries, nations and Governments of policies that run out of control.
On 3 September, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pledged £300,000 to preserve mountain gorillas in Rwanda. She stated that
"if the Great Apes are to be anything more than a memory this is a fight that we have to win. I am confident that we will do so."
Clearly, that is good for the gorillas, and I am delighted about that, but perhaps we should be looking to fund more important or more focused projects. It is pleasing to hear that, in the past couple of days, local government officials from the Congo have gone to visit sites in Rwanda. They have gone to learn lessons from what happened in the past, so that they can, perhaps, be avoided in future. If more funding can be found to ensure that the sites remain as a permanent memorial, and if the victims—those who looked on, those who took part, and those who suffered, even as second parties, in the killings in Rwanda—remember and are remembered, the lessons of what happened in 1994 may not be forgotten.
10.25 am
Mr. Andrew Love: Of necessity, I will be brief. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate.
I shall illustrate the problems that we have talked about with the tragic case of Charlotte Wilson, a 27-year-old teacher and the daughter of one of my constituents. Almost two years ago, on 28 December 2000, she was murdered in Burundi. There was significant publicity surrounding the event. I have an article from The Guardian, published at the time. The crime was horrific. Charlotte was travelling on a bus from Rwanda to Burundi when, about 15 miles outside

253WH
Bujambura, the 30 passengers on the bus were ordered off. Charlotte and her fiancé, along with 21 other people, were massacred for no apparent reason.
Charlotte worked in Rwanda for Voluntary Service Overseas. Interestingly, she was told that Rwanda was safe at the time, but that Burundi was not. However, because of her interest in the region, she chose to travel there with her fiancé. As her mother will attest, she was committed to the work that she was doing there, to the children, to Rwanda and to the region. Since Charlotte's death, her mother, Margot, and her brother, Richard, have worked tirelessly to pursue justice on her behalf and on behalf of the other victims of that particular crime. They, too, have a commitment to Rwanda and to the region, have travelled there both before and since and continue to take an interest in the area.
During the two years since those events, there have been reports from non-governmental organisations and local people. Indeed, a witness, Eric Marango, came forward, and there was concern in Rwanda about his safety. The family tried to bring him here as an asylum seeker, but they met the usual Catch-22, which is that if someone presents himself to an embassy or high commission and asks for a visa as an asylum seeker, he will not receive one. He must deliver himself to the shores of this country to be received as an asylum seeker. Therefore, Eric Marango remains in the country.
There has been a police investigation. Indeed, officers from Scotland Yard went to Rwanda, but they face enormous difficulties there, and we have discussed how fragile the situation is in Rwanda. Of course, witnesses are reluctant to come forward because there is a widespread climate of fear. However, the police and others have assembled various witnesses from nongovernmental organisations. Local reporters for international newspapers and magazines and others have identified the Force Nationale de Liberation as the organisation responsible for the crime. It is an extreme Hutu group which, sadly, is still very active, especially in Burundi and the DRC.
I will not go into the situation locally, except to say that although significant progress has been made in Rwanda in establishing legal institutions-we should pay due attention to the work of DFID and others in achieving that—the situation in Burundi continues to deteriorate. There is great concern about that.
I should like the Minister to take on board a number of issues. I hope that DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to put their best efforts into trying to resolve a heinous crime. They have been doing as much as they can, and I welcome that. I hope also that they will not give up on the case, but will continue to do what they can to bring the perpetrators to justice. Legal institutions must continue to be established. There is a particular problem in Burundi, where the situation is still tense and unstable.
There have been reports that the FNL is not only active in the region but has contacts in Belgium, and perhaps in other parts of the EU. It has been reported that its leader, Agathon Rwasa, has travelled to Europe on numerous occasions. I hope that the Minister and the Home Office will consider whether that organisation should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. I do not
254WH
know whether anyone is active in this country but, if possible, action should be taken in the United Kingdom, in Belgium and throughout the EU to proscribe that terrible organisation. I hope that the Minister will continue to focus on the region. If things continue to deteriorate in Burundi and in the Congo, we could face circumstances similar to those of eight years ago. No one wishes to see that. The international community—and perhaps Britain in particular—has a responsibility not to allow that to happen.
10.31 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on their interesting contributions.
Like the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was on the visit but is unable to be here this morning. I have discussed the issue with her at length, and she is optimistic about Rwanda's future and about what is happening on the ground there. She congratulates the Secretary of State for the work that her Department has done, with particular emphasis on education. My hon. Friend has also commented on the success of the vaccination programmes.
The plight of those living in Africa has once again grabbed the attention of those who write this country's newspapers, with the main focus on Ethiopia, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Rwanda, however—a country that dominated the headlines in the mid-1990s—tends not to take up much column space these days. That is why debates such as ours are so important in keeping Rwanda on the agenda after the news teams have left the country. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) mentioned, the problem does not recognise national boundaries. It spills over into neighbouring countries, as other hon. Members said. The problem affects the entire region, whether it is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda or Burundi.
Condemnation of genocide unites the world community, which has an obligation to step in and stop it when possible. That did not happen in 1994, however. It is difficult to find words that properly describe what happened then. "Horrifying", "appalling" and "sickening" do not seem to sum up the scale of the tragedy. We all remember the pictures on our television screens and the stories in the newspapers. The operation was meticulously organised, as the journalist Linda Melvern wrote in her recent book:
"The 1994 genocide was planned in detail. Elaborate lists were drawn up of those to be massacred; half a million machetes and huge numbers of axes, hammers and razors as well as guns were purchased in advance and stockpiled—the costs met by cunningly diverted aid funds. One of the organisers of the genocide, Colonel Bagosora, boasted that he was preparing 'apocalypse deux'."
Much has been said already about how those who perpetrated the genocide that has killed more than 1 million people, in far and away the largest-scale organised killing since the second world war, should be brought to justice. Of course, it is important to the people of Rwanda to believe that justice has been done. It is to be hoped that the new Gacaca court system will help to speed up a process that has so far been painfully slow. However, I share concerns about the increasing

255WH
number of reports of intimidation and bribery—and even of the murder of witnesses who were due to give evidence. In Kigali alone, investigations are taking place into the deaths of 20 people believed to have been killed to prevent them from giving evidence in a local court. It is clear that a strategy for the protection of witnesses is a missing piece of the jigsaw, which must be put in place if the process is to be a success.
Reservations have also been expressed about the lack of training available for the so-called people's judges who pass judgment as part of the Gacaca system. The fact that defendants have no right to legal representation must be questioned by all those interested in fairness and justice. The Foreign Office has queried the matter.
Although it is important for Rwanda to deal with its past, it is doubly important for the country and its people to look to the future and face the challenging questions of how to bring about the development and advancement that we would all want for it.
Part of Rwanda's commitment to development and poverty alleviation must come through a commitment to peace with its neighbours. The peace agreement signed by Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo was welcome, but it will work only if all aspects of the agreement are implemented. So far, that does not seem to be happening. The key elements of the agreement were, of course, the disarming of thousands of ex-soldiers and their repatriation from the Interahamwe back to Rwanda. However, that itself will bring problems as soldiers begin to move round the country. The problem of AIDS is, as for other African nations, a scourge of Rwanda.
It seems that both countries are taking steps that are not exactly consistent with what many of us thought would happen after the signing of the agreement. The ongoing occupation of the eastern Congo by Rwandan soldiers is not acceptable. I read with interest a recent story in The Observer accusing many Rwandan soldiers of collaborating with Hutu militiamen to stay in the Congo and raid the rich mineral resources of the country. As one American diplomat said:
"The Interahamwe is now a very convenient excuse for Rwanda to loot Congo. Maybe it's 20 per cent threat, 80 per cent for show."
Another UN officer said:
"How serious are they"—
the Rwandans—
"about solving the Interahamwe issue when they seem to be fighting everyone in eastern Congo except the Interahamwe? Their security concern has become a joke."
As for the DRC, there are reports of civilian Hutu refugees, including many women, now being wrongfully arrested as part of the repatriation programme and taken into military camps such as the Kokolo camp in Kinshasa. One Hutu, a refugee from Burundi, reported that he was taken to a camp, tied up and locked in a lorry container. He was told that he was being sent to Rwanda simply because he was a Hutu. Surely that was not the repatriation that we envisaged when the peace deal was signed.
As others have said, Rwanda, internally, remains a country in real need. The latest figures from the World Bank show the percentage of households below the poverty line at around 70 per cent.—an increase of 17
256WH
per cent. since 1994. Life expectancy is not even 40 years and almost a third of children die before reaching the age of five. I mention the latter point because, of course, it relates to one of the key development goals set by the United Nations, classed as one of the key indicators in the eradication of world poverty. Illiteracy levels are high too, with an estimated one third of adults unable to read or write.
I do not make light of the efforts of the UK Government, and in particular the Department for International Development. It would be wrong not to note, and welcome, the commitment shown by the Government to the development of Rwanda, as set out in the 1999 country strategy paper. That is not to say that I have no criticisms to make—I am sure that that will come as no surprise to the Minister, for whom I have great respect.
Rwanda, not unlike its neighbours, is living in the stranglehold of HIV/AIDS. The country is among the 10 most heavily infected African countries, with almost 13 per cent. of its population now infected. The genocide of the mid-1990s and the massive mobilisations of population that followed served only to break up family units. That has been accepted as a factor in the increase in the number of HIV-positive people. It is important to remember that a staggering 60 per cent. of the population of Rwanda are under 20 years old. Among that group 10 per cent. are believed to be infected.
We need long-term commitments from the Government, so that countries like Rwanda can tackle HIV. The HIV problem threatens Rwanda's way of life. The Rwandan Government need new resources to overcome the massive overcrowding of Rwanda's prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned that she thought that people were stacked like chickens in the prisons that she saw with the group that recently visited the country. The recent United Nations report on the situation was distressing. It stated that in some detention centres four inmates can occupy every square metre of floor space in open courtyards, and that there are six inmates to every square metre in dormitory buildings.
The Rwandan elections, which are planned for July 2003, offer a chance for real reform and reconciliation in the country. That opportunity cannot be squandered. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has had time to read the International Crisis Group's report that called for the international community to withhold any finance for the elections because of problems with the Rwandan Government's lack of respect for political associations. It is clear that there are very serious questions about apparent restrictions on Opposition parties and on reporting in the independent press.
Several things must happen in order for Rwanda's future to be bright. The tourism industry in what is generally recognised as a beautiful country requires supporting projects—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion? We should like to finish the winding-up speeches.
John Barrett: Yes.

257WH
The least that we in the developed world can do is to help the Rwandan Government in their efforts to meet the challenges ahead. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State what can be done.
10.41 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I also thank other members of the IPU delegation for taking the time to give us the benefit of their experiences. Several hon. Members spoke specifically about constituency cases and brought their experiences to bear on the situation in Rwanda. In the spirit of good will at Christmas, I acknowledge the Secretary of State's work on bringing reconciliation and helping to maintain peace in Rwanda—it is right to record that. We have heard that there is fragility to the peace, which should concern us all. I shall endeavour to keep my remarks as short as possible because many questions have been asked—I shall add several—and we want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.
I shall focus on next year's elections, but not because I believe that Rwanda's past is unimportant—its outworking will be with both us and it for a long time. However, it would be helpful today to think about the country's future. Democratic elections will be held in July next year. That is good news, although questions remain. There are still multiple restrictions in Rwanda on political and civil liberties and there is no sign in the outline of the constitutional plan of a guarantee, or even an indication, that any political opposition will be able to participate in the elections on an equal footing with the RPF. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reassure me on that point and will answer two important questions. What are her assessments of how the elections will take place and of the viability of the opposition in Rwanda?
The International Crisis Group, which is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works to prevent and resolve conflicts in all parts of the world, has made an assessment of Rwanda's journey toward democratisation. Although the group shows an understanding of the RPF's desire to hold a tight rein on such a potentially volatile situation, it also urges greater freedom for the press and for the RPF to allow public criticism. It recommends that an independent authority should be put in place to create and oversee the foundations of general reconciliation.
Does the Secretary of State support the creation of an independent body to oversee the politics of the country through the election period? What lessons have we learned from the recent local and district elections? The International Crisis Group claims that the national electoral commission abused its powers to veto unwanted candidates and guarantee that only supporters of Government policies were selected for the district elections in March 2001.
Elections were held this year. What is the right hon. Lady's assessment of the implications of those elections and what they augur for the future? The ICG says that the RPF should recognise that its authoritarian actions, whatever their motivation, have worked against its own
258WH
stated objective, which is to restructure Rwandan political culture away from purely ethnic lines through popular education.
The general tenor of the ICG's report on Rwanda is that President Kagame should try the carrot rather than the stick in the fragile peace. The Secretary of State is well aware of the situation and has faith in President Kagame. What is her response to the more critical aspects of the ICG's recommendations published last month, to which I have referred?
The non-governmental organisation Saferworld, of which I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware, works mainly on demilitarisation and weapons collection programmes and is urging our Government to support and monitor the Nairobi declaration signed in March 2000, when the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda agreed to work together to combat the problem of small arms and weapons. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the importance of monitoring work and the fragility of the border situation. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the monitoring process is effective? Will she respond to my hon. Friend's remarks about the under-provision of equipment required to be effective in that process, especially in the light of the recent peace accord, which will mean the return of thousands of disaffected Hutu refugees, many still armed? That will also bring volatility to Rwanda.
I should like to pick up the point about AIDS in Rwanda, which the Tear Fund has called a second genocide. I am sure that the Secretary of State has, with me, been appalled to see the outworking of rape used as a weapon of war that has infected many female-headed households that struggle to survive. That is another disaster waiting to befall Rwanda.
Will the Secretary of State reflect with me on an incredible irony: that a country that, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, has an infection rate of 30 per cent. of HIV/AIDS must use 30 per cent. of its export earnings to service the debt owed to countries such as Britain? I am deeply troubled by the morality of the situation, when so many sub-Saharan African countries with high rates of infection remain heavily indebted to us and other rich countries and have to use resources that could provide better health care for their citizens. I am troubled by that bitter irony.
Another area of concern mentioned by hon. Members has been raised by agencies working the Gacaca community courts set up to try genocide cases. We have heard from hon. Members who have visited them and tried to understand where the truth lies in the highly charged emotions in the court as confessions come out and reconciliation is sought. One thing that concerns them and the agencies that work in Rwanda is that there is a desperate shortage of professional legal help. Some of those who preside over the courts have no legal training. Should we not be trying to ensure that the courts gain more support from us in terms of legal provision and civil service support? The civil service has been decimated by all the tragedies that have befallen Rwanda.
May I endorse a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the agrarian situation in Rwanda? Given the

259WH
terrible famine in southern Africa and now in Ethiopia, it is a plus point—as he said—that agriculture is relatively well developed in Rwanda, but its principal exports of tea and coffee are badly affected by the collapse in commodity prices. Will that be considered in relation to the reworking of Rwanda's debts?
The Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report that the heavily indebted poor countries initiative was failing, partly because of its failure to cope with exogenous shocks. The collapse in commodity prices is one of those shocks. I appeal to the Secretary of State to examine Rwanda's case, which cannot be worse. Although the agrarian situation is good compared with that in other parts of Africa, the framework cannot cope with the country's capacity to produce and meet the market need. It must be said that Rwanda has recovered remarkably well, given that the worst attempted genocide in Africa, in which both sides lost hundreds of thousands of their people, ended only eight years ago. Let us hope that the proper execution of the election process in July will underline that potential achievement.
10.50 am
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on organising the debate and on the clarity and sweep with which she put her case. We are debating the genocide in Rwanda and the great lakes—the most recent genocide in which the world failed to act, even though we have a genocide convention since the holocaust in Europe that obliges us to act. Moreover, the United Nations presence was pulled out and the people who were camping around its site were being slaughtered. That is a deep, recent historical failure.
I have been a major actor in efforts to bring peace and reconstruction to that area of the world. For the first time since 1997, there is a debate on the situation in Rwanda in which my policies have been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny, apart from parliamentary questions. Unfortunately, we have so little time left this morning that I cannot answer all the questions that have been raised. In terms of parliamentary accountability, that seems a poor way in which to scrutinise such a crucial policy. The United Kingdom can make a difference and give people who have been terribly hurt by history a chance of a better future.
When I first visited Rwanda, there were still bones and rags in many churches. There were little collections of skulls and bones outside those churches. The north of the country was still occupied by the forces that were trying to take over the country to complete the genocide. I do not remember much television coverage of the genocide, but I remember the coverage when the people moved out and became refugees. The cholera outbreak and the fact that they were living on difficult territory were relayed all over the media. The leaders of the genocide were driving out the population as the Rwandan Patriotic Army came in to liberate the country. The international community made terrible mistakes by providing food through those military leaders, which reinforced their power. That is part of the continuing instability in the region. Those who organised the genocide are still around. They are in
260WH
Kinshasa, armed and still trying to invade the country. Rwanda is trying to rebuild at the same time as forces that want to promote a complete genocide attack it.
When I first visited the country, the international community took a humanitarian guise. No country or institution was willing to engage in rebuilding the country. Although we had no historical link and our colonial experience was bad, there was general support in the United Kingdom for my decision to take a lead in helping to reconstruct the region; otherwise, its people would suffer a continuing disaster. We had to make a commitment to long-term aid to get the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to create a programme that would offer any economic growth to Rwanda, because the country is so poor. The land is fantastically rich, but it is very densely occupied. That was one of the tensions. Then there was the drop in coffee prices that led to the genocide. There are hungry people in Rwanda because not everyone has land, but the land is fantastically fertile. There are hungry people; that is unquestionable. It is in the statistics. Statistics were quoted earlier about the number of children who do not survive to the age of five.
The state of affairs is interesting, and it led to a UK shift to giving long-term commitments that enable countries to be more ambitious about their development. Our long-term commitment enabled the IMF and the World Bank to have a more ambitious programme, and enabled Rwanda to start to rebuild. The country went on to qualify for debt relief and is seen as a successful reformer, which is remarkable when one thinks of Rwanda in 1994. When those organisations took over, everything had been smashed.
Most of the educated people in the country had been killed because the more liberal and educated Hutus—the lawyers and so on—had opposed the genocide. There has been a big achievement. There is peace across the country and the north is stable. There are more children in school than ever before in the history of Rwanda. Some 74.5 per cent. of children are in primary education. Rwanda is on track to have universal primary education by 2010. Access to education was used in the colonial experience to divide people, so that is a wonderful achievement. The books of the past have gone, and children are not labelled as Hutu and Tutsi. All children are now getting access to school.
Those are all important achievements but, as has been said, there are still hundreds of thousands of prisoners charged with genocide. Some in the prisons might have had false allegations made against them, but many are responsible for engaging in monstrous acts. There are very few lawyers in the country, as many were killed, but to get any kind of normalisation, the problem must be dealt with. Given the rate at which trials were being held in the country, it would have taken more than 100 years to deal with everyone charged with genocide.
The prisons are well organised—the local Gacaca goes on—but are like sardine cans. They are absolutely full of people in pink outfits. That is Gacaca; it tries to use a traditional Rwandan way of using community justice to get the truth out. Very senior figures might be imprisoned, but those who have done less gross things might be accepted back into their communities and do some sort of repentance or work, so that there might be some reconciliation. That is a fantastic strain on the country. Those who have killed others' children will

261WH
come back and live alongside them in their village in a country in which land is scarce. Of course, after the killing, land and possessions were stolen, so there are also disputes about who has the land, and so on. However, the country must do something; otherwise, the prisoners will be there for years to come. What Rwanda has achieved is great, but the release of people will strain communities across the country.
I am running out of time; I am very sorry. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill about MONUC, the DRC and the UN panel. There are many important things to say. There is a danger that in Burundi there will be bouts of genocidal killing, rather than one spectacular genocide. The FNL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned, and which is said to be responsible for the killing of his constituent, is the one group that has not come into the Burundi peace process. I will respond to all those complicated and important questions.
One of my personal ambitions, and one of the things that the UK can help to do, is to give this generation of Rwandans a chance to move forward and have elections and a constitution, not another bout of genocide. However, Rwanda cannot be safe if the Congo is not safe and if Burundi is explosive. To care for Rwanda, one must get a settlement in the region. There have been divisions in the international community and among members of the UN Security Council. The hostility within Rwanda is like anti-semitism as it used to be in Europe. There is real prejudice and division in Africa on such questions, and it needs to be understood. I think that we can make progress. The UK can play an important role. The present generation in this country do not have a colonial experience in the region, so we may be able to contribute to its rebuilding.
I will write to hon. Members on points that I have not been able to answer. The allocation of time for this debate has been unfortunate.

South Coast Multi-Modal Study
10.59 am
Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity to raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents and to others who live along the south coast. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—who seems to be the Minister with special responsibility for Westminster Hall. He will know that I spoke to his office yesterday to give him some indication of the issues that I wished to raise. I intend to approach this matter constructively; doubtless, the Minister will respond in similar vein.
I welcome the concept of multi-modal studies. They are a welcome innovation, introduced by the Government shortly after the election in 1997. The concept was that, rather than continuing to consider particular roads, it was sensible to consider transport corridors and examine what could be done with rail and bus developments, walking and cycling initiatives, and even short sea shipping—if I can say that without tripping over the words. The concept is sensible and the Government deserve credit for it. Unfortunately, the good intentions have been blown off course by events.
I want to focus on the south coast, which is a good area to consider. It was right for the Minister to consider it and it is welcome that the Government are paying attention to the transport situation there. The south coast corridor contains a combination of local transport movements; very few movements run from one end of the corridor to the other. The Government's multi-modal study is therefore a study of a combination of little areas of transport movement. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
Halcrow is the consultancy company that has been appointed for the study. That surprised me, because the company is clearly doing work for other organisations. Most notably, it has recently done work for the RAC, for which it produced plans to build lots more roads—which was doubtless what the RAC wanted. I wonder whether there is a slight conflict between Halcrow's work for private companies and its work in the public interest, such as this study.
My worst fears have been borne out by the report that Halcrow has produced. It comprises 80 pages, of which only four are on bus and rail. Virtually none of the report is on cycling or walking. Of the £1.1 billion that has been allocated, I calculate that around 54 per cent. is allocated to road building with only 2 per cent. allocated to buses. Even worse—I want to raise this general point with the Minister—the difficulty with all multi-modal schemes, which are desirable in theory, is that the road elements tend to be progressed whereas the other elements are treated differently. Traditionally, the Secretary of State for Transport stands up in the House of Commons and makes announcements on the building of bypasses or stretches of road, and is then able to deliver. However, rail schemes are not delivered in the same way. I have never understood why Transport Ministers cannot stand up in the House of Commons and say, "I will deliver this rail scheme." They should announce rail projects in the same way as they announce road projects; but, instead, rail schemes are shunted off to the Strategic Rail Authority, on which the Government rely to deliver rail schemes.

263WH
The SRA is reporting to the Government that it wants to cut the number of trains in use, that it cannot deliver services, and that it is therefore prioritising. Consequently, many rail schemes that are recommended in multi-modal studies—including schemes in the south coast study—will not be progressed. Even Halcrow said, as did the local community, that there was a strong case for the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line, which is the only diesel link along the south coast. The ludicrous situation arises that it takes me longer to travel by train from Lewes in East Sussex to Ashford, in the neighbouring county of Kent, than it does to get from Ashford to Brussels by train, including the need to change at Hastings because there is no electrification. That situation, which everyone thinks should be rectified, will continue.
No electrification is proposed for Uckfield-Oxted, although that has been in the plans since the 1980s. In fact, that was in British Rail plans. The Polegate-Pevensey loop, which Halcrow was keen to progress, will not happen because the Strategic Rail Authority does not regard that as a priority. Most culpably, there are no plans to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line. That plan is supported by not only hon. Members from all parties, including the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), with whom I am working closely, but all the local councils, including Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour in Brighton and Hove. Virtually no one is opposed to it, the costs are modest, and yet it will not feature.
On the Halcrow study, the Council for the Protection of Rural England commented that it was
"extremely disappointed at the limp approach taken"
to the issue of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. The rail passengers committee for southern England and its chairman, the excellent Wendy Toms, have raised real issues about SRA estimates for the electrification of Kent and Sussex lines, alleging that at £154 million those were five times too high. Whether or not that is five times too high, the key point is this: the road schemes that the Government wish to progress will progress. Rail schemes, cycling, walking and buses, are all dependent on external bodies, for example, the SRA or the county council, and those might not progress.
In the Government's implicit hierarchy for transport in the multi-modal studies, road building is a last resort. I think that that is right. Similarly, there is a waste hierarchy in which landfill is last. It seems right that the transport hierarchy puts road building last, but that is not going to happen in this case. In fact, because of the arrangements with the SRA, among other things, road building is first. It is, therefore, more likely that the road schemes that are recommended in the multi-modal study would go ahead, rather than other transport measures. That cannot be what the Government intend. I give the Government credit for wanting an integrated transport policy—I believe that that is still their policy. If it is, what will the Government do to ensure that there is progress on the non-road proposals in such studies, and in this one in particular? Will they ensure that such proposals progress in the right order, before road improvements?
264WH
The CPRE recommended that the transport hierarchy should apply and quoted the Government's own 1998 transport White Paper, which said:
"Since new roads can lead to more traffic, adding to the problem not reducing it, all plausible options need to be considered before a new road is built."
Those are the Government's own words, with which I entirely agree. Because of the way in which the situation is turning out, that will not be delivered. The timetable of events is worrying.
The environmental impact of road building is also a problem, not least in my constituency, which is in an environmentally sensitive area in a new national park. The Government are pleased to have created a national park, and yet it seems that one of the first things they will do is to approve an environmentally destructive road scheme that runs right through it. There seems little point in creating a national park if that is to be done with it.
The Halcrow study pays lip service only to the positive and practical measures that could be taken on so-called soft measures, although it recognises that those have a role to play. Where are the measures to secure travel plans so that car sharing takes place? Where are the measures that would push public sector employees—many work in Lewes—into adopting such travel plans? What are the Government doing about the 51 per cent. of car journeys in the area that are made simply to take children to school or to access local work? What are the Government doing about so many people driving alone in their cars? My colleagues and I in the Lewes area conducted a survey of traffic going into Lewes off the A27-the road in the multi-modal study. We found that 91 per cent. of cars that entered Lewes from the east had only one person inside. There is clearly an opportunity to encourage car sharing to reduce the number of cars, yet the multi-modal study says virtually nothing about that.
More importantly, there is the question of pricing. The Government talk about road pricing, but I want to talk about transport pricing. A parliamentary answer that I secured from the Minister on 20 November demonstrated that the cost of travelling by car—including purchase, maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance—had, from a base of 100 in 1974, dropped to 98.7 in 2001. It had also dropped over the period of the current Government. The cost of travelling by rail had risen from a base of 100 in 1974 to 185.3 in 2001—it had virtually doubled in real terms. The cost of bus travel over the same period had risen from 100 to 166.1. The cost of both public transport options had increased in real terms under Labour, whereas the cost of travelling by car had dropped.
Surely the Minister accepts that the price that people pay to get from A to B has an impact and affects which mode of transport they choose. The Government must take action to secure lower bus and train fares rather than simply saying, "That is a matter for train operators and private sector bus companies," because the consequence is that people are forced off public transport and on to the roads, which is the exact opposite of what the Government say they want to achieve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Just so that we do not lose this point, will the hon. Gentleman say whether his party would increase the cost of motoring?
Norman Baker: I will wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to speak on party policy: I am here as a local Member of Parliament. I do not wish to be distracted. I want to be constructive and to raise constituency issues rather than to speak on transport policy for my party. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pick up the point. There is a long answer that I could give the Minister, but I do not wish to be driven down that track at this point.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will address the issues that I have raised about the relative increases in rail and bus fares compared to the cost of motoring. He may know that I have managed to persuade the train operator South Central to decrease by roughly a third the cost of season tickets from the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) into Lewes and from Seaford in my constituency into Lewes. South Central tells me that that has led to a significant increase in the number of passengers buying tickets and the cost of the initiative is now covered through increased passenger use.
The scope for such schemes is enormous. The Minister will know that soft measures such as mine that break even can be far more cost-effective than environmentally damaging road schemes that have multi-million pound costs. I would have liked Halcrow to pay more attention to such schemes.
The Minister will also know that 63 per cent. of local journeys in the study area take place in the Eastbourne, Brighton, Gatwick triangle, where there is train capacity. Yet Halcrow has made no effort to identify how that capacity can be accessed. I am afraid that Halcrow has produced a road-building charter, with a coat covering it that reads "integrated transport". I do not believe that that is what the Government want, but it is what they have got from Halcrow in this study.
The study is also flawed in other ways because it makes assumptions about the economy. For example, it says that the Wilmington bypass will
"improve access to priority regeneration areas in East Sussex",
but what does that mean? The report of the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment produced by the Conservative Government showed that there was no inevitable connection between improved road networks and economic vitality. SACTRA demonstrated that the impact depended on the various factors surrounding that road improvement. A new road to Gatwick, which is already strong, might well result in jobs being sucked into the area. However, a new road to a weak area might lead to jobs being sucked away from it. That naive and foolish connection between new roads and economic prosperity needs to be challenged. The Government have accepted, through the work of the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment, that there is not such a connection, but here we are with the old fables being repeated by Halcrow.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman on to specifics. What, if
266WH
anything, would he do about the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and indeed about the Beddingham bottleneck—where both rail and road use the same junction?
Norman Baker: That is an important matter, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall come to that point in the course of my remarks.
I have mentioned the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment, but even if one accepts—as I do not—that the new bypass will improve regeneration, one must ask where it will improve it. The answer is that it will open up a big parcel of land at Polegate in my constituency. That will lead to business development. I suggest that a consequence of that might be to take business opportunities away from Newhaven—which I hope that the Government support, as a port—and away from Hastings. There would be not a net increase in economic activity, but a reshuffling of it.
On congestion, the study is technically flawed. Congestion is a new word adopted by the Government, on which they are concentrating, although yesterday's statement was depressing for what it revealed about how congestion is developing. The study refers to congestion between two points and states that improvement of a road in a particular place will reduce congestion between those points—for example, Southerham and Beddingham. That may be true, but the Minister needs to understand that nobody actually travels from Southerham to Beddingham. People go from Eastbourne to Lewes or from Polegate to Lewes, or to Brighton, but they do not go to Southerham. No one goes there: it is a transit point. To be sensible, any assessment of whether congestion will be eased must take into account the access and destination points of any road journey—not just two arbitrary points on the road.
The Minister may know, if his officials have briefed him on the point, that anyone wanting access to Lewes from the A27 must go through a single-carriageway tunnel that joins the A26 at the other end. The Minister is nodding—I am glad that he has been briefed. The tunnel is at capacity. It already has traffic tailing back on to the A27 in the morning and into Lewes in the evening. No amount of improvement of the A27 will deal with that. When the Highways Agency was asked about the matter, it replied that it was not its problem because the road was the responsibility of the county council.
The county council cannot deal with it. There is no physical way to deal with the tunnel. By cutting congestion between Southerham and Beddingham the Minister will add to congestion in the tunnel. People travelling from Eastbourne to Lewes, or Seaford to Lewes, which are the real journeys, will have the same journey as before. Congestion point measurement does not work. It is surprising that Halcrow could fall for such an elementary mistake in its report.
The standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment also stated that when any new road is built or a road is improved, people begin to make longer journeys than they would otherwise have done and to go on journeys that previously they would not have made. They visit people whom they would not have visited; they take jobs that are further away. The spare road capacity that is created is filled up by extra journeys.

267WH
People making those extra journeys will also need to use the tunnel in Lewes. The idea that what is proposed will deal with congestion does not stack up.
In any case, Halcrow accepts in its assessment that the only real congestion is westbound in the morning between Lewes and Polegate, and says that a maximum of 11 minutes would be taken off that—I do not believe that it would be anything like that—with three minutes taken off the eastbound congestion. It proposes to deal with that congestion by means of a multi-million pound scheme.
I have concerns about the Southerham-Beddingham proposal to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred in his intervention, and more generally about the Lewes-Polegate road corridor. I say road corridor because a parallel railway runs from Lewes to Polegate, although Halcrow appears not to pay much attention to that in its so-called multi-modal study.
I am disappointed that the Southerham-Beddingham proposal has been rushed out in the past three or four weeks because, if the south coast multi-modal study means anything, it means a co-ordinated approach along the corridor, including due deliberation with relevant bodies and consideration of the impact of one scheme on the rest of the corridor. Instead, we are returning to the bad old days that we had under the previous Conservative Government of simply picking a road scheme and banging it in. That does not seem sensible.
There will be a so-called consultation exercise over Christmas, which will take place over two days in a village called Ringmer. Of course, Ringmer is not accessible by train and is nowhere near those affected directly by the A27 scheme. Consultation should have taken place in Lewes. It is unacceptable that there has been no proper consultation there. The Highways Agency merely said that it would carry out the consultation exercise in Ringmer, which mirrors what the south coast multi-modal study suggested about not having an exhibition in Lewes at all. It wanted one in Eastbourne and one somewhere else. It was only after I kicked up a huge fuss that one came to Lewes. When the exhibition was there, I was told that more constructive comments were made in Lewes than anywhere else. But the same problem arises in relation to this issue, with Lewes missed off the physical consultation map. I hope that the Minister will insist that that exhibition is brought to Lewes.
Why has the proposal been brought forward quickly? As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, there is concern about the level crossing at Beddingham. The railway inspectorate issued a statement suggesting that it is unhappy about the safety of the crossing. I do not underestimate that comment, which needs to be taken seriously. The Highways Agency alleges that there have been 25 safety incidents, as it calls them, at the crossing in the past four years.
The police figures for the same period suggest that there has been one serious and three slight accidents, which does not tally, unless the other safety incidents are people weaving and dodging round the half-barriers. Frankly, anyone who thinks that they can weave round a half-barrier when a train is in sight must want their head examined, but such incidents have happened. I have always stuck rigidly to the highway code
268WH
instruction, which is that one should always give way to trains at level crossings. That has always struck me as good advice, but others have not always followed it.
That serious matter needs to be dealt with immediately. Some action has been taken. Along with others, I have asked for enforcement cameras, which have now been provided. I hope that notices will accompany them, warning any drivers who weave round the barriers that they will invariably be subject to severe prosecution. They are endangering not only their lives but those of train passengers. I have also suggested as a short-term measure the erection of solid barriers down the middle of the single carriageway either side of the crossing. That would physically prevent such weaving and dodging.
Those measures would deal with the immediate safety issues. The Highways Agency says that the way to deal with the problem is a double barrier that would mean 24 minutes delay per hour. However, it says that we cannot have that, so we must build a flyover. I have just made two suggestions—enforcement cameras and a solid barrier—that would deal with the safety problem of preventing dangerous behaviour. The railway inspectorate has now said that it is concerned about the matter because there is a suggestion in the south coast multi-modal study that the number of trains that go through the crossing will increase. The road schemes may go ahead, but I would be surprised if we had those extra trains, so ironically that may not occur in any case.
The scheme is proposed. I tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne that I do not rule out action either at that crossing or along the A27—I have always been prepared to see action along the A27. However, I am concerned about the scheme: the way that it has been introduced, its contents, and its environmental impact in particular. I am taking slightly longer than I would normally, because there appears to be a shortage of people who wish to contribute to the debate. I hope that you will let me wander on a bit more, Mr. McWilliam.
Halcrow accepts that the scheme would have adverse environmental effects on the landscape, and impose an increased flood risk. It does not recommend the tunnel, although many people have raised that issue with me. However, interestingly enough, in the work that it did with the RAC recently, Halcrow was busy recommending tunnels up and down the country, saying that they were one of the ways forward. Halcrow appears to be out of the line with the advice that it produced for its private sector client.
There are a number of serious worries associated with the scheme, in terms of the environmental impact. It is closest to option SB1, which was produced by Bullens, the consultants in 1993, which is when the issue was last considered. In discussing the option of an online improvement to upgrade junctions at Southerham and Reading—roughly the same as the scheme now under discussion—Bullens stated:
"The most damaging option to landscape and views by a substantial margin would be Option SB1. If Southerham Roundabout is upgraded in the future to become grade separated, the existing severe intrusion at Southerham would become even worse. The traffic would continue to cross the slope of Ranscombe Hill visible from the floodplain and Mount Caburn. The route would be raised on embankment across Glynde Reach causing high intrusion to the view from Mount Caburn. This option also encroaches on the SNCI at Beddingham Grazing Marsh."

269WH
That is essentially the option now before us, produced by Halcrow. How can it be that the option that was discussed and dismissed as the worst possible option in 1993 is now before us for recommendation? It is a funny old world when that can happen in nine years.
I raised the matter with the Highways Agency. I asked why it was promoting the scheme, given the comments made in 1993. It said:
"The flood risk of the previous southern option swings the balance in favour of the northern route currently favoured even though the landscape impact is greater."
Even the Highways Agency says that the option is not the best in terms of the landscape.
I hope that the Minister is familiar with the part of the world to which I am referring, although if he is not, he is welcome to visit my constituency. We would be delighted to see him there—I will show him the route of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line and he will find that Mount Caburn is a fantastically famous and wonderful landmark in Sussex. People love it, not for its height, but for its shape and how it fits into the landscape. It is in an open plain, in a delightful part of the world. People are genuinely concerned about the environmental implications of what is a crude embankment—a cut and paste job—stuck between two roundabouts to get over the level crossing. The South Downs and the national park, which the Minister and his colleagues have been keen to promote, deserve better than that.
I hope that I have demonstrated that there are serious concerns about the environmental implications at the junction. If there is to be a scheme, the one that is proposed is certainly not the best for the environment. It may be one of the cheapest, which is perhaps what has recommended it to the Government, but it is not the best. I also do not believe that it will reduce congestion time at all. It is important to deal with safety issues at Beddingham level crossing, and I have mentioned ways in which that can be done in the short term. In the long term, and in answer to the intervention from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the south coast multi-modal study should follow the hierarchy that the Government have set down. It should seriously consider and introduce other options. It should introduce cheaper rail fares and improve the bus network, and it should take some of the steps that the Government recommend. Once it has done that, it should follow the Government's advice and make roads the last option. If those methods—and soft measures, such as shared travel-towork arrangements—cannot resolve the safety and congestion problems on the road, it may be necessary to return to road schemes along the south coast.
However, we have not reached that point yet. Those involved in the study should go back to the drawing board, take on board the Government's advice and consider other options first. Most of my constituents would prefer those options to have been exhausted before we introduce an environmentally damaging road scheme. As Bullens said in 1993, the scheme would be the worst option. It would be built in a sensitive area of the South Downs, at significant cost to the taxpayer. Before that happens, let us look at the other options.
I hope that the Minister will do more than simply answer my questions. On a minute matter, I hope that he will ensure that the exhibition that did not take place
270WH
in Lewes will now take place. More seriously, I hope that he will reaffirm the Government's commitment to an integrated transport policy and to studying other options, such as rail, bus and soft measures, rather than simply opting for environmentally damaging road schemes. I hope that he will remit his thoughts on the issue to those involved in the study so that they can do their work properly, as I believe he and his colleagues first intended.
11.31 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I commend the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. Like other colleagues, we have been trying to secure a debate on this important report, and it is splendid that we are discussing it today. The spirit of unanimity may wear a bit thin as my speech progresses, but I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the process involved in the south coast multi-modal study. That process is important, and I have made representations to the consultants, as, I am sure, has the hon. Gentleman and many of our constituents. It is a good process.
I part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that I think that SoCoMMS reaches a careful, well-argued and balanced set of conclusions. It has tried to strike a balance between environmental and social considerations on the one hand and economic considerations on the other. It has also tried to strike a balance between the needs of private and public transport. It has carefully examined all the cost-benefit analysis issues, and the cost-benefit analysis, certainly for the A27 scheme, is 2.8:1, which is encouraging.
The report is very long, and like the hon. Member for Lewes, I shall focus on a few specific issues. The report is brilliant news for everyone in my constituency and in the rest of East. Sussex. I shall deal with the proposed improvements to the A27 in more detail later, but I warmly welcome them, and it is gratifying that they will be given priority.
It is also right to welcome the proposal for more frequent rail services to and from my constituency. The plans for a possible new station at Stone Cross will benefit many of my constituents, particularly those who live in the Langney area.
There will also be better connections with Ashford, and the hon. Gentleman touched on that. If I want to go to Europe on the Eurostar, I often drive back up to London, because the road and rail connections between my constituency and Ashford are pitiful.
It is interesting that the report has attracted such widespread support. The regional assembly debated it the other day and was broadly in favour of it. I have also had a message of support from Anthony Dunnett, the chief executive of the South East England Development Agency, who says:
"The south Coast Multi Modal Study has received the full support of SEEDA as it takes a balanced approach to meeting the varied and pressing transport needs of the South Coast … Without these measures the South Coast cannot attract the vital investment that is needed to regenerate towns like Eastbourne, Hastings, Brighton and Littlehampton."
Eastbourne borough council, which, incidentally, is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has always adopted a cross-party approach to the A27. I have an e-mail from Mr. Norman Kinnish, director of planning,

271WH
regeneration and amenities. He reminds me that we have been sending deputations to Westminster since the 1990s. He says that Eastbourne council
"supports an off line dual carriageway solution as the most effective method of resolving this road's problems … Both parties represented on Eastbourne Borough Council continue to commit their unwavering support for these improvements"
The leader of the Conservative group, councillor Graham Marsden, says:
"The economic progress of this area is being stifled by the lack of an effective transport infrastructure … The A27 is dangerous with too many drivers taking risks because of its frequent bends and dips."
There is widespread support for the proposals. The Eastbourne and district chamber of commerce, which covers an area way beyond the boundaries of the borough of Eastbourne, says:
"It is vital for the economy of the whole area that improvements are made to the A27 as soon as possible."
Although the cabinet of East Sussex county council has yet to formally debate the SoCoMMS report, it has long supported the campaign for significant improvements to the A27. In an e-mail to me, Mr. Bob Wilkins, director of transport and environment, makes several points, some of which have already been touched on by the hon. Member for Lewes, but others are slightly at odds with what the hon. Gentleman was saying.
There are two issues here. One is the issue of the A27 itself, and arguments have raged for years about how best to deal with the problems of congestion. The road is a major artery, certainly economically, and is extremely dangerous. There is also the problem of trying to find some division on the rail crossing that crosses the road at Beddingham, which, at times, is a nightmare. Fortunately I was not involved, but I heard on my car radio last Friday that there had been some sort of breakdown at the crossing and that traffic was stacked up for many miles in both directions.
Mr. Wilkins makes the point that the railway currently carries four trains an hour in each direction between Lewes and Eastbourne, causing a stoppage of about 12 minutes in every hour. He says that during the morning and evening peak periods, traffic builds up for five miles back from the crossing. That cannot be good news for the people who live in Selmeston and Berwick—
Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if the crossing is bypassed, traffic will simply build up at the Southerham roundabout or in the tunnel into Lewes?
Mr. Waterson: Not necessarily. I would have thought that the SoCoMMS report would have taken that into account. On any view, there should be a significant improvement in the amount of traffic.
At the moment, the traffic flow amounts to almost 30,000 vehicles a day. The SoCoMMS report predicts that that will increase to 39,000 vehicles a day in the next 15 years. On any set of criteria applied by any Government, the road deserves to be a dual carriageway. The clinching issue—this was also touched on by the hon. Member for Lewes, although I think that he skirted around the solution—is the question of train
272WH
frequency. Every silver lining has a cloud, and one of the benefits of privatisation, at least for my constituents, was that, instead of an hourly service from London to Eastbourne, a twice hourly service was introduced for much of the day. That means that more trains go through Beddingham and there are more stoppages on the road. As I said, at the moment, we have four trains an hour. According to the railway inspectorate, there will be a significant problem, possibly involving closure of up to 30 minutes an hour, because of what can only be described as a high risk of serious loss of life. The hon. Gentleman tried to minimise the risk slightly. One thing that I have discovered about fatalities on the roads is that the statistics collected by people such as the police are slightly unreliable. In any event, Mr. Wilkins says:
"If the barriers were to be changed"—
presumably to make them more difficult to evade—
"the delays would increase to more than 30 minutes in every hour, causing unacceptable disruption to the road network."
Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Highways Agency estimates delays of 24 minutes, not 30 minutes per hour? Does he also accept that the figure would apply only if a double barrier were put in, not if the strategy that I suggest were adopted?
Mr. Waterson: We should certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I am not a technical man, as you will know, Mr. McWilliam, and if the time can be reduced, that is fine. Our starting point, however, is that there are enormous traffic flows, which are bound to increase, and stoppages of at least 12 minutes in every hour. We must address the existing problems before tackling the new problems that would be caused by a different sort of barrier and longer stoppages.
Mr. Wilkins goes on to say that SoCoMMS recommends
"an increase in rail frequency to 7 trains an hour between Lewes and Eastbourne"
We can all regard that as good news, and my constituents will be delighted. The hon. Member for Lewes was sceptical about whether that increase would ever come about, and I can see how that fits into his overall argument. We should perhaps be sceptical about such promises from any Government. My point, however, is that any increase would significantly add to delays.
There is a much more human level at which the A27 needs to be sorted out. Mr. Brian Stoodley, a leading local surgeon, who is based in Eastbourne, has been one of my strongest supporters over several years. He recently wrote to the leader of the Liberal Democrats to point out that the A27 was not only inefficient and slow but extremely dangerous. He noted that it
"carries over twice the traffic volume of an average 'A' road … It has over twice the morbidity and twice the mortality rate"
that one would expect of an equivalent road. To put it in more brutal terms, Mr. Stoodley and his colleagues have had to deal with the consequences of the dangers of the A27 over the years.
As long ago as 1996, Sussex ambulance service wrote to me to make it clear that it was in favour of better road connections in the area. There were problems dealing with patients after accidents because ambulances were unable to get around the area quickly.

273WH
Since being elected I have lobbied consistently on this issue. I took a deputation to see Conservative Ministers in 1995. Ultimately, the Conservative Government announced schemes to deal with bottlenecks on the A27. I was obviously very quick off the mark because in July 1997 I took a cross-party delegation from Eastbourne to press the case for road improvements with the new Minister with responsibility for roads. I have also secured several debates on the issue, including one in February 1996 and one in November 1997.
There is a massive consensus, certainly in my constituency, that the problem must be addressed. The problem of improving the A27 is linked to that of improving the rail crossing at Beddingham or replacing it with something more up to date.
Schemes were first mooted after the last world war, and after many years, the Polegate bypass and the new A22 route into my constituency were recently introduced. Both are already having a significant effect in drawing traffic from other parts of my constituency and elsewhere.
To be fair, the hon. Member for Lewes has a long and honourable track record on the issue, and I understand his reservations. If I may say so, however, he is being excessively gloomy and critical about the SoCoMMS report, which is closely argued. It is there for debate and, indeed, consultation.
I hope that this will not provoke a furious intervention, but the hon. Gentleman used to be an opponent of the Polegate bypass. He then came to see the benefits—
Norman Baker rose
Mr. Waterson: At least let me finish the point—I knew that I should not have embarked on it. In time, the hon. Gentleman came to see the benefits of the Polegate bypass and, indeed, became one of its most enthusiastic supporters—so much so that one might have thought that it had been his idea. Perhaps the same process will occur in this instance.
Norman Baker: This is a good-humoured intervention, rather than a furious one. To put the record straight, I have always been in favour of a bypass for Polegate. I was not in favour of the dual carriageway bypass that was finally constructed. I have always recognised a difference between a bypass, which may have merit, and a new inter-urban road, which, in my view, is more difficult to justify.
Mr. Waterson: We can argue about the history, but the result is that we have the road, much later than we should have done, and it is, in my humble opinion, working.
Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he would announce a decision on SoCoMMS and, in particular, the A27 project. He told me, largely out of a fear of lawyers, which I can understand, being one myself, that he wanted to defer the decision to the spring and make a package of announcements. However, I should like to challenge the Minister to consider whether the decision can be brought forward. Whatever
274WH
else is set out in SoCoMMS—and there is much detailed and interesting work affecting many other areas of the south—what cries out for attention is the need for improvements on the A27 and at Beddingham and the fact that the report concludes that those are a priority.
My constituents and other residents of Sussex have waited too long for those much-needed road improvements. They have the backing of the independent study and the regional assembly, as well as of people, businesses and business organisations in the area. They have the support of the relevant local authorities. Everyone knows in their heart of hearts—even, perhaps, the hon. Member for Lewes—that the status quo is not an option. Of course there must be consultation. The hon. Member for Lewes is right—I never thought those words would pass my lips, but he is right in describing the unique beauty of the area in question. Therefore, it is very important that we develop a scheme or schemes that are sensitive to the needs and concerns of people who live along a possible route for the improvements. I should not want anything to happen with which they would not be brought along, in a constructive and helpful fashion. There will always be those who oppose any new roads. Some people will never he persuaded, but we need to make a major effort.
The road is lethal and slow and is crippling economic development in our area. It is high time that this decision was made.
11.47 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. He has correctly identified the fact that the report is heavily weighted towards roads—I am afraid that that is also true of the other multi-modal studies. He has calculated that 54 per cent. of the £1.1 billion that has been identified will be spent on roads.
The question of balance is emerging in the Transport Committee's inquiry into multi-modal studies, which we are due to complete shortly. That is disappointing, because it is clear in the guidance relating to multi-modal studies that they are required to identify solutions that include a range of modes of transport, including walking and cycling. My hon. Friend explained his disappointment with the study, and rightly stressed the environmentally sensitive nature of his constituency.
Furthermore, my hon. Friend is right—again, I suspect that this is relevant to the other studies too—to express concern about the low priority that has been given to soft measures. Halcrow has, as he said, been soft on soft measures. Both my hon. Friend and the chairman of the Transport Committee have highlighted the drop in motoring costs and the increase in public transport costs. Let me take this opportunity to respond to the Minister's question. He knows the answer: the Government, after all, are in favour of congestion charges, and have identified the need for local authorities to introduce them—or are expecting local authorities to introduce them. He and I know that one of the effects will he increased costs for motorists. That is Government policy, and we support it: we believe that charging has a role to play in reducing congestion and raising revenue for public transport.

275WH
We also support measures that would reduce the costs of motoring for drivers who use the most environmentally friendly cars. Therefore, there would be gains as well as losses for motorists. However, it is wrong for public transport fares to be increasing significantly when motoring costs are reducing; that differential must move in the other direction. The Minister can make whatever use he wishes of that comment in the coming months and years.
Mr. Jamieson: I do not wish to lose sight of that important point. Other than the congestion charges—which, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, will probably be introduced in very limited areas—does his party support an increase in the costs of motoring?
Tom Brake: I have made it very clear that congestion charges—those in London, for instance—will have an impact on motorists, especially if there are incentives with regard to improved public transport. However, if congestion is not reduced, disincentives must also be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to use that remark.
The Minister has been invited to Lewes. If he accepts the invitation, he might wish to stop off in Carshalton on his way, because my constituents and I could show him some good examples of local transport improvements that I am sure that he would appreciate.
I disagree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). He said that the report was careful and well balanced, and he quoted the South East England Development Agency saying the same thing. The hon. Gentleman should talk to David Begg, the head of the Commission for Integrated Transport, who has made it clear that the multi-modal studies are not a careful and well-balanced option. He used the same argument as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, which is that there is no guaranteed funding for any of the rail or local transport initiatives—that applies to capital and revenue. That is why it is anything but a well-balanced option. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and the hon. Member for Eastbourne agreed about the beauty of the area.
I wish to make some general points about multi-modal studies. Twenty-two studies have been completed or are under way; 15 reports have been issued, and a further five are expected within the next six months; and there are 10 studies that concentrate only on road options. It is disappointing that the only major reference to multi-modal studies in the progress report that was issued yesterday is in the section covering the strategic road network. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that, but if I am not, that reinforces my hon. Friend's point about the multi-modal studies prioritising roads at the expense of other modes of transport.
I support the approach taken by the south coast multi-modal study. It is important that it should look beyond transport and address regeneration issues too. There are some interesting proposals in relation to light transit and other rail schemes—with, of course, the caveat about whether they would be funded.
Mr. Waterson: On the regeneration issue, does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the point that SEEDA's
276WH
endorsement made was that these proposals would assist regeneration not only in Eastbourne but in a raft of south-coast seaside towns?
Tom Brake: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I also heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said about the potential for road improvements benefiting areas that the hon. Gentleman may not have expected to benefit from such improvements.
Norman Baker: Some time ago, when I was chair of economic development at the county council and the A23 to Brighton was made into a dual carriageway, the area of Sussex that performed least well economically for the next three or four years was Brighton, because businesses were able to relocate to Crawley and Gatwick. It was an own goal for Brighton.
Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. He points to the fact that we cannot reach a rapid conclusion about the impact that schemes may have on regeneration.
One of my worries about the south coast multi-modal study is its statement that
"Looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, the role of demand management measures is likely to grow, both as a means of funding sustainable transport measures".
That concern was echoed by David Begg, whom the Government presumably listen to and respect. It seems too late in the day to talk about demand management measures by 2030 or beyond. Mr. Begg said that we needed some form of demand restraint and that
"the best form of demand restraint is some form of road user charging … a pricing system which varies with the level of congestion".
I hope that the Minister will say something about that and endorse the views that have been expressed by Mr. Begg.
As for the implementation of the multi-modal study and others, it will be useful if the Minister can confirm the exact meaning of
"complete and act upon the programme of 'multi-modal studies'.
That phrase was used in the progress report, which referred also to the strategy being for the period up to 2010. Will the hon. Gentleman say what schemes he expects to be completed by 2010? If they are not completed by then, by when would he expect them to be completed? Will he also confirm the budget that has been set aside for the multi-modal studies?
I expect the Minister's response will be that such matters are contained within the £180 billion, in which case will he explain exactly what process will be used to prioritise different competing schemes, whether proposed by the SRA or local authorities or identified in the multi-modal studies? Can he confirm whether the cut in the rail budget of £312 million over the next three years is likely to have an impact on the multi-modal studies? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will say no, because no budget has been set for the rail proposals in the multi-modal studies, certainly not within three years. However, other feasibility studies may be in the pipeline. I should welcome his response to such matters.
Will the Minister comment on Mr. Begg's concerns about the disconnection between the recommendations of regional planning bodies and the ability of the

277WH
delivery agencies, especially the SRA, to fund those recommendations? Although the Secretary of State may be making such a response this afternoon, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to Mr. Begg's worry about the lack of clear guidance from the Government on charging and how that has made it difficult for multi-modal studies to make consistent proposals.
Obviously, we need to be able to judge the success of this and other multi-modal studies once the appropriate rail, cycling and other road measures are in place. Will the Minister comment, in a little more detail than is given in section 2.7 of the progress report, on what targets the Government will use to measure the success or otherwise of the study? The targets set out in the progress report are anything but smart; they are totally unquantifiable. They include:
"reduced congestion on inter-urban roads … road condition maintained at an optimum level".
There is nothing in any of the targets—except that for numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads, on which the Government have done a good job—that anyone can measure. I hope that the Minister can flesh out the targets.
It is nice to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Chidgey. I conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has set out some genuine concerns about the study, and has called for the Government to look again at their hierarchy in relation to the modes of transport that they will use to solve congestion and other transport problems. I hope that the Minister can give us some satisfaction on that important point.
12.1 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the south coast corridor multi-modal study, although so far the debate has centred around the A27, Lewes and Eastbourne—probably because the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) are key participants in the debate. As a former Minister with responsibility for roads who flew by helicopter over those areas more than 10 years ago to look at the transport needs in that corridor, I am impressed by the fact that not much has happened since I left office. I am depressed to think that many of the schemes in the programme that the Government were bequeathed in 1997 and that were put on hold are now the top priorities in the study's recommendations. Five years have been wasted in which next to nothing has been done.
In many respects, the multi-modal studies have been a recipe for delay. The conclusions that they reach are very much in line with many of the conclusions reached by the previous Government, namely that one cannot restrict traffic growth and economic growth by not developing our trunk road network. It is important to remind ourselves that the study says that
"in the absence of any strategy, the number of vehicle km driven within the corridor"—
that is the south coast corridor—
"will grow by around 30 per cent. by 2016 and 45 per cent. by 2030. This is despite a projected increase in rail use of 30 per cent. by 2016."
278WH
We know that the hon. Members for Lewes and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) were at the forefront of the unrealistic campaign in 1997 and 1998, which was led by the Deputy Prime Minister, to make us believe that it would be possible not just to reduce congestion but to have real reductions in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles travelled by vehicles on the road. The Government's policy was premised on that enormous fallacy. It is only now that the Government realise what a fallacy it was. They are facing up to the consequences of increased congestion, accidents and damage to our economy as a result of their short-term policies.
The Government have set up the multi-modal studies. The hon. Member for Lewes said that there were 80 pages. I think that he means that the east of Lewes strategy development plan contains about 80 pages. The south coast corridor multi-modal study contains the best part of 700 or 800 pages, although I admit that I have not mastered it all because I anticipated that the debate would be centred on issues relating to Lewes and the A27. It is not reasonable for the hon. Member for Lewes to say that the study should be torn up and rejected by the Government just because its conclusions do not coincide with his prejudices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, the study's conclusions are widely endorsed, and by people in not only the locality but the region.
People in my constituency, which is further west on the south coast, appreciate the importance of a good south coast corridor as a means of enabling people to travel from, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewes in order to take their holidays in Christchurch, Bournemouth or further west. That would prevent them from being tempted to cross the channel to spend their money on the continent. Likewise, the corridor would enable my constituents to visit the fine landscapes in the South Downs. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and I have spent enjoyable occasions in the Grand hotel in Eastbourne conferring and discussing strategies. We have benefited from that in the past and will benefit from it in the future.
Tom Brake: I invite the hon. Gentleman to comment on the validity of a study that is clearly meant to be taken as a package, although the Government will guarantee to fund only one component: the roads programme.
Mr. Chope: I do not think that the Government are guaranteeing to fund the roads programme. That would be funded by the Highways Agency because improvements would be made to trunk roads but not local roads. I understand that the railway part of the package would be funded through the Strategic Rail Authority. The hon. Gentleman is making an artificial distinction and he overlooks the fact that a benefit of the study is that the report considers road and rail together. Paragraph 4.33 of the east of Lewes strategy development plan says:
"The objective of reducing delays at Beddingham Level Crossing is particularly important due to the SoCoMMS proposals for increased train frequencies on the East Coastway route (from 4 to 7 trains per hour in each direction)."

279WH
That recognises that if the number of trains passing a level crossing is increased, the capacity for road vehicles is reduced, which is a reason why the report recommends strongly that something should be done about that. The present situation is intolerable.
Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if the frequency of trains was increased and if they were properly priced and consisted of proper rolling stock, the number of vehicles on the road might be reduced?
Mr. Chope: Frankly, we have just been told—I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted this—that even an increase of 16 per cent. in the number of rail passengers by 2016 will not stop traffic on the roads increasing by 30 per cent. I do not believe that increasing rail capacity reduces the amount of traffic on the road. That is the myth that the hon. Gentleman has peddled for so long and it has been proved to be absolute nonsense. There is nowhere in the world where an increased rail capacity has reduced road use. There is significant road use even in London, which has an enormously expensive and well-developed underground and overground rail network. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington seem to think that the south coast and the South Downs are equivalent environments to central London. Public transport and access to trains play a greater role in London because people live very near stations.
There are vast rural areas in the South Downs—Lewes and Eastbourne are obviously specific towns—in which people have to use their motor cars. The report that the Government produced yesterday confirms that dependency on cars in rural areas is greater than that in urban areas. We ignore such realities at our peril because that leads to increased congestion, more accidents and danger on the roads, and more damage to the economies of the areas served by those highways. I totally reject the strategy of the Liberal Democrats.
It is worth quoting from the Halcrow report, but I hope that in doing so I will not be doing the Government's work for them. The Minister knows that I am, and have always been, a great enthusiast for investment in transport infrastructure. I look forward to the time when we can invest as much in transport infrastructure as was invested when I was the Minister responsible for roads. Almost every day of the week, I would be opening a bypass or a new stretch of road in which the Conservative Government had invested.
Norman Baker: What about railways?
Mr. Chope: I was not opening new railway lines because I was not the Minister responsible for railways. I was the Minister responsible for roads.
The Halcrow report says of the demand for road travel that
"some improvements are essential to the continued economic and social well-being of the region. There is currently severe traffic congestion at many locations along the A27 … and this is predicted to worsen in the future. This will make it more difficult for business and freight operators to gain access to many of the South Coast towns from the national road network."
The report then deals with the strategy, which has been endorsed by many people. The strategy
280WH
"includes a number of measures to improve the current road network's overall efficiency."
The report goes on to say:
"Highway improvements are of particular importance to rural communities. Public transport will continue to serve a relatively small portion of the market and the car will remain the most economically efficient means of providing mobility. Reducing congestion on the approaches to larger towns and improving trunk routes will also reduce the need to divert onto sensitive rural roads, bringing environmental benefits to these areas."
The statements in the report are common sense. I hope that it will soon be on the Minister's desk, that a conclusion will be reached, and that recommendations will be made and accepted to incorporate in the roads programme the highway improvements that the report identifies. As I have said before, many of those improvements were identified by the previous Conservative Government and inherited in 1997 by the Labour Government before being put on the back burner. Had they not been put on the back burner, we would have seen them coming to fruition much earlier, with all the benefits that would have flowed from them.
Let us not forget that the original idea was to have a south coast trunk route between Honiton and Folkestone. Many people going from the south coast to the west country, or from the west country to the channel ports, are diverting their journeys and going along the M25, thereby adding to the problems of that motorway and transferring the environmental burden on to the people who live close to it. Congestion, journey lengths and journey times are increasing.
Norman Baker: Is it Conservative party policy to divert traffic from the M25 on to the south coast route? I am keen to know, so that I can let my constituents know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to encourage extra traffic on to the A27. Is that his policy?
Mr. Chope: We should have a coherent network of trunk roads in this country. If people have to travel many miles out of their way in order to gain access to the major air and sea ports, that is unnecessarily burdensome on the environment. I would prefer to have a proper route between Portsmouth and Dover, as was originally envisaged. That route would be a trunk road and would meet the needs of local people. It would be good for the economy of the south coast and it would help to reduce the burden that is carried by the M25.
This issue is important and I hope that the Minister will accept that there is much support from the Conservative party. There could be a consensus between the official Opposition and the Government on the need to improve road infrastructure along the south coast corridor sooner rather than later.
12.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing such an important debate. Several issues have received a useful airing, but I doubt whether I shall get round to responding to them all today. The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Department and I shall write to him about the matters that I do not cover. I shall try, in the spirit of the season, to be non-contentious. However, I may stray.

281WH
The hon. Gentleman referred to my frequent presence at these Westminster Hall Adjournment debates. This is my penultimate debate this year. For those hon. Members who want to stay around, I should say that I shall be responding to a further debate today. Sadly, in January, debates on transport matters will be held every other week because the House, in its wisdom, decided that certain Departments should respond to debates one week, while other Departments do so the following week. I am sure that that decision will bring considerable relief to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and his colleagues who also have to take part in such debates are nodding. The hon. Gentleman's good researcher will only be working once a fortnight on his questions, rather than each week.
If I just refer to "the study", that might be one way to avoid using the awful acronym SoCoMMS. It may help the Hansard reporters, too. I wish first to make general points, after which I shall pick up on specific matters that have been raised. As the hon. Member for Lewes will be aware, my ministerial colleagues and I are considering the recommendations of the study, so the debate is particularly timely. The multi-modal studies were set up to examine some of the most difficult problems of the strategic transport network. I am pleased that there has been a general welcome for the approach of the studies. We seem to have cross-party accord.
We are considering the contribution that all modes of transport can play in finding solutions to the problems. Last week, the Secretary of State announced his response to the recommendations of five of the studies, as part of the £5.5 billion package of major national and local road measures. Over the decade, in excess of £180 billion of public and private money will be spent on transport. We are putting in place a programme to tackle years of under-investment in our transport infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure.
We are looking forward to taking a balanced approach between road, rail, public and private transport. Our objective is to improve Britain's road and rail network as well as getting better use out of the existing infrastructure. Our measures are aimed at tackling congestion, improving reliability and making journeys safer. They will also help to improve the environment and the quality of life. The south coast multi-modal study is one of a tranche of two programmes that were identified in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".
Of the full programme for studies, eight have now reported and the Secretary of State has announced his response to the recommendations. The primary purpose of the south coast's study was to recommend a long-term sustainable strategy for transport between Southampton and Margate. I fully understand why the debate has focused on part of that area, but the consultant's recommendations are intended to recognise the need for economic regeneration in the corridor, while aiming to minimise the potential for environmental damage in a sensitive area. Such issues were raised by the hon. Member for Lewes.
282WH
The study has been charged specifically with making recommendations on four remitted A27 road schemes: the Arundel bypass, potential bypasses at Wilmington and Selmeston and improvements at Southerham and Beddingham, picking up the long-term issues that were identified from the previous M27 Worthing and Lancing integrated transport studies and the Hastings multi-modal studies. In the past few days, we have received south-east England's regional assembly's views on the study and we are now considering the advice. It raises important issues, some of which have been aired here today, not least because of the environmental impact that the schemes could have. I have been asked to say when we will make decisions, but we must carefully examine all aspects of the schemes—the benefits and environmental impacts. However, I hope that we will have some conclusions by spring 2003.
The hon. Member for Lewes raised several issues. There may be some misunderstanding about the multi-modal study process. Some of the findings coming out of the studies and the consultation, and from discussion between the Highways Agency and the SRA, will need local solutions. Similarly, some of the methods to reduce traffic in the sensitive areas that he described will be delivered specifically in local areas—they are "local solutions for local areas" or however the phrase goes.
The hon. Gentleman also made general points about the relative costs of different modes of transport, including one relating to the time that Labour had been in office, which is why I tried to tease out what his party's view was and how things might be done differently in the unlikely event of the election of a Liberal Democrat Government. When asked about whether they would increase the cost of motoring, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington were extremely coy. It is a difficult question that we have to answer.
We must appreciate that many of the issues relating to motoring are not in the direct control of the Government. The price of oil and cars and the efficiencies that car manufacturers are making are bringing private motor cars to a larger number of people. There are many disadvantaged people in my constituency and I am glad that some of them now have access to a motor car.
I am also pleased that my constituents now have access to better public transport. There is huge investment in the infrastructure, especially in the railways. Some of the subsidies mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes to reduce bus fares are in the gift of local authorities, so perhaps he should make representations to his own.
Norman Baker: The point that I am trying to make is not that the Government are not committed to rail-I believe instinctively and philosophically that they are. It is simply that the SRA will not deliver the schemes. It will not deliver the applications. It does not have the money and says that it has to cut back trains and concentrate on the north-west main line. The Government will deliver the road schemes, but the SRA will not deliver those for rail.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the Highways Agency, the SRA or any agency operating on behalf of the Government with private as well as public funding must consider priorities. He mentioned priorities in his speech. His own Treasury spokesperson said not only that any spending pledges would have to be funded within current budgets, but that they represented a priority for scarce resources. I agree. They will be prioritised. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the SRA is examining the schemes. It can deliver some and some will be delivered by local transport plan funding.
Norman Baker rose—
Mr. Jamieson: I want to talk about the Southerham-Beddingham crossing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is an important issue that we must get on to. There is no doubt that the junction is dangerous. The police record the incidents that have caused injury, but there have been many other collisions with the barriers that have caused damage and which were extremely hazardous. It is surprising that there have not been more injuries on the crossing.
The hon. Member for Lewes said that we had rushed out the consultation. That is not the case. He suggests that we were anticipating what might have been in the multi-modal studies decision. Hon. Members would agree that, because it is strategic for the road network and for rail, it is important for rail that we get the consultation moving, regardless of the ultimate decisions of the multi-modal study.
The other important issue—the consultation should pick it up—is that if that line is not bridged, the movement of traffic along the A27 will be severely restricted. The hon. Member for Lewes is waving his arms, but he knows that the area suffers considerably from flooding and that tunneling will present serious engineering problems, not least the cost. He made the point that some of the consultation on the multi-modal study did not take place in Lewes. If I might make a seasonal reference, I think that the inn was full—there were no places in which the consultation could take place at the time. However, I have some extraordinarily good news. As we speak, Highways Agency officials are looking at a place in Lewes that is suitable for the purpose, so he can now look forward to the consultation.
Mr. Waterson: I wonder whether, as there has already been one consultation session in Lewes, the Minister can give some thought to holding one in Eastbourne? It is of
284WH
enormous importance to people in my constituency. Alternatively, could he invite me to the consultation in Lewes?
Mr. Jamieson: I think that it would be quite in order to invite the hon. Gentleman along. I am sure that he will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Lewes, who will no doubt take him round the fine hostelries of that fine town.
I agree that we should make information more widely available. The point has been made that roads are delivered and rail is not. That is incorrect—there will be a balanced approach, based on priorities.
Tom Brake rose—
Mr. Jamieson: I shall give way just once, but I want to answer points made by other hon. Members.
Tom Brake: On the point of road versus rail, is it the case that in the multi-modal studies that have reported to date, the Government have given the go ahead for the road schemes, but have referred the rail schemes to the SRA, which has already told us that it has not budgeted for the multi-modal study rail proposals and will therefore not proceed?
Mr. Jamieson: It is correct for us to refer those to the SRA, which is now considering all the proposals. It will consider those, and the proposals that arise in the next tranche of multi-modal studies, in the light of its priorities. The hon. Gentleman has told us previously that there is no more money in the Liberal Democrat pot. How would his party fund those schemes? Perhaps we shall hear in a future debate.
I move to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). At the risk of embarrassing him, I shall say that he made a well thought out and powerful case for his constituents, and made many of the points that I might have made. He welcomed the study and said that not only was it a balanced approach but that it was brilliant news for his constituents. He made a valid point about rail connections and the problems with the junction. If it is not improved, either the road system or the railway to and from his constituency will be inhibited. He reinforced the important points for the economy about regeneration. Nobody has mentioned that a considerable amount of new house building is planned for the area. The population will increase and that will put pressure on the roads and on the rail system.
It is difficult for me to cover all the points in the time that remains. If hon. Members would like any other answers, I shall deal with them by correspondence. The debate has been helpful, and the hon. Member for Lewes has raised some important points. I am glad that we have found some cross-party accord on at least the method that we have used to bring forward the multi-modal studies.

Eastfields Station
12.29 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful to have secured this timely debate. It seems all the more timely given yesterday's statement on public transport investment by the Secretary of State for Transport. I realise the irony of using words such as timely and public transport in the same breath. However, my intention is serious. I want to make a strong case for a much earlier decision to be made on the sitting of a station or halt at the Eastfields level crossing in my constituency. That decision appeared to have been taken, with the station due to open in 2004, but the idea has now been shelved indefinitely.
I am grateful to the Minister for attending to answer the debate. I hope that he can offer some hope to my constituents that they may yet see the opening of the station that they have been waiting for. He may want to make other comments about the future of public transport in less affluent areas such as the Eastfields area of Mitcham, which are disconnected from transport systems enjoyed in much more affluent areas.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the proposal for a station at Eastfields must be treated as a priority by the Strategic Rail Authority, and I urge him to use his good offices to persuade the SRA to bring Eastfields station back up the agenda and to make an early decision.
Eastfields, on the borders of Longthornton, Pollards Hill and Figges Marsh wards in the Mitcham area, has a high-density residential population as well as three schools. It has one of the largest council estates in my constituency, surrounded by streets of typical suburban semis dating from the inter-war years. It also has the two largest derelict industrial sites in the borough.
Eastfields has suffered in recent decades from the sharp rise in antisocial scourges such as graffiti, vandalism, fly tipping and abandoned cars, as well as a decline in close-knit communities and a lack of local facilities. A survey that I carried out in the area last summer, to which hundreds of local residents responded, clearly showed that people desperately want to see more facilities in their area and better transport links. Indeed, almost everyone who responded to my questionnaire said that they wanted better rail links, including a station at Eastfields and access to the Croydon to Wimbledon tram.
There can be no question but that Eastfields has suffered from not having a direct railway link, even though the construction of a station or halt at the level crossing would be straightforward. As such, it has been mooted for many years. Merton borough council is especially keen to develop the station, which would be on the line between Victoria and Mitcham junction, and would open up the area for travel to central London and rail links in Croydon.
The wards surrounding the Eastfields area are among the most deprived in the borough of Merton. It is telling that the seven most deprived wards in Merton are in my constituency, which proves my long-held opinion that Mitcham and Morden has consistently lost out to wealthier places when funds are shared out for public transport, education, health and regeneration projects.
286WH
I wanted to become a Labour Member of this House to turn over that inequality, and I am here today to speak about the needs of my constituents.
I understand that, in the mapping carried out as part of Merton's neighbourhood renewal project, all the evidence showed that communities in the area that would benefit from a station at Eastfields suffered disproportionately from income deprivation, child poverty, low levels of education and attainment, poor access to health and social care, crime and disorder and low access to public transport for employment. The communities that would benefit from the station include those disadvantaged in many other respects, including elderly people as well as significant concentrations of people from ethnic minorities. As the Minister will be aware, those from ethnic minorities experience disproportionate levels of unemployment and isolation, which adversely affect their opportunities and life chances. Too many people in the eastern part of Merton share such disadvantages.
The problem is much more than the lack of a station—a transport inequality. It concerns financial inequality, health inequality, inequality in education and—plain and simple—social inequality. Eastfields school will increase its intake from 840 to 1,200 pupils per year from 2003. The infrastructure work associated with that, including new paths to and from a possible Eastfields station, is part of the planning conditions for the school's developments. As such, it will be in any plans for Eastfields station.
The proposed location is along one of the longest stretches of railway line in London without a railway station. Elderly residents of the area say that they have been promised a station there since around 1930. It is even obvious to me that the level crossing was constructed because the intention was to build a station to serve the new suburban development. However, that has never happened. People living in the Eastfields area of east Mitcham have some of the poorest access to public transport in the borough. The new station would improve access to jobs and other opportunities for residents in an area of, as I have shown, high deprivation.
The council has always been keen for there to be a station on the site, and has already modified the alignment of the adjacent Grove road to provide a drop-off point for the new station. The council's present proposals have been in existence since the mid-1980s. In the late 1990s, Merton pursued the proposal with more vigour, based on the Government's policy of putting more emphasis on rail improvements. In late 1999, it commissioned Peter Brett Associates, a firm of consulting engineers with expertise in transport planning and traffic engineering, to undertake a demand and engineering feasibility study on a new station at Eastfields. The report concluded that it was feasible to construct a station. The passenger forecast and financial appraisal strongly suggested that the station would be commercially viable, and predicted that some 10,000 people would use the new station each week.
The train operating companies, Connex and Thameslink, said that services using Mitcham junction could call at the proposed station. Railtrack's 2000 network management statement for Great Britain

287WH
contained an option to develop a new station at Eastfields in 2006 with Connex, the then incumbent train operator.
On 24 October 2000, the Strategic Rail Authority issued a press release on the outcome of negotiations for the South Central rail franchise, which specified the opening of a new station at Eastfields in 2004. A station at Eastfields has tremendous potential for increasing mobility for my constituents, as well as alleviating congested roads and reducing air pollution. It would also help to reinvigorate the community by increasing access to local facilities and services and to jobs further afield.
Merton council recently informed me that the Strategic Rail Authority had announced its intention to reduce the length of the South Central franchise from 20 to seven years, with the SRA handling major infrastructure investment and upgrading. That has derailed plans for a station at Eastfields, causing huge disappointment to my constituents. The council made representations to the SRA in October, asking that a station be included in the new South Central franchise. It awaits the SRA response. There are two possible stances for the SRA to take: positive, in which case the council would look to joint fund further development work; or negative, in which case the council would need to lobby more strongly. My point in securing today's debate is that the council should not have to lobby more strongly. The needs of my constituents are clear: they need and want an Eastfields station.
In my correspondence on the issue, I have been fobbed off with opaque letters. One letter from James Watson, assistant director of parliamentary and public communications at the SRA, stated:
"the Eastfields proposal was a commitment in the original Heads of Terms—signed in October 2000—for the proposed 20 year franchise. It was not envisaged at that time that the proposal would be progressed before 2008 and 9. As you are aware, we are now negotiating a shorter franchise of up to seven years and no infrastructure works will be taken forward under the replacement franchise. The SRA will reappraise the package of infrastructure proposals from the former proposition and will act as sponsor in taking elements forward. With our other priorities, it will take some time to consider and decide how to proceed."
Eastfields station has been under consideration since about 1930, and I hope that the SRA will not take another 70 years to reach a conclusion.
I can do no more than to quote the eloquent words of my constituent, Mr. Graham Barker of Edgehill road in Mitcham. He wrote:
"I feel that getting into town is a mission as there is no direct rail link, underground, tram or bus that serves the city directly from this area of Mitcham … I'm sure I speak for the majority of local residents when I say that we really do need the station built at Eastfields without further delay."
I conclude by asking the Minister to look into the situation with a view to helping to expedite the creation of a station at Eastfields. I ask him to meet me and representatives of Merton council—and perhaps the SRA, if it can find time among its priorities—to discuss the future of the project. Make no mistake: the project must have a future. It is a future that my constituents are depending on and have been half-promised, and it will go a long way to restoring their faith in our transport system.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Linder-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate and on the powerful way in which she spoke up for her constituents. I fully appreciate what she said about inequalities and about wanting to improve life for her constituents. Public transport is important for those who want to get to work, and also for leisure and pleasure. I appreciate that in areas where such a transport system is lacking, people can be left out on a limb.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other matters to do with inequalities, but I shall not be tempted to debate those today. However, I shall try to put into context any decision that may be made about the proposed Eastfields station. I appreciate that a station has been on the cards since the 1930s. I sometimes visit places waiting for a bypass. The longest wait that I came across was 80 years, but it came about at last.
My hon. Friend asked about a meeting. I would be delighted to meet her and to discuss the issues with all the relevant parties to find a way forward.
I shall say a few words about the decision-making process and about how the SRA has to prioritise its spending. The SRA is fully accountable to Ministers and Parliament. Its job is to promote the use of the railway network for passengers and goods, to secure the development of the railway system, and to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system for both passengers and goods.
The authority works to directions and guidance, given by the Secretary of State, that clearly define its roles and duties. The directions and guidance require the SRA to promote efficiency and economy and set 12 main objectives. Its two principal objectives are to work with the rail industry to achieve substantial lasting improvements in performance and to work to deliver the targets in the 10-year plan for transport.
I understand that it is not possible for the authority to confirm whether the proposed station at Eastfields will be progressed. The decision has not yet been made, and other priorities must take precedence, including negotiating the South Central franchise on the new seven-year basis, replacing the mark I slam-door trains and addressing the important issue of the power supply.
It may help if I set out the history of the South Central franchise replacement process to explain how we have arrived at the position that we are in today. There have been significant changes in the rail industry over the period subsequent to the refranchising process.
The South Central franchise was originally let to Connex Transport UK Ltd. in 1996 and, under the instructions of the Deputy Prime Minister, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority began the process of retendering the franchise. At the time, it was envisaged that franchises would be let on contracts lasting between 10 and 20 years, with franchisees making a strong commitment to invest in new projects.
In March 2000, the authority announced that two bidders, Connex and GoVia, had been shortlisted to compete for the franchise. Following submission and review of its best and final offers, the authority

289WH
announced in October 2000 that it had signed heads of terms with Go Via as the preferred counterparty for the new franchise.
Heads of terms were based on a franchise of up to 20 years. An investment programme valued at £1.5 billion was proposed to introduce new trains and to upgrade track and stations. The programme included the proposed new station at Eastfields. GoVia planned that the station and other infrastructure enhancements would be delivered through a special purpose vehicle. It is important to note that, at that time, the scheme was only at the feasibility stage of development, with the final scope and costings yet to be finalised.
Of course, October 2000 was a critical month not only for South Central but for the whole rail industry. The Hatfield derailment on 17 October put the rail industry, particularly Railtrack, under intense scrutiny. The repercussions of the tragedy were widespread and long lasting. An unprecedented number of speed restrictions were imposed across the country as safety checks were carried out. Services were disrupted for many months. Railtrack's competence as custodian of the network infrastructure was widely questioned. The floundering project to upgrade the west coast main line added fuel to the debate. The project was behind time and over budget, largely because, as the company admitted, there was a serious lack of understanding of the state of Railtrack's assets and the scale of work needed to renew them. In the eyes of many, the project became symbolic of the company's mismanagement.
The problems that the industry, especially Railtrack, faced following Hatfield came to a head at the end of 2001. There was a crisis of confidence in the railways, both in the minds of the public and in the industry as a whole. In October 2001, Railtrack was placed in administration, an event that has been debated at length in this Chamber and in the House. In October of this year, the not-for-dividend company, Network Rail, was established in Railtrack's place. That change was essential for the recovery and development of our railways. Let us remember that it is only 10 weeks since Network Rail became the owner of the railway infrastructure. The company envisages an initial 18-month intensive programme to stabilise the business and to analyse the costs and causes of cost overruns in Railtrack. Network Rail intends to complete the process of building a full asset register of the rail network. Clearly, it will take time to turn the business around.
Following Hatfield, arrangements had been made to focus efforts on operations, maintenance and the renewal of the network, and to make the Strategic Rail Authority, which was formally established in February 2001, sponsor of the development of projects to enhance or upgrade the existing network. Network Rail is now taking forward Railtrack's new maintenance programme to improve its relationship with contractors and to enable it to have tighter control over the cost and quality of their work. There will be stability in the industry under the leadership of the Strategic Rail Authority and improved management of the network under Network Rail.
290WH
By this time, GoVia had taken over the operation of the South Central services from Connex, while negotiations for a new 20-year franchise continued. The negotiations had to be halted because of the many uncertainties in the industry—most notably, uncertainties arising from Railtrack's administration, but also uncertainties about particular projects such as Thameslink 2000, which had a bearing on South Central. In those circumstances, it was impossible to reach an affordable, value-for-money deal. There were too many contingencies for which allowances would have to be made. Therefore, it was necessary to redefine the commercial basis and structure of the deal.
In August 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority announced that agreement had been reached in principle on a new approach for the South Central franchise. The approach is consistent with the wider policy changes announced on 6 November. A key feature of the policy is that franchises are not the appropriate vehicles for taking forward major capital investment. Infrastructure enhancements will generally be pursued separately by the Strategic Rail Authority in partnership with the private sector, including Network Rail.
The new South Central franchise agreement being negotiated with GoVia is for a term of up to seven years, subject to the absolute right of the Strategic Rail Authority to terminate it after five years. The new franchise will deliver new rolling stock valued at £900 million and depot improvements valued at £60 million. Given the shorter length of the franchise and the new approach to franchising and infrastructure enhancements, the infrastructure upgrades originally planned as part of a 20-year franchise proposition will not be part of the new franchise.
The Strategic Rail Authority will reappraise the package of infrastructure proposals from the former 20-year proposition and take a view on which elements it will progress as sponsor. The reappraisal is not a current priority for the authority. It will be undertaken during the next year. The outcome will depend on the value for money of the proposals compared with others that are competing for limited funds.
Where new stations are proposed, other considerations, such as environmental and planning issues, will have to be taken into account. A Transport and Works Act 1992 order may be required for construction, access and land acquisition. Operational effects also need to be considered. Of course, trains stopping at a new station add time to a journey— typically several minutes. The impact on capacity and performances also needs to be assessed.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden feels very passionately on this issue. She is right to do so and, as I have said, she spoke powerfully about the need for improved transport links in her constituency. I know that she will find some of what I have said disappointing. However, I hope that she will understand and accept my explanation of why the prospect of a new station at Eastfields is currently uncertain and must remain so until a reassessment can be carried out by the Strategic Rail Authority. I assure her that the authority is currently preparing its next strategic plan for publication in January.
Siobhain McDonagh: In the event that the SRA does not do the job quickly, when we reach the 80th anniversary of the promise of a halt or station, will the people of Mitcham finally get their station as a reward for their patience?
Mr. Jamieson: That will depend on some of the issues that I have outlined in the debate. It will fall within the priorities. However, I hope that in the coming year there will be a full assessment of the scheme, along with the other priorities. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will not have to wait as long as 80 years. Still, she will appreciate that there are many competing demands on the budget for infrastructure improvements. If she wants to air the issues in a meeting attended by some of her constituents and other parties, I should be pleased to meet them.

Pension Service
12.52 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful that this debate has been selected, because it highlights several issues about which the Government should be concerned, and raises the question of bureaucracy—the civil service—and whether it is accountable to Parliament, its Members and other individuals.
The case in which I am interested involves the possibility of the Treasury being caught unaware by a £1.7 billion debt. It concerns an 82-year-old in my constituency, Mrs. Kathleen Lonsdale, who has enjoyed a quiet life at the Westerlands residential home in Kingsbridge. She is looked after very well and was perfectly content until recently when the Pension Service informed her that she was entitled to a rather large sum of money.
Overnight, Mrs. Lonsdale's life changed when she received her assessment for the minimum income guarantee. She was told in a letter from the Pension Service on 25 July 2002 that she would receive £162,497.94 a week. That was to be backdated to 14 July 1800. That translates to a lump sum payment of around £1.7 billion, and that is without inflation.
Mrs. Lonsdale is an intelligent 82-year-old lady, but she could not quite grasp the figures or the impact on her life of receiving a backdated cheque of those proportions. However, she did work out that it would be enough to buy out the owners of her residential home! On reflection, as many elderly people might be, she became concerned that such an award would not only change her life, but make her the focus of local and national media attention. No doubt she would have been the recipient of begging letters galore. She also harboured a lurking suspicion that there might be some error in her minimum income guarantee assessment.
Mrs. Lonsdale is fortunate enough to have a devoted daughter who lives nearby in Kingsbridge, a Mrs. Patricia Millington. I have discussed the case with her, and she is aware that I am raising it in the Chamber. Indeed, she is happy for me to do so. Once she spoke to her mother, she realised that the letter from the Pension Service was a mistake. Mrs. Millington received three letters on her mother's behalf at the end of July from the Plymouth pensions office. Those letters stated that the records showed that Mrs. Millington had still not returned her mother's income support book, which was why the problem arose. The only snag—the reason why Mrs. Millington had not returned her mother's income support book—was that she had never received one in the first place.
Mrs. Millington went to the Kingsbridge post office to find out whether it, instead of her, had received the income support book. When she arrived, she was told that her mother's book had been impounded and that no more cash orders would be allowed. Mrs. Millington felt deeply embarrassed to be told that, in a crowded local post office. She had never seen the book so, having been told that she should return it, she had some difficulty in doing so. She did not make eye contact with any customer whom she knew, and scuttled out. Then she tried in vain to get some sense out of someone in the Plymouth pensions office.

293WH
On 2 September, Mrs. Millington managed to get through to someone—a great achievement—who told her that no comment could be made on her mother's case because there were no copies of any correspondence relating to it on the files. That is an Alice in Wonderland situation. Everything then went quiet, and then Mrs. Lonsdale received a reassessment from the Pension Service on 9 September. It told her that it was a dreadful story and a terrible mistake, and that she should never have been offered a backdated payment of £162,497.94 each week from 14 July 1800. The figure was wrong: she should have received only £42,107.52 a week backdated to 21 October 1880. She was to lose 80 years' worth of minimum income guarantee. On my calculations, she was to lose some £120,000 per week for that period. Mrs. Lonsdale was philosophical about the matter. She concluded that she would still be better off and would, on her calculations, get a backdated payment not of £ 1.7 billion but of £275 million. She thought that that would do nicely before Christmas.
That was when I got involved. I was approached by Mrs. Millington, who did not know whether it was lunch, tea or dinner. I contacted the chief executive of the Pension Service—a Ms Alexis Cleveland—in the hope that I would make some headway. I fear that I did not. I also wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His office sent me an acknowledgment card. I told the Minister that one mistake was understandable but two was downright inexcusable.
I had heard nothing from the Pension Service two weeks later, so I approached the Minister again. On 3 October, some five weeks after my original inquiry to the chief executive, she responded herself. In her letter, she stated that
"it is clear that neither Mrs. Lonsdale and Mrs. Millington have received the standard of service they have a right to expect".
That was certainly true. I was concerned that nobody was offered any apologies, though that is perhaps not quite right—the chief executive offered apologies not to me but to Mrs. Lonsdale and her daughter, who were grateful. I was also concerned that the chief executive said that the Pension Service's computer system was
"designed to automatically issue letters"
and that local staff were
"unable to alter the information printed on them."
I do not know what local staff do. Perhaps they simply watch the computer.
The chief executive made one concession: she acknowledged that the letters issued to Mrs. Lonsdale were clearly nonsense—she picked that point up. However, the only reason that the letters were nonsense was the overpayment—quite a substantial overpayment. Mrs. Lonsdale was ordered to surrender her income support book because of that mistake, whereby she would have been offered so much money. However, here is the punchline: the chief executive went on to say that after further assessment of Mrs. Lonsdale's case she was entitled to—wait for it—3p a week. That is just over 10p a month.
A further two weeks passed. I again contacted the chief executive, advising that unless she put right the ridiculous state of affairs and considered an appropriate
294WH
sum by way of compensation, I might apply for an Adjournment debate in Parliament. That was in October. Following my successful application for this debate, amazingly, an official from the Plymouth pensions office contacted Mrs. Millington to discuss possible compensation—quite rightly. She arranged to see that official yesterday, and the official took down extensive details concerning Mrs. Millington's mother's case, as if she knew nothing. The official said that she would have to file and complete a report. She said that whether compensation was paid for all the inconvenience and trouble was not a matter for her, but that it would take up to three months to take a decision, and that many people would have to be involved.
I do not know how many tens of thousands of pounds' worth of people's time the problem has already cost. I do not know how much time Mrs. Millington or I have spent on it. I do not know how much trouble it has caused for the elderly lady herself. I do not know how many officials have been involved. The Minister and Alexis Cleveland have been involved, and they cannot even sort out the compensation issue. There should have been a modest sum by way of compensation.
I had better return to the story, as I know that the Chamber is waiting to hear what happened next. Not only was the computer in Plymouth going wrong, but the chief executive's computer started to go wrong. I received a second letter from her, dated 21 October, which was identical to the letter that she wrote me on 3 October. Both letters were signed by her personally, but neither dealt with the problem. I was, however, relieved to receive another letter from Ms Cleveland on 24 October, telling me that the general conclusion was that there was a fault in the computer system—she is a bright lady—and that it was being investigated. It had taken two months to work out that there was a fault. Until the error was rectified, she said, staff were obliged to use the same computer-generated letter to correspond with Mrs. Lonsdale. A computer was churning out the wrong figures and could not be stopped; neither could letters from the chief executive to Members of Parliament. The chief executive admitted that she found it highly embarrassing to apologise to me again on this matter. I can quite understand her sentiments.
Out of the blue, I received another letter from Ms Cleveland, identical to the one of 24 October, and dated 29 October. This was followed by a telephone call to my office from an official of the Plymouth Pension Service, who apologised for the fact that the computer had sent out further identical letters, but said that the service was powerless to stop it happening. The Pension Service computers appear to be completely out of control, churning out thousands of letters and causing widespread confusion. Surely a simple solution would be to ensure that the computers are not linked to printers. If they are not, and there is no paper in the printers, they cannot do any damage. However, as long as they are linked up, the stuff will continue to be churned out.
I next received a letter from someone else, calling himself the performance director—things were beginning to sound a bit like a Kafka novel by now. He wrote on behalf of the chief executive on 19 November, apologising for sending me two identical letters, and explaining that steps were being taken to prevent its happening again.

295WH
Mrs. Millington's approaches to the Pension Service did not fare much better. She heard nothing from the Plymouth Pension Service following her letter of 24 August to the manager, Mr. Gilmartin, until the end of October—a two-month gap. When she received a letter, it was signed not by Mr. Gilmartin but by a Mrs. Theresa Cooke. Just think of the number of staff involved in the case. Mrs. Cooke was called the processing team manager. Thus we had a performance director, a processing team manager and the chief executive—everybody—involved in the case. Mrs. Lonsdale wondered whether she was merely a figment of the computer's imagination or whether she really existed, because with the letter came a cheque—for 45p.
Hon. Members may be interested to know that I learned, by means of a parliamentary question, that the cost of issuing that cheque was £1.47—£1.02 more than the value of the cheque. I can see that the Minister realises the absurdity of this situation. Perhaps hon. Members can imagine how confusing and distressing it was for Mrs. Lonsdale and her daughter. That is quite apart from the waste of public funds incurred in trying to resolve the matter, with so many letters flying backwards and forwards. At the centre of it all was an 82-year-old lady, whose daughter and Member of Parliament were beside themselves with anger and irritation at the debacle.
As if all that were not enough, the Pension Service performance director told me in his letter of 19 November that under current regulations—I knew that there must be some regulations somewhere to provide an excuse—the service was bound to pay Mrs. Lonsdale the amount to which she was entitled. I am advised that where the amount of income support is less than £1 a week the Secretary of State may decide the intervals of payment, but that those intervals cannot exceed 13 weeks. Thus, every 13 weeks Mrs. Lonsdale must receive a cheque for 45p, even though it costs the taxpayer £ 1.47 to produce it.
I do not understand why the regulation cannot be changed, so that such small sums are administered annually. What of the waste of taxpayers' money? Clearly, this case has got completely out of hand, and change is needed. As I understand matters, other benefits are paid annually. Why cannot the 45p be added to Mrs. Lonsdale's pension, so that she does not need a separate cheque?
The cost of the case will not quite run to the sum of £1.7 billion that was the original forecast for Mrs. Lonsdale's benefit, but certainly a lot of money is involved. Last night an official belted from Plymouth to Kingsbridge, which is a 50-mile round trip, to discuss compensation, only to tell us that it would take three months to sort the matter out. Marks and Spencer would have sorted it out immediately, paid a good will cheque and said that the firm was very sorry. Neither the elderly lady nor her daughter is after money, but they think that the management of any well-run organisation would want to put things right by means of a payment to compensate everyone for their trouble. Indeed, it would be nice if their MP got something, too, because the situation is absurd. What would be an appropriate figure? It would be one that compensated appropriately for the problem. We have an out-of-control computer system that churns out paper with rubbish on it, a chief executive of a public agency who cannot stop sending
296WH
out the same letter, and an 82-year-old being offered £1.7 billion and £275 million from public funds, only to be sent a cheque for 45p.
This is not just a good Christmas story— although it will be, in one sense, if the Minister, as I hope she will, says that the service will see to it that Mrs. Lonsdale receives a cheque for whatever amount by way of compensation before Christmas—but a story with a serious underlying message. Bureaucracy under this Government is getting too big; it is out of control, unaccountable and just not working properly. Computers are making people's lives a misery. Far from improving our lifestyles, they are creating additional frustration and stress, as this example shows.
I am the MP in this maelstrom, but unlike the apprentice in Dukas's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", I cannot get the magic to work. In that story, the apprentice gets hold of a book of spells and, as a result of the spell that he casts, the room becomes flooded with water. Just when he is about to drown, the magician turns up. He says the right spell, prevents any more water from pouring into the room and the brooms then pump the water out again. In this case, I cannot get the magic to work; to make the Government put things right, so that the Minister says, "Sorry, but mistakes do happen," and Mrs. Londsdale is paid the minimum income guarantee on her pension annually and receives at least £100 compensation in time for Christmas.
1.11pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. I fully understand why he asked for it. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points that he raised about the unfortunate experiences of Mrs. Lonsdale and Mrs. Millington in dealing with the Pension Service.
The Government are committed to providing a high-quality service for pensioners, although they clearly have not managed to do that in this case. I personally regret that the standard of service provided in this instance has been so consistently poor. The chief executive of the Pension Service, Alexis Cleveland, has already apologised, apparently more than once, although I was not aware of all the duplicate letters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, having considered the circumstances of the case in preparation for the debate, I wrote to Mrs. Millington to apologise to her myself, having seen the catalogue of errors that she has had to endure. It is not the hon. Gentleman's job to apologise on my behalf, so I shall not ask him to do so.
Mrs. Millington acts on her mother's behalf and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in March 2002, she made a claim for minimum income guarantee on behalf of Mrs. Lonsdale. In July, Mrs. Millington received a computer-generated letter about Mrs. Lonsdale's entitlement, which was clearly confusing and about as wrong as it could possibly be. It implied that she was entitled to £162,497.94 a week—some minimum income guarantee—and that she was entitled to it from approximately 200 years ago, which would make her a very old lady.
Mr. Steen: And a very rich one.
Maria Eagle: Indeed. The letter went on to say that Mrs. Lonsdale was not entitled to the minimum income

297WH
guarantee from 28 February 1852. It is clearly a computer-generated letter, and clearly completely wrong. I do not know of any benefits that we backdate by 200 years.
Mrs. Millington also had to endure the embarrassment of having her mother's finances discussed publicly in the post office. I am particularly sorry for that. The problem is compounded by the fact that another nonsensical letter was then sent out. That was equally wrong, but not quite as generously so.
I should like to say something about why the letters were issued, because I can understand the frustration that they caused. In this case, they were obviously wrong, but mistakes in letters are not always that blatant and that can cause a problem. The information concerning Mrs. Lonsdale's affairs was correctly entered on to the computer system by the local Pension Service staff. However, something about the way in which the system processed the data resulted in the ridiculous letters. The data were clearly corrupted in an appalling manner during the processing of the claim.
It is normal for computer-generated correspondence to be issued from a computer centre rather than from a pensions centre. Pensions centre staff deal with telephone calls and with clients. They do not have to look after the computer as well, so the case was handled at two different places. The local staff could not have known about the matter and could have done nothing to check the contents or to prevent the letters from going out. The technical fault with the computer system has been referred to our IT specialists and is being investigated so that it can be rectified, Mrs. Millington does not receive any more ridiculous letters and she is kept correctly and fully informed about her mother's benefit entitlement.
This appears to have been an isolated fault—no other such incidents have been reported, although that does not help the hon. Gentleman or Mrs. Millington. We have not been able to identify why the data were corrupted so badly. The income support computer system has 3.5 million live claims on it, which is why we cannot site the computers in the offices of local staff and expect them to check all the letters. Badly corrupted cases such as this account for just 0.007 per cent. of those 3.5 million cases. I know that that is of little comfort to Mrs. Millington, who falls into that 0.007 per cent. category. Nevertheless, I hope that I can give some assurance that what has happened to her is not a regular occurrence. The hon. Gentleman said that computers were making our lives a misery. The rest of the 3.5 million people whose claims are dealt with properly and in a timely fashion week in, week out obviously feel that they benefit from the computer system. I can understand why Mrs. Millington and Mrs. Lonsdale at the moment do not.
I should like to say something about Mrs. Lonsdale's entitlement. It is typical that after this kind of appalling mistake, the correct calculation shows her entitlement to be 3p a week. That compounds the situation. Where the amount of income support payable is less than 10p per week minimum income guarantee, and there is entitlement to another benefit that may be paid with income support, such as retirement pension, it must be paid at an interval that cannot exceed 13 weeks. That is
298WH
a statutory entitlement and, although the sum is very small, it is not for the Government to say that it is too little to pay. In many circumstances, not necessarily Mrs. Lonsdale's, entitlement to minimum income guarantee can act as a passport to many other, more valuable benefit entitlements, such as a carer's premium or a disability premium. They represent significant weekly sums. That does not apply to Mrs. Lonsdale, but she could, for example, be passported to free NHS dental treatment, if that were of help to her. There can be advantages beyond the small sum.
The hon. Gentleman made some understandable points about the cost of receiving girocheques when the amount payable is so small. Some provisions, known as the de minimis provisions, state that where the entitlement is less than 10p a week, payment is sent quarterly rather than issued in weekly payments, which cost, as the hon. Gentleman said, £1.47 per girocheque.
It is also possible to pay minimum income guarantee in the same book as retirement pension, which is the solution in such circumstances. The customer has to agree, of course, and I understand from the reports of the discussions yesterday between an official from the Department and Mrs. Millington that the idea was put to her. If Mrs. Lonsdale agrees, we can end the nonsense of a quarterly cheque for 45p and the sum can be added to the retirement pension book. That seems the sensible solution.
Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the understanding and sympathy with which the Minister is dealing with the matter, and I await the punchline on the compensation. Many people other than this good lady must have small pensions. Is it not a good opportunity to suggest to those whose benefit every quarter is 3p, or another figure less than the girocheque value, that it should be added to their pension? Perhaps the computer, in its sophistication, might be able to identify those paid modest sums every week and ask them whether they would like it paid annually or on their pension.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right. My understanding is that we make that suggestion to people who receive small sums when we can get the letters right and sent to the right place in a timely fashion. He must remember that people's circumstances change. I shall not go into all the details in the Chamber, but I will write to him—
Mr. Steen: Just once.
Maria Eagle: Yes, just one letter. I do not intend to plague the hon. Gentleman too much.
It seems that the visit yesterday has indicated a change in the mother's circumstances that may lead to an increase in her entitlement to minimum income guarantee, which I am relieved about. It would be sensible to combine both payments in the book, whatever the sums, so long as they continue to be small. That may be a way out of the girocheque conundrum.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of compensation. There has been a request for compensation, and I understand why. Because we are dealing with public money, and because it is not for Ministers to make decisions about compensation, I

299WH
cannot give him the Christmas present that he wants for his constituent this afternoon. However, the arrangements through which officials administer the payment of compensation in ex gratia sums for such appalling levels of service will be gone through as quickly as I can ensure that they are gone through. So far as I can ensure, the request that has been made will be dealt with in a timely fashion and properly under the rules that apply. I do not make the decisions but, having considered the circumstances, I think that there may be a case for an ex gratia payment.
Mr. Steen: I understand that the Minister is choosing her words carefully. I cannot imagine a case that cries out more clearly for compensation, but that is not the interest of my constituents or me. We want Departments that get something wrong, for whatever reason, to do more than simply write letters of apology. Ministers can be fired, and there can be debates criticising the Government on the Floor of the House, but my constituent is an individual. The rights of the individual need to be protected.
When big bureaucracies get something wrong, the system should not take three months. Like any good private company, it should offer compensation to correct services that are not correct. That is what worries me about the case. There should not simply be a committee of officials, all paid quite a lot of money, to consider the matter. The Minister should say, "Please deal with this quickly and suitably." I hope that she might be able to do that.
Maria Eagle: I certainly have no problem giving the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I shall ask my officials to deal with the matter quickly and suitably.
I understand that Mrs. Millington had difficulty when trying to contact the Plymouth pensions centre by telephone to resolve the matter, as she was unable to get through. The telephone service at the centre is set up to provide a recorded message suggesting, if there is a delay in being answered, that the caller should ring back later. The aim is to prevent long queues of people waiting to be answered, who will all be losing money. Many pensioners have little spare cash; indeed, they are often on fixed incomes. They do not have money to waste on waiting to be put through. The intention is not to prevent callers from getting through; it is to prevent them having to hang on in the hope that they might be put through.
300WH
The Pension Service is developing as a customer-focused organisation. It is working to improve its service, which is tailored to the needs of pensioners. In order to achieve that, however, it needs to ensure that the highest standards of service are maintained. Mrs. Millington did not receive anything approaching a high standard of service when she tried to contact the service on the telephone. Again, I regret that and apologise for it.
Many pensioners deal with the service by telephone. For example, more than two thirds of retirement pension claims are now made on the retirement pension teleclaims line. When we can get it to work properly— in this instance, it did not—it provides a good service to pensioners. It is convenient and it means that they do not have to go to buildings in the town centre or some considerable distance away.
We are committed to making it easy to contact the service and to make claims. To ensure that, we are developing 26 modern centres, using the most up-to-date equipment, to deal with queries accurately and efficiently. We are setting those up. It is vital that we provide good-quality service. Once those centres are all operational, we shall make sure, as far as we possibly can, that Mrs. Millington's experience is not repeated in a widespread way. Her inability to get through is a matter of regret. Problems often come in not in ones and twos on social security cases but in great clumps. Unfortunately, that is what happened in this case.
Mr. Steen: There may not be another opportunity, because the Minister will be finishing her speech in a moment, so I want to thank her for the measured approach that she has taken in this debate, and for her remarks and her admissions. I am grateful to her for indicating that she will suggest to the Pension Service that it deals with the matter efficiently, effectively and suitably.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has correctly spotted that I am coming to the end of my remarks; one can apologise only so many times in a Westminster Hall debate. I am pleased to be able to say that mistakes of that kind are rare. However, we appreciate that they do occur, sometimes in ways that can cause distress and upset. I am as aware of that as the hon. Gentleman, having spoken directly to his constituent. I reiterate my apology to Mrs. Millington and Mrs. Lonsdale for the less than acceptable service that they received.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that MPs should be given something for having to deal with such issues. I therefore wish him a very happy Christmas.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
1.27 pm
Ross Cranston: In August 1964, the Wilson Labour Government established the state-funded criminal injuries compensation scheme. The scheme is now well established. It is an acknowledgement that society has a responsibility for, and sense of solidarity with, the blameless victims of criminal violence. We in this country can be justifiably proud of our system of compensating such people.
One indication of the generosity of the scheme is the amount of compensation paid. This week, the Institute of Actuaries published a report showing that compensation paid in 2002 under the UK scheme was some €341 million. That compared with criminal injuries compensation of €107 million in Germany, and €148 million in France. The amounts payable in those other comparable jurisdictions are smaller. In Spain, they are much smaller. The disparity in Europe means that it is not surprising that the European Commission Green Paper on the subject does not suggest a harmonised system. Although exact cross-border comparisons are sometimes difficult to make, the figures speak for themselves. We have a generous scheme.
Since 1964, the scheme has been changed on a number of occasions. The most important change made by the previous Conservative Government was the introduction of the tariff scheme. Early last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—then Home Secretary—introduced important revisions, primarily an increase in award levels, which are especially significant for those with serious multiple injuries. I congratulate the Government on that uprating.
I acknowledge the value of the scheme. I also pay tribute to the hard work of those associated with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the criminal injuries compensation appeals panel. However, I should like to raise a number of concerns about the operation of the scheme. The concerns were sparked off when one of my constituents, Rod Adams, a former justice of the peace, told me about Mrs. Ramesh Kalia, who runs the Dudley Road post office in Tipton, which is just outside my constituency. The post office was robbed in June 2001, and Mrs. Kalia was seriously injured. She tried to make a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Early in 2002, she was told that her claim had been rejected because she did not give all the assistance necessary, in that she did not respond to requests for further information.
I was taken aback, to say the least. Mrs. Kalia had been seriously injured and had had no assistance in making her claim. To say that she did not "co-operate" in the ordinary use of the word is a travesty. Subsequently, Mrs. Kalia was told by Sandwell Victim Support that in its experience it would take some nine months for a review of the initial refusal and up to two years for an appeal to be heard. As Mrs. Kalia is not my constituent, I could not take up her case, but I tabled some questions to the Home Secretary, asking him to specify the delays faced by claimants such as Mrs. Kalia in seeking compensation for injuries caused by criminals.
302WH
My hon. Friend the Minister answered those questions in volume 389, columns 1505W to 1506W, of Hansard. In one answer, he set out the average number of days taken for claims assessment, claims review and claims appeal. Those time periods do not make comfortable reading, especially as they are getting worse. While Mrs. Kalia's claim was being considered, one of my close friends, Guy Dehn, the director of the whistleblowing charity, Public Concern at Work, was viciously attacked by thugs near Angel in north London late last year when cycling home. He lodged a claim in June giving details of the attack. He also set out the dental treatment that he underwent. He is still awaiting a decision.
In order to go beyond those two cases of which I have personal knowledge, I asked three leading law firms to give me details of their experiences of representing claimants under the scheme. Alexander Harris is a well-known law firm specialising in health matters, with branches in the west midlands, London and the north-west. Leigh, Day & Co. is London based, but has built up an enviable reputation for international as well as domestic personal injury work. Clifford Chance is the biggest law firm in the world. As part of its pro bono activity, it funds a unit that assists those making claims for criminal injuries compensation, especially at the appellant level. I am enormously grateful for the help of lawyers from those firms in providing me with information.
What is those firms' collective experience of the scheme? First, there are the delays. Sometimes, they have quite simple causes, such as not responding to correspondence within a reasonable period. One of my informants said that a reasonable period was eight weeks, but the guide to the scheme contains in paragraph 10 a promise to turn correspondence around within two weeks. Then there are delays in processing claims. A typical case from one of the lawyers relates to a claim that was registered in August 2001, and on which there has been no decision on entitlement. That is an extreme case. Another lawyer, however, e-mailed me this:
"I have two related criminal injury compensation claims (mother and son) that were running parallel to a clin neg"—
criminal negligence—
"case from 1998 (when we were instructed), following the death of the husband/father … The clinical negligence claim settled in June 2001 for £200k … However, we are still waiting for a response from the CICA"—
the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—
"with the outcome of the two CICA claims. I write periodically (every 2–3 months or so) prodding them and giving them further information they request but little substantive is ever seemingly done. Initial applications were made about February 1999, nearly four years ago. The whole process has been painfully labour intensive and slow, such that the client has virtually given up on it!"
Balanced against that, it is fair to report that lawyers' experience with the appeals panel is better. I am told that its operation has been speeding up and is becoming more efficient. The lawyers who wrote to me about it were especially impressed with the recent operation of the presenting officers.
Thus, my first point is to press the Minister on the delay on the part of the authority.

303WH
Secondly, I would like to raise the issue of the obstacles that face victims when making a claim. The authority's latest annual report shows that 6,000 claims were disallowed in 2000 and 2001 because the applicant failed to co-operate with the police in bringing an assailant to justice. Mrs. Kalia was one of those people and it can hardly be said that she did not co-operate, in the ordinary, everyday sense of that word. One of my informants raised his concern at the way in which that prerequisite was being used to filter out claims. I quote his rather graphic language:
"If you are knocked unconscious from behind and never saw the attacker, the police will visit you in the hospital and ask you if you want to prosecute. You then say, 'I didn't see anyone.' They close their note book and that is the end of your claim … what you are meant to do is to insist that they investigate … in this context they also expect you to go to the police before the hospital, as doing it the other way round is considered a delay and therefore a failure to cooperate."
I am not exactly sure about the last sentence, but I think that that makes the point.
In terms of the obstacles to making a claim, there is also the vexed issue of legal assistance in formulating and advancing a claim. On the scheme's operation, one commentator has told me that it is intolerable that free legal advice and assistance are offered to the violent criminal—the perpetrator of the injury—while the victim must pay for any legal representation from their compensation award, use other private means, or rely on their trade union.
The law firm Alexander Harris told me that solicitors are in a difficult position,
"because … cases have to be funded"
on
"a contingency fee basis … or … on an hourly rate, whichever is the less".
That firm has found that that
"is a real problem on small and moderate value claims",
since it would be entirely inappropriate to take part of a claimant's payment in such cases. Alexander Harris adds that the authority seems inconsistent on whether it will pay disbursements. He says:
"Their approach seems to be that they would entertain the idea if it used the reports in their assessment",
but otherwise it will not. The firm says that that makes it difficult to give clients appropriate advice.
Thirdly, I raise the issue of awards. Personally, I would not advocate an increase in the level of awards at present, although I understand the criticism that despite the 2001 uprating, awards are falling behind in terms of general damages and personal injuries. Nor would I want to argue, at this stage, for an extension of the scheme beyond the victims of violent crime, or those who are injured trying to apprehend criminals or preventing a crime. At present, I would prefer any additional money to be directed to reducing delays and refining the "co-operation" requirement for claims.
One aspect of awards deserves early attention. As one of my lawyers stated, victims are
"unable to claim loss of earnings and other special damages for the first 28 weeks"
after their accident. The lawyer added that that
"is very difficult for the Claimants to accept—this is yet another kick in the teeth for someone who has already been a victim."
304WH
Over the past five years, the Government have done much to improve the criminal justice system. Crime is falling, which is a good thing from the point of view of victims. As my friend Guy Dehn wrote in a letter to me:
"I—and I suspect all victims—would far rather forgo the compensation and not be beaten up in the first place. This should not be forgotten. Personally I will gladly give my compensation award to the police if I thought it might increase the chance the guys were caught."
In particular, the Government have done much to move the victims towards the centre of the stage in the criminal justice process. That has been long overdue, and I congratulate the Government on doing it. However, I have identified significant concerns about the criminal injuries compensation scheme. They are not to do with the authority or its staff. My informants said that its staff are generally sympathetic and often very helpful.
I suspect that these concerns are symptoms of a more fundamental cause—that not enough money is being allocated within the Home Office to the scheme. That results in victims being dissuaded from applying through the formal filters; that is also because of a lack of assistance in their claiming. Claims are refused that are then readily overturned on review or appeal, which again suggests a further filtering at the claims assessment level. On a cost-benefit analysis, it would probably be much better to pay up genuine claims in the first place. I have addressed other delays.
We must do better for these people, most of whom, in the words of the authority's latest annual report, have
"suffered a traumatic and violent episode in their lives, some a devastating personal tragedy from which they may never fully recover."
1.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing this Adjournment debate. It raises the crucial issue of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in which he has taken a particular interest. It is a very important scheme for the tens of thousands of victims of violent crime who apply each year for compensation.
I am sorry to hear of the experiences of Mrs. Kalia, to whom my hon. and learned Friend referred, although she is not one of his constituents, and Guy Dehn, whom I know. I was not aware that that had happened to him, and I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend passed on my very best wishes to him.
I echo what my hon. and learned Friend said about the nature of the compensation scheme. It is right to describe it as the most generous state compensation scheme of its kind in the world. It receives more applications and pays out more money than all the other countries of the European Union added together. That is a striking statistic.
I think that I am right in saying that it was established in August 1964, which means that credit for the Act that introduced it goes to a Conservative Government; the general election that led to the forming of the Wilson Administration did not take place until October. However, that Administration implemented the new arrangements. Since 1964, the scheme has handled

305WH
nearly 1.5 million applications; it has made getting on for 900,000 compensation awards that total nearly £3 billion. In the past three years alone it has paid out over £200 million each year, and over 120,000 victims of violent crime have received compensation. However, as my hon. and learned Friend stated, that is no reason for complacency, because people who are injured today are less interested in what happened to victims in the past than in how well they and future victims will be treated.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to the history of the scheme. When it was established in 1964, it was non-statutory, and compensation was assessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis of common law damages. Following a legal challenge in the mid-1990s, major changes to the scheme were made in 1996, when it was put on a statutory footing. The most significant change was that the new scheme broke the link with common law damages and moved away from payment based on individual assessment by lawyers to provide for payment made on the basis of a tariff or scale of awards that groups together injuries of comparable severity and allocates a financial value to them.In the most serious cases, extra compensation can be paid for loss of earnings and the cost of care, subject to a maximum pay-out of £500,000 in an individual case.
The Government of the day gave two main reasons for changing the system, the first of which was that they wanted to do something about the rising costs of the scheme and the issue of sustainability. Secondly, they wanted to provide a better service to claimants, a point to which my hon. and learned Friend paid particular attention. The new scheme was easier to administer and simpler for victims to understand. Following a public consultation exercise during 1999 and 2000, the current Government made several significant improvements to the scheme, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
It may be helpful if I briefly draw attention to the important differences between the old and the new scheme, because they are relevant to the particular delay raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Under the old scheme, claims were assessed individually by members of the board who were all senior lawyers, and applicants who were dissatisfied with the initial decision of the board could appeal. Their appeal would be considered at an oral hearing before other board members who had not been involved in the original decision. That sometimes led to the accusation that the board was both judge and jury.
When the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996, it was decided that it should be administered by a new non-departmental public body, the new authority, and claims are now determined by claims officers who are civil servants on secondment from the Home Office and the Scottish Executive; it is a joint scheme. The tariff scheme, approved by Parliament, sets out several criteria that must be satisfied before the award of public money can be justified. That means, in practice, that the authority must make inquiries of the police, asking, for example, whether the victim was the blameless victim of a reported crime of violence, and of the appropriate medical authorities to establish the extent of any injury and whether it was caused during the incident for which compensation was being claimed.
306WH
In more complex cases, inquiries may need to be made of employers to verify loss of earnings, for example, of social services to see what benefits may have been claimed and local authorities to see what care facilities they may be providing. All such agencies and authorities have other work to do and, despite reminders from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the process of dialogue, gathering of information and chasing it up means that the information is not always supplied as quickly as the authority would wish when assessing claims on behalf of people who have approached it.
Under the tariff scheme, there is a two-stage appeals process. It may be helpful if I say, in relation to the case of Mrs. Kalia, that if a claim is not entertained, the individual has the right of review and then appeal. There is a mechanism for determining whether the initial decision of the authority not to entertain a claim for compensation was right. If an applicant were dissatisfied with the initial decision—the first decision—he or she can request a formal review. That is undertaken by a more senior claims officer, and if claimants are dissatisfied with the formal review, they can appeal to a new independent appellant body, the criminal injuries compensation appeals panel.
Ross Cranston: I was not directly involved in the case, but I gained the impression that, because of the adverse effects of the injury, Mrs. Kalia was dissuaded from pursuing the case further. Having been knocked back and still suffering as a result of the injury, she did not want to pursue it.
Hilary Benn: If that is the case, I am very sorry. I simply wanted to say on the record for the purposes of the debate that that is not the end of the matter and that individuals are free to use the review and then the appeals mechanism.
I shall touch on the factors that have created some of the delays to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. First, when the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996, 110,000 cases were outstanding under the old scheme. Those all had to be cleared under the old rules, so the authority has been running two systems in parallel: the old scheme, to try to clear the backlog, and the new scheme.
By March 2000, the rump of old scheme cases had been reduced to fewer than 10,000, at which point the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was formally wound up. By definition, as the number of old cases decreases, one is left with the most difficult and complex cases at the bottom of the pile. By definition, those cases have not been able to be resolved previously because of their complexity, and they absorb considerable staff effort and resources that would otherwise be applied to operating the tariff scheme. None the less, over the past couple of years, the authority has been working very hard on that group of 10,000, and today only about 800 are still outstanding. The authority is doing its best to try to resolve those cases.
Other factors have added to problems with swifter administration. One was the judicial review in the Leatherland case, which required the authority to bring forward the arrangements that it had already decided to put in hand in due course to give fuller reasons for its decisions at both the first decision and review stages.

307WH
The authority decided to do that when the IT systems were upgraded to make it easier. However, because of the judgment, it had to implement the decision earlier. That meant that individually tailored letters had to be produced, which took more time.
It is also fair to say that, as a result of the new data protection requirements of the past couple of years, difficulties have arisen in gathering all the required information from the police, the health service and others. Some people have not been entirely sure that they are permitted to release the information under the new data protection arrangements, so the authority has had to persuade them that that is perfectly in order. The authority is working closely with the information commissioner and the police, through the Association of Chief Police Officers, to minimise delays.
I can also tell my hon. and learned Friend about many positive things. In 2001–02, the authority finalised almost 77,000 cases, which was 5 per cent. more than in the preceding year. The backlog at review stage has been reduced, from a peak of 36 weeks—that being the time taken to assign a new review application to a case-worker—to 11 weeks at the end of March this year, and to the current waiting time of just four weeks. That represents real progress.
The number of outstanding tariff scheme appeals has been reduced from a peak of almost 8,000 in 2000 to just over 5,000 currently. That is despite new appeals arriving at an unusually high rate this year due to the successful efforts to clear the review backlog.
I understand that, as a result of the improvements that the authority has made in explaining its decisions, the proportion of applicants who accept decisions under the tariff scheme has risen markedly. Two years ago, some 25 per cent. of applicants asked formally for the assessment of their claim to be reviewed; now, the figure is 21 per cent. That suggests that the authority is doing a pretty good job of getting it right. Giving better and fuller explanations, which the authority was keen to do, has helped in that process.
In a customer survey conducted by the authority last year, 72 per cent. of respondents were satisfied or more than satisfied with how their decisions were explained— as a result of the new arrangements—compared with 60 per cent. in a similar survey conducted two years earlier.
308WH
That shows that providing fuller explanations for decisions adds slightly to the time taken to complete a case, but that there are clear benefits in those circumstances. The authority has also introduced a free telephone helpline to advise potential claimants on the rules of the scheme, and simple leaflets. Next month, it will provide a new improved guide to the scheme's provisions and procedures. All those publications have been entered for, and received, a Plain English Campaign crystal mark award for clarity. The authority is also looking to upgrade its website.
Another point relates to the latest data from the authority on the average time taken to settle cases, in which it compares the first eight months of this year with the first eight months of last year. The average time taken for the claims assessment, which is the first decision, was 306 days last year, and 305 days this year—a very marginal improvement. The review stage took 277 days last year, compared with 269 days this year—also a slight improvement. At the appeal stage, there has been movement in the other direction from 407 days last year up to 446 days this year. However, that reflects the fact that more cases are being put into the review system, which is the product of work done earlier. We very much hope that that will be a temporary glitch, and that once that bundle of pent-up appeals is dealt with, the delays will be reduced. It is worth pointing out that, overall, outstanding cases are down from 109,000 in 1995–96 to 95,000 this year.
I wanted to make a final point about the compensation awards. It might be helpful to point out that the average award was £3,177 in current prices in 1981–82, and in the current year, the average award has been £5,459. The award is therefore increasing in real terms. I cannot comment on how that compares with other compensation claims elsewhere.
I repeat that I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for having raised this important matter. The authority and its staff are working hard, and I am sure that they will appreciate the thanks that he asked to be conveyed to them for their efforts. We need to do more to deal with the problems of delay that he raised, and we will continue to do all we can to provide as good a service to claimants as possible now and in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policies to deal with abandoned motor vehicles. [85930]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: In October 2001 we published a consultation document on measures to remove abandoned and untaxed vehicles from the streets more quickly and, for the longer term, bring forward changes to vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure greater accuracy of DVLA's vehicle record.

  Regulations reducing the statutory notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles from the highway and the storage periods for unlicensed vehicles came into force on 9 April. Local authorities can now remove those vehicles that they consider merit destruction from the highway after the expiry of a 24 hour notice placed on them.

  We have supported pilot schemes in the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham in which the local authority was given DVLA's powers to wheelclamp and remove unlicensed vehicles after 24 hours. Following the success of the Newham pilot on 10 April, we announced that all councils who wished could operate in the same way.

  In addition, councils have targeted over 6,000 abandoned unlicensed vehicles in multi-agency "Operation Cubits" with over 4,000 vehicles crushed and more operations are planned. To date we estimate that the operations have induced more than 15,700 motorists to relicense their vehicles voluntarily bringing in over £2.3 million in additional revenue.

  The Government are currently developing proposals for the reform and modernisation of vehicle registration and licensing, to reduce evasion and to bear down on vehicle crime. In response to the recommendations of a report commissioned by the Department for Transport from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, that Department has established a Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board (MVRIB). This includes representatives of motorists' organisations, the motor trade, the police and the insurance industry to advise on and develop those proposals.

  The 2002 Finance Act contained provisions under which the responsibility for licensing and taxing vehicles will be placed on the registered keeper, who will remain liable for doing so until such time that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has properly been notified of a change of keeper. These proposals will also mean that it is not necessary for a vehicle to be detected
  798W
  on the road for effective enforcement action to take place. The implementation of these new powers is at the heart of MVRIB's agenda.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the timetable for the review of land based English rural development programme agri-environment schemes. [87862]

  Mr. Meacher
  The agri-environment schemes review consists of three phases. The first phase centred on an initial consultation, held between March and May 2002. This asked for views on the existing schemes and explored what people would like to see in future schemes. There were over 130 responses to this consultation, which were analysed in a report produced in July 2002. This is available on the DEFRA website at: http://defraweb/erdp/schemes/landbased/review/consultnew.htm.

  The second phase of the review is currently in progress. It consists of two main areas of work: the production of a framework document setting out the future direction of agri-environment schemes, and the development of a pilot scheme to test the proposed entry-level scheme. The framework document was issued for consultation on 16 December 2002, and responses are sought by 28 February 2003. I announced the pilot areas for the entry level scheme on 14 November 2002 and the pilot scheme is due to be launched next spring.

  The third phase of the review will involve the detailed design and development of the main entry-level scheme and a revised higher-tier scheme, intended to incorporate the best features from both the countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive areas schemes. It is hoped to complete the review in the summer of 2004, when details of both schemes are sent to the European Commission for approval. The new schemes should open for applications early in 2005.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the review of access arrangements within English Rural Development Programme agri-environment schemes; and when the results of the review will be published. [87863]

  Mr. Meacher
  The analysis of replies to the public consultation on this review will be published on the Department's website shortly and a copy placed in the House Library and the conclusions will feed into the wider Agri-environment Schemes Review.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the change in use of CHP by companies covered by climate change agreements; and if she will make a statement. [87880]

  Mr. Meacher
  There has been no assessment made of the change in use of HFC by companies covered by climate change agreements. It is estimated that total
  799W
  HFC emissions arising from all business will be about 29 per cent. below 1995 levels, the baseline year that the UK has chosen to use for its fluorinated gases, in 2010

  Consultation Document
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the organisations to which her Department has issued copies of their consultation document, "Living Places, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities". [87222]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: We have sent copies of the consultation to:

  370 local authorities (355 English and 15 Welsh). 394 local authority planning officers also received copies.

  97 police authorities and constabularies, including the metropolitan police.

  17 Government Departments and offices, including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Home Office, Cabinet Office and No. 10.

  23 Government related agencies.

  114 public bodies and non-governmental organisations.

  168 companies.

  In all there were over 2,000 copies of the consultation paper sent out.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when copies of "Living Places, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities" were distributed to local authorities. [87223]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Copies of the consultation were mailed out to local authorities the week beginning 4 November, following the urban summit which was held on 31 October and 1 November, when the consultation was launched.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the principle of relative stability in fisheries management will be continued in its present form. [87630]

  Mr. Morley
  The future provisions on relative stability, along with all other elements of the Common Fisheries Policy, are due to be determined by the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers at its current meeting.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make contingency plans to establish a fisheries management committee in the event that no Council of Ministers' agreement is established for European Union fisheries management for 2003 onwards. [87631]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's objective is to secure a meaningful reform of the Common Fisheries Policy at this Council. We shall strive to ensure that an acceptable agreement is reached. Should there be no agreement on a reformed CFP, the current system for Fisheries Management will continue.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many voluntary agreements within the refrigeration industry to reduce leakage of hydrofluorocarbons she has made; and what targets exist for future progress; [86494]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the progress in securing voluntary agreements within the refrigeration industry to reduce leakage of hydrofluorocarbons. [86495]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1996, the Government concluded a voluntary agreement on the use of HFCs with the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Industry Board (ACRIB) and its member organisations to ensure emissions to atmosphere were minimised. The agreement took the form of a "declaration of intent" in recognition of the fact that the industry is very widely dispersed and that signatories to the agreement could not make a commitment on behalf of those they did not directly represent.

  The UK climate change programme published in November 2000 sets out the key elements of the Government's policy on HFCs. During 2000, discussions with ACRIB led Government to conclude that a national registration and competence scheme for refrigerant handlers would be a more effective way of limiting and minimising HFC emissions from the refrigeration sector. The industry is developing a scheme which it proposes to put to Government in early 2003. The Government's intention is to make registration and minimum competence mandatory for companies and refrigerant handlers.

  Landfill Tax
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to allow the proceeds from landfill tax to go to local authorities. [87491]

  Mr. Meacher
  Last month's pre-Budget report announced that the Government would consult on a revenue neutral proposal to increase the landfill tax escalator to £3 per tonne in 2005–06 and to increase the rate of tax by at least £3 per tonne in future years, towards a rate of £35 per tonne. The Government will consult with stakeholders on options for the package, including the recycling of revenue, before making its decisions.

  Mr. Julian Heath
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to return the P45 certificate belonging to a constituent, Mr. Julian Heath. [87861]

  Alun Michael
  I can confirm that Mr. Julian Heath's P45 has been sent to his home address.

  Recycling
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of recycled plastic required to meet the target in EC WEEE Directive. [87330]
  801W
  Mr. Meacher
  Figures from a report by the Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER) show that in 1998 there were about 915,000 tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) arising, of which approximately 22 per cent. were plastics. These data are currently being updated.

  The WEEE Directive requires that WEEE is recovered and recycled according to 10 categories, with recovery and recycling targets set at between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. for each category. The plastics content varies considerably between the categories, however, a significant proportion of the plastics in WEEE will need to be recovered or recycled to meet the requirements of the WEEE Directive.

  Rural Deprivation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to allocate resources to pockets of rural deprivation in the delivery of services; and what resources she is making available. [87706]

  Alun Michael
  Deprivation in rural areas tends not to be as geographically concentrated as in urban areas and it is less meaningful to think in terms of "pockets". DEFRA is currently working with the Countryside Agency and Office for National Statistics to explore a better way to identify rural deprivation. The Countryside Agency has a social exclusion programme worth almost £3 million for the three years 2002–03 to 2004–05 with which to promote demonstration projects and new research to identify and tackle social exclusion in rural areas.

  DEFRA and the Countryside Agency are actively promoting the equitable allocation of services in rural areas by helping Government Departments to "rural proof" their policies and programmes. Following the Rural White Paper we allocated over £47 million through the Vital Villages scheme, which in the first instance runs until 2003–04. This is aimed at tackling the problem of dwindling services at the root, by enabling local people to set up their own enterprises.

  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply given to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on 25 November 2002, Official Report, columns 55–57W, which gives further information on DEFRA funded projects.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in and involvement of UK representatives in the case of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh in Pakistan. [84647]

  Mr. Rammell
  Mr. Sheikh remains in detention. The Pakistani authorities are fully aware of our opposition to the death penalty, both generally and in Mr. Sheikh's case. We will make further representations if appropriate.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87390]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 607W.

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants are employed by his Department; and how much money was spent by his Department in the last 12 months, in each local authority area. [87263]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 607W.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [87931]

  Mr. MacShane
  No.

  European Constitution
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with(a) the EU institutions and (b) European partners about the development of a European constitution. [87619]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government works closely with members of the EU institutions and our European partners on a range of EU issues in the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government is in favour in principle of a written European constitution. [87620]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government supports an EU constitutional treaty that makes clear that the EU is a union of Nation States, and clearly and concisely sets out what the EU does, and how it does it. This would help to deliver a better organised EU, more accessible to EU citizens and better able to deliver real and practical benefits.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other member states of the Commonwealth
  803W
  regarding the actions of the Zimbabwean Government towards the eviction of white farmers from their land. [83885]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign Office Ministers and officials have regular discussions with their Commonwealth counterparts about the economic, political and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's unsustainable programme of land seizures forms part of these discussions.

  My noble Friend Baroness Amos, FCO Minister for Africa, had the most recent contact, with the South African, Mozambican and Mauritian Foreign Ministers in Maputo on 7–8 November.

DEFENCE

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Challenger II tanks, (b) Warrior, (c) Sakern, (d) FV430, (e) Sabre, (f) Scimitar, (g) Striker, (h) Spartan, (i) Sultan, (j) Samson, (k) Samaritan armoured vehicles, (l) Challenger recovery vehicles, (m) Stormer, (n) Shielder, (o) Fuchs NBC vehicles, (p) AS90, (q) MLRS and (r) M578 were fully operational in each quarter of 2002; what percentage of fleet size this represents in each case; and if he will make a statement. [87922]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  AS90
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the cost of completing the environmental enhancements to the AS90 will remain within the expected budget; when he expects the enhancements to be completed; and whether he has set a deadline for completion. [87042]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of completing environmental enhancements to the AS90 is expected to remain within the budget originally forecast. We expect that the necessary modifications will be completed in time for possible future operations but I am withholding specific details of this timescale under Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. To provide such information risks jeopardising our contingency planning and harming operational security.

  In addition to the AS90s that we are modifying for contingency operations, consideration is being given to modifying further AS90s as part of the normal planning round. A decision on this has yet to be taken.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many expressions of interest he has received from contractors for the environmental enhancements of the AS90; and whether decisions have been made on the award of the contract. [87043]

  Mr. Ingram
  The contract for the environmental enhancement of AS90 has been sought via a single source prime contract with RO Defence plc, the design 804W
  authority for AS90. A number of sub-contracts, which are the responsibility of the prime contractor, may also be let. We expect to award the prime contract shortly.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been experienced with the environmental enhancements to the AS90; what progress has been made; and if he will make a statement. [87044]

  Mr. Ingram
  No significant problems have been experienced with the environmental enhancements to the AS90, and good progress is being made.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cruise missiles are held by his Department and if he will make a statement on their readiness. [87918]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, Security and International Relations).

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultants have been recruited to Defence Medical Services through the scheme which offers a £50,000 joining bonus. [84623]

  Dr. Moonie
  The initiative to offer £50,000 'golden hellos' to consultants in certain key shortage categories and to vocationally trained general medical practitioners, in return for a five year commission, was only announced on 19 November 2002. It is therefore too early for any individuals to have been recruited into the Defence Medical Services.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to maintain the distinction between the roles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Common European Security and Defence Policy. [87310]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: NATO and the European Security and Defence Policy have clearly-defined and complementary roles. NATO forms the basis of the collective defence of its members and plays an important role in crisis management. ESDP allows the EU to launch military operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged, within the scope of the Petersberg tasks, which are defined in the EU Treaty as
  "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking."
  These roles have been reflected in agreed language in both organisations: for example, the conclusions of the 2000 Nice European Council, and the communiqué from the North Atlantic Council meeting a few days later. On this basis, the EU and NATO have agreed to create a strategic partnership between the two organisations in crisis management.

  Fire Dispute
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value was in his Department's Balance Sheet at 31 March of the equipment used in providing services withdrawn by the fire brigades. [87858]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Friendly Fire
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the armed forces' IFF status for preventing friendly fire incidents. [87921]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has fitted Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) to its front line aircraft, ships and land-based air defence systems. The current generation of IFF equipment (IFF Mk 10) is in the process of being replaced by an updated system, the Mk 12 standard, through the Successor IFF (SIFF) programme. The Mk 12 provides additional security by means of high reliability encrypted interrogation of platforms. IFF is one of a number of methods employed by the armed forces to assist Combat Identification and to minimise the risk of friendly fire incidents. Combat Identification is achieved through a triad of measures: Situational Awareness, Target Identification, and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. These measures are complementary and IFF plays a part in improving situational awareness and contributes to effective identification.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what drugs were administered to servicemen during the Gulf War; what drugs have been(a) administered to date and (b) medically approved to be administered to servicemen serving in Iraq at a future date; and if he will make a statement. [86246]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: No decisions have yet been made concerning military action against Iraq.

  Service personnel are given drugs appropriate to any medical or dental conditions they may experience whether at home or on deployment. In addition, regular and volunteer reserve forces personnel are offered a range of routine vaccinations as part of an established immunisation programme. Personnel deploying to areas with a specific health hazard, and those in special occupational risk groups, such as medical personnel, may be given additional vaccinations. Drugs or vaccinations may also be provided to help protect service personnel against the effects of chemical and biological weapons.

  Drugs and medicines given to armed forces personnel by medical staff are normally those approved by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). As is the case in the NHS, drugs and medicines that are not licensed in the United Kingdom by the MCA may be used if prescribed and administered by a doctor.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what maintenance work is being done to HMS Ocean; what the cost of this maintenance is; when the decision was made to do the maintenance work; what the original planned cost was of the work; and if he will make a statement. [87803]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Ocean completed a planned upkeep maintenance period in November at a cost of around £5 million. This package of work was completed satisfactorily. During post upkeep trials however, the Port Main Engine suffered a major defect. The defect resulted from a ship system failure which could not have been anticipated and was not related to the work undertaken during the maintenance period. The cost of this repair work is approximately £450,000.

  Inoculations
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what risk assessment has been carried out on the side effects of recent inoculations given to armed services personnel posted to the middle east. [82691]

  Dr. Moonie
  Decisions on vaccinations for service personnel are made on the basis of expert medical advice and take full account of any risk from adverse reactions, balanced against the risks from disease. Routine inoculations given to service personnel deploying to the middle east are licensed products that have been rigorously tested for safety. This includes vaccination against anthrax, which has been offered to personnel deploying to the middle east since May 2001 under the Department's voluntary immunisation programme (VIP). All personnel who elect to receive immunisation against anthrax under the VIP are briefed on, and instructed to report to medical staff, any adverse reactions to the vaccine. No serious adverse reactions have been reported.

  Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the shortfall is of trained pilots in the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force. [87855]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: For the Royal Navy the overall shortfall of trained pilots is currently 51 (9 per cent.). This however, includes staff and administrative posts; the RN's front-line shortfall is less than 5 per cent. For the Army the shortfall is 10 (1.2 per cent.) and in the RAF the current shortfall of junior officer pilots is 109 (7.3 per cent.) of the requirement.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's signed PFI contracts have been independently audited since they were signed and started; who conducted the audit; when the audit took place; and if he will make a statement. [87580]

  Mr. Ingram
  The NAO is the only body to have independently audited a selection of the Department's PFI contracts. The individual project reports can be found
  807W
  on the NAO website at www.nao.gov.ukypublications/vfimsublist/vfm_ppp.htm.

  Studies relating to specific defence PFI contracts

  Title

  Date

  Ministry of Defence: Redevelopment of MOD Main Building HC 748, Parliamentary Session 2001–02

  18 April 2002

  Ministry of Defence: The Joint Services Command and Staff College HC 537, Parliamentary Session 2001–02

  7 February 2002

  The Private Finance Initiative: The Contract for the Defence Fixed Telecommunications System HC 328, Parliamentary Session 1999–2000

  23 March 2000

  Ministry of Defence: The Procurement of Non-Combat Vehicles for the Royal Air Force HC 738, Parliamentary Session 1998–99

  19 August 1999

  The PFI training element of the Apache Helicopter contract was addressed in the following:

  Title

  Date

  Ministry of Defence Building an Air Manoeuvre Capability: The Introduction of the Apache Helicopter HC1246, Parliamentary Session 2001–02

  31 October 2002

  QinteiQ
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what freehold(a) land and (b) buildings have been transferred by his Department to the ownership of QinetiQ, what the latest estimated value is of those assets; and how much (i) land and (ii) buildings has been leased to QinetiQ on leases in excess of 10 years. [87772]

  Dr. Moonie
  When QinetiQ was vested as a plc on 1 July 2001, the following sites were transferred to QinetiQ: Aberporth Airfield, Alverstoke, Angle, Aquila, Bedford (three sites), Bincleaves, Chertsey, Christchurch, Cobbett Hill, Farnborough (Cody, Pyestock and Pyestock North), Fraser, Funtington North, Haslar (DERA site, not Hospital), Hurn (three sites), Hutton Moor, Malvern, Pershore, Portsdown,

  VC10

  Serviceable

  1st line

  2nd line

  3rd line

  4th line

  Modification

  RAF Brize Norton

  3

  6

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Op. RESINATE

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Munster

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Akrotiri

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chateauroux

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Falkland Islands

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAF St. Athan

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Tristar

  Serviceable

  1st line

  2nd line

  3rd line

  4th line

  Modification

  RAF Brize Norton

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Marshalls (Cambridge)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Abu Dhabi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Note:

  Only six of the total of nine Tristar aircraft owned by the Department are air-to-air refuelling aircraft, the remainder are air transport aircraft.
  808W
  The projects covered by the studies carried out are as follows:

  West Drayton and Fort Halstead. The last formal valuation which included all these properties was on 30 June 2001. At this point, the total value of the land and buildings transferred from MOD to QinetiQ reported in the opening balance sheet of QinetiQ was £342 million.

  Detailed terms and conditions for a number of leases are still subject to final negotiation. Currently, the only lease from the Ministry of Defence to QinetiQ with a term exceeding 10 years is for the satellite communications centre at West Freugh

  Air-to-Air Refuelling
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where each of the air-to-air refueller aircraft held by his Department is; and if he will make a statement on the level of serviceability of each. [87919]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table show the location and serviceability of the aircraft of the Royal Air Force's Air to Air refuelling fleet at 0800 hours on 16 December 2002 and presents no more than a snapshot in time at that particular moment. All aircraft in 2nd, 3rd and 4th line maintenance are undergoing scheduled maintenance. Aircraft that are in 1st and 2nd line maintenance could be brought back into service very quickly if required.

  Tracer
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the United Kingdom invested in the development of TRACER before it was cancelled by the US partners. [86380]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The United Kingdom agreed jointly with our US partners not to proceed beyond the assessment phase of the TRACER programme which completed in July 2002. Total UK investment in the programme was £131 million. Arrangements have been put in place to utilise key technologies developed in the TRACER programmes in new programmes such as the future rapid effects system.

PRIME MINISTER

  Referendums
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on holding referendums. [87933]

  The Prime Minister
  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established a generic statutory framework for the conduct of referendums held across the UK, or a referendum held in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, or in any region in England. Dedicated primary legislation is required for any individual referendum. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, currently before the House, provides for referendums to be held in any of the eight English regions outside of London.

TRANSPORT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reply to the letter of 21 October from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden requesting a meeting with local groups to discuss plans to expand Luton airport. [88058]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are considering the request made in the letter from the right hon. Member to meet him and members of Luton and District Association for the Control of Airport Noise (LADACAN), and will respond shortly.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve security at small ports and airfields to prevent entry of(a) terrorist suspects and (b) material for use in terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [87504]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the UK in the immediate aftermath of September 2001 attacks we immediately tightened the security regime for commercial flights by small aircraft. Prior to that, commercial aircraft of less than 15 tonnes (maximum take off weight) were outside the requirements of the National Aviation Security Programme. That exemption has been removed, and aircraft of any weight are now subject to the programme.
  810W
  The operators of such aircraft and the managers of the aerodromes they operate from have been issued with the relevant directions and guidance, and Department for Transport inspectors monitor compliance and undertake enforcement, prioritising those locations where the risks are judged greatest. As with all aspects of the regime, these measures are kept under review.

  A14
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to add the A14 widening project to the Targeted Programme of Improvements. [87449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is progressing preparatory work on the A14 improvement with a view to recommending to the Secretary of State the most suitable design to be included in our Targeted Programme of Improvements. This work is taking longer than expected but I hope that we would be in a position to announce the results of that work in the new year.

  Aircraft Noise
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what dedicated phone lines exist for members of the public to complain about noise resulting from aircraft. [88083]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not have a dedicated phone line for members of the public to complain about aircraft noise. Handling of complaints is a local matter for the airport management. Some airports maintain dedicated complaint lines.

  EU Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 5 December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [87253]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The transport segment of the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Council was held in Brussels on 5–6 December, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport attended on the first day, and I attended on the second day, when the Prestige incident was discussed.

  The Council came to an agreement on the Single European Sky package. The aim of the four regulations making up the package is to improve the efficiency of air traffic management across the EU, thereby reducing air traffic delays. The United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of this package from the outset and I am very pleased to be able to report the successful outcome. Civil/military co-operation is an important aspect of air traffic management, and the member states made a declaration agreeing to co-operate on military aspects.

  The Commission presented its recent Communication on the consequences for European aviation policy of the recent ECJ rulings on aviation agreements. The Commission called for rapid progress on concluding an EU-US aviation agreement, the Commissioner having written to Ministers, asking them to denounce their existing agreements with the US, which, following the

  811W
  ECJ rulings, the Commission believed were no longer valid. There was general agreement that member states and the Commission needed to discuss the consequences of the ruling urgently, including the question of a Commission mandate for negotiations with the US. COREPER was asked to work on proposals to be put to the Council.

  The Council agreed on a Regulation providing for new levels of compensation to air passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellation and delay. A majority of Ministers accepted three levels of compensation: 250 euros for all flights of 1,500 km or less, 400 euros for intra-EU flights of more than 1,500 km and other flights between 1,500–3,500 km, and 600 euros for all other flights. These compensation levels will be reviewed four years after the Regulation comes into effect. The UK voted against the Regulation because in the absence of a link to the ticket price it could damage the interests of consumers of "no-frills" air services. During the debate, the Minister of State had voiced concern at the impact on the services of no-frills carriers, pointing out that the minimum compensation level was almost four times the average cost of a no-frills ticket. Following a suggestion from some member states that the scope of the Regulation be extended to certain passengers returning to the EU from non-Community airports, it was agreed that the Commission would publish a report on this issue.

  Conclusions were agreed setting out the basis for the continuation of the Galileo satellite navigation project, including the tendering procedure, and addressing the importance of relations with third countries. A final decision on whether to include a Public Regulated Service (PRS) in the project is to be taken before the end-of 2003. The UK and the Netherlands entered a Minutes Statement stressing that they could not accept any PRS that would overlay the US GPS M-Code.

  The Council debated the second package of rail measures. The presidency noted the progress that had been made on this package of five proposals, designed to progress the development of more harmonised technical standards for interoperability, harmonise safety regulation processes, to open up access to the market for all rail freight services, and to establish a European Rail Agency. In discussion of the main outstanding issues on the safety and interoperability proposals there was a consensus for member states to be able to maintain safety levels above any harmonised minimum standard, and general support for extending the scope of the interoperability requirements. The presidency concluded that work should continue on the package. Greece made clear that it hoped to reach agreement during its presidency.

  There was a debate on action to be taken following the Prestige accident. I, in common with other Ministers and the Commission, generally welcomed the presidency's approach in the Conclusions put to the Council. I joined others in arguing for better quality port state control inspections, and expressed the UK view that in general there should be co-ordinated EU actions leading to improvements in the international regulatory framework. The Conclusions reaffirmed the support of member states for the establishment of a supplementary compensation fund, developed in the IMO, to the benefit of the victims of oil pollution. This
  812W
  would enhance the existing international fund. The UK's concern was that the EU should not commit itself at this stage to its own fund in the event of failure of negotiations in the IMO, for fear of prejudicing those negotiations, and we secured an amendment to this effect. The Conclusions also include commitments to a faster phasing out of single-hulled tankers and restrictions on those carrying very heavy oil. There is to be an analysis of available double-hull tanker capacity. Also included are: better implementation of port state control obligations, and possible measures by member states to prohibit within 200 miles of their coasts traffic carrying dangerous and polluting goods.

  The Council agreed on a Regulation establishing the Marco Polo programme to grant community financial aid to projects designed to achieve the shift of freight transport from road to other modes. The programme will have a total budget of 75 million euros.

  Political agreement was reached on a Regulation to prohibit the use of environmentally damaging antifouling paints on ships, in accordance with the latest IMO agreements.

  Conclusions were agreed on the integration of environment and sustainable development into transport policy, a continuation of the process begun at the Cardiff European Council in 1998.

  The Council debated the issue of Alpine transit and the ecopoint system for transit through Austria. Agreement could not be reached, and the presidency submitted the dossier to the General Affairs and External Relations Council.

  During the Council, Ministers signed the Agreement on Maritime Transport between the European Community and its member states, and the People's Republic of China.

  Guided Bus Routes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will to announce whether Cambridgeshire County Council has been successful in its bid for a guided bus along the Cambridge-Huntingdon route. [88150]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is still appraising the proposals. As this would be a large and expensive scheme, we have asked independent external consultants to undertake a technical audit of the information received, in order to help us form a view on whether the proposal passes the established tests that determine eligibility for government funding. We will continue to work with the promoters to resolve outstanding issues as soon as possible, and would hope to be able to give them a provisional view of the scheme in advance of the next local transport investment settlement. This would be without prejudice to any statutory approvals that may be required.

  Motorway Congestion
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he will make of the South and West Yorkshire multi-modal study into motorway congestion; if he will set up further studies with a
  813W
  broader focus; and if he will bring forward the further investment into rail and tram routes suggested in the study. [87432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the study recommendations together with the comments received from the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly and others. An announcement giving our response to the study recommendations and on the way forward will be made in spring 2003.

  Rail Passenger Partnership
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications there have been for the Rail Passenger Partnership in rural areas since its launch; how many have been accepted; and what the average amount spent on each bid has been to date. [88144]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) scheme was launched in 1999 with a budget of £105 million over three years. In December 2001 the Strategic Rail Authority re-launched RPP with a budget of £400 million until 2010–11.

  It is not possible to give a precise figure for the amount spent exclusively in rural areas, as many of the schemes for which funding has been awarded by the SRA are of benefit to rural and non-rural areas. However, since the launch of the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, applications for 68 schemes containing a rural element have been received. Of these, 36 schemes have been approved for funding. There are a further 13 schemes with a rural element where the Strategic Rail Authority are awaiting formal bids. From the total of those approved bids containing a rural element, the average RPP funding awarded is around £100,000.

  Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of changes in the average level of insurance paid per annum since 1995 within the railway industry related to cover for(a) rolling stock, (b) stations, (c) personnel, (d) passengers and (e) other infrastructure. [87628]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In February 2001, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) took over responsibility for approving all licensed operators) third party insurance arrangements from the Rail Regulator. Neither the SRA nor the Regulator holds information on premiums paid.

  Scottish Airports (Public Transport Facilities)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of passengers who flew from(a) Edinburgh, (b) Glasgow and (c) Prestwick airports travelled to the airport by public transport in each year since 1995. [88082]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information is as follows.
  814W

  Percentage of passengers arriving or departing by public transport1

  Edinburgh airport

  Glasgow airport

  1996

  37

  31

  2001

  46

  34

  1 Taxi/minicab or bus/coach. For passengers whose journey included more than one mode, the final mode has been used in the calculation.

  Secretary of State Representative
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 673, what resources the Secretary of State representative will have at his disposal; where he is based and if the Secretary of State has powers to intervene to direct him to act. [87521]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (1) The following major resources are available to SOSREP:

  Aircraft
  2 surveillance aircraft and 2 dispersant spraying aircraft.

  Helicopters
  4 x search and rescue helicopters.

  Emergency towing vessels
  Four Government funded emergency towing vessels, strategically placed around the UK.

  Counter pollution and salvage stockpiles
  The MCA has extensive stockpiles of specialised counter pollution and salvage equipment located at Milford Haven and Burnt Island and can provide equipment such as thermal imaging cameras and intrinsically safe equipment in the event of an incident.

  Personnel
  In the event that SOSREP is unavailable when an incident occurs, the following officers may also exercise the SOSREP powers: the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's chief executive, director of operations and deputy director of operations.
  The MCA has 10 designated marine casualty officers (MCOs) around the country that during an incident would go aboard a casualty to act for SOSREP.

  SOSREP has one full time administrative support officer that deals with the every day running of the SOSREP system.
  SOSREP also has a list of independent call-off contractors that can provide salvage, technical or specialist advice. During incidents when a salvage control unit has been set up, SOSREP can request additional administrative support and this is usually provided by the coastguard service.

  Buildings and offices
  SOSREP's office is located within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's headquarters in Southampton. SOSREP has access to all the facilities within the agency's building including the maritime emergency incident room from which the first stages of an incident are often controlled until the individual response units have been mobilised.
  SOSREP also receives information from, and can make use of, the 19 coastguard stations that are located around the UK coastline.

  (2) The powers of the Secretary of State:

  Lord Donaldson's 1999 Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control concluded that:
  "Ministers are entitled to be kept informed in the case of more serious incidents and may subsequently be accountable to Parliament. However, whilst operations are in progress, they must stand aside, and be seen to stand aside, leaving operational

  815W
  controls in the hands of the Secretary of State's specially trained and appointed representative. As in military operations, with which a serious incident has much in common, Ministers must back the man in control or sack him."
  This is the principle on which the UK operates the SOSREP function. It is this which sets the UK's response to incidents apart from that of all other nations.

  Stingray
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 214W, on the Stingray system, how the revenue generated from enforcement against VED evaders caught by the Stingray systems compared with the target set in October 2001; and if he will make a statement. [88149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No separate target was set for the Stingray AN PR camera systems in October 2001. The Stingray system was intended to, and did, contribute towards the total VED enforcement target of 720,000 successful cases for the year 2001–02. The actual figure achieved was 799,800 cases.

  Trains (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve rail services between Manchester and Blackpool serving parts of Chorley borough area; and what plans he has to increase the number of trains stopping at Euxton Balshaw lane station. [87516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA is combining the local and regional services currently operated by Arriva Trains Northern and First North Western—including those between Manchester and Blackpool—to form a new 'northern' franchise, in line with its new franchising policy announced on 6 November. The SRA expects the franchise to be operational in summer 2004. There are no specific plans to increase the number of trains stopping at Euxton Balshaw lane station at present, but operators can seek to increase service levels at their own discretion.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many successful cases against evasion of vehicle excise duty there were between October 2001 and October 2002. [88084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the 13 months between October 2001 and October 2002 DVLA took successful action against 870,383 offenders.

TREASURY

  Airport Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of fuel taxation of land vehicles used solely within the precincts of UK airports. [88081]
  816W
  John Healey
  Vehicles operating within the confines of an airport are usually unlicensed vehicles not used on public roads. As such, they are entitled to use rebated gas oil (red diesel) as fuel. Rebated gas oil carries a duty rate of 3.13p per litre.

  Bioethanol
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 257W, on bioethanol fuel, what research he has published on the effect the level of duty on bioethanol fuel has had on (a) the British sugar industry, (b) British farmers and (c) the manufacturing sector. [87794]

  John Healey
  We have not published any research on this subject.

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 257W, on business support, when he expects the RDA pilots to be completed; and when a decision about the general introduction of RDA-led management and co-ordination of business support will be made. [87785]

  John Healey
  Pilots of RDA-led management and coordination of regional business support are currently in the developmental stage. The Small Business Service (SBS) and HM Treasury are continuing to work closely with RDAs to work up their proposals. An evaluation framework is being designed to capture the key learning points from the pilots. More details on timings will be announced in due course.

  Climate Change
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with manufacturers about the effect of the climate change levy on UK competitiveness. [87672]

  John Healey
  As part of the normal process of contact with business, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury ministerial team have met a variety of businesses and business organisations and have heard a range of representations. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his answer of 11 February,Official Report, columns 114–15, in line with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of the meetings they routinely have with a wide range of organisations.

  Convergence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deposit in the Library the UK's 2002 convergence programme, arising from Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of the Stability and Growth Pact, before 19 December; and if he will make a statement. [87944]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK's 2002 convergence programme will be made available to both Houses of Parliament once it is published.

  Customs and Excise
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the government policy on rulings in writing given by Customs and Excise Officers, as set out on 21 July 1978,Official Report, column 426, applies to oral (a) VAT advice obtained by telephone from the Department's National Advice Service and (b) VAT advice obtained from a Customs officer by e-mail; and if he will make a statement. [87625]

  John Healey
  The policy set out on 21 July 1978,Official Report, columns 426–27, has been expressed in a published concession which provides that:
  If a Customs and Excise officer, with the full facts before him has given a clear and unequivocal ruling on VAT in writing or, knowing the full facts, has misled a registered person to his detriment, any assessment of VAT due will be based on the correct ruling from the date the error was brought to the registered person's attention.
  The concession applies, in these terms, to VAT rulings given over the telephone by Customs, including their National Advice Service, and to VAT rulings given by officers in writing and communicated by letter, fax or e-mail.

  Death Duty
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to(a) reduce the percentage of death duty paid, and (b) raise the qualifying value of exemption from death duty. [87373]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor considers all taxes as part of his annual Budget judgment.

  European Tax Harmonisation
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Franco-German plans for European tax harmonisation. [87015]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's view is that fair tax competition is the way forward, not proposals for tax harmonisation. The Government will not support any action at European level that would threaten jobs and investment or damage the competitive position of British business.

  HIPC Initiative
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made to secure the US$1 billion for the HIPC initiative that is not financed; and if he will make a statement. [87571]

  John Healey
  The UK government have been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and continues to press for the rapid and full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.

  At the G7 Summit in Kananaskis in June 2002, the UK helped secure agreement for the G7 to fund their share of the financing shortfall in the enhanced HIPC initiative, recognising that it would be up to US$1 billion.

  At the annual meetings of the World bank and IMF in September the UK took a strong lead by pledging its share of the funds needed in advance. The development
  818W
  committee communiqué welcomed the pledges of support from the UK and others, and called on other countries to make firm pledges as a matter of urgency.

  The UK and 16 other donors have now agreed pledges totalling $850 million to the HIPC trust fund. EU member states have also called on the European Commission to make a contribution through the European Development Fund.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek further independent reviews of IMF growth projections for HIPC countries; and if he will make a statement. [87573]

  John Healey
  At the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on children in May 2002, the Chancellor called for greater caution over the forecasts used to calculate debt sustainability for HIPCs. And G7 leaders agreed, at their meeting in June, that the IMF and World bank should ensure that forecasts of debt sustainability are made on the basis of prudent and cautious assumptions about growth and exports. Therefore, the UK is pleased to note that in preparation for the annual meetings of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee in September 2002, IMF and World bank staff committed to develop alternative macroeconomic scenarios, including a policy-based "optimistic" and a "conservative" scenario that would reflect country's vulnerabilities and the uncertainties of external environment. IMF and World bank staff are also expected to base their own growth projections on a thorough analysis of the likely sources of growth and to present such analyses explicitly in discussions with authorities, as well as in staff documents.

  The Independent Evaluations Office (TEO) of the IMF has been discussing its work programme for 2003, proposing an evaluation of the poverty reductions strategy papers and the poverty reduction and growth facility approach. The UK has contributed to that discussion to ensure the IE0 can conduct a thorough assessment.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to release the concluding statement of the International Monetary Fund Article IV consultations by means of a written ministerial statement; and if he will make a statement. [87626]

  John Healey
  The IMF's concluding statement at the end of the 2002 Article IV consultations was published by the IMF on 9 December. Copies of the statement were also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Less Polluting Vehicles
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further proposals he has to increase the tax incentives to motorists for mileage on business use to change to less polluting vehicles. [87325]

  John Healey
  The new company car tax system linking the charge on the benefit of a company car to the level of its carbon dioxide emissions came into effect in April this year.

  The Inland Revenue is undertaking an extensive exercise to evaluate the effects of the reforms.
  819W
  Any changes to the system will be made in the context of the Chancellor's Budget judgment.

  Public Liability Insurance
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made an assessment of the implications of changes in public liability insurance for constituency offices and venues where parliamentary advice surgeries are held; and if he will make a statement. [86207]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have been asked to reply.

  Parliament provides combined employers and public liability insurance for its Members. We are not aware of any changes to the scope of the public liability insurance.

  We have been advised that when we renew our policy at the end of March 2003, the ceiling for indemnity in respect of terrorist acts under the employers' liability provision will be reduced from £10 million to £5 million. We will inform Members of the terms of the new policy.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what financial institutions based in the City of London have used offshore financial arrangements in the last three years as a smeans of avoiding liability for employers national insurance; and if he will make a statement; [R] [87710]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to remove the opportunity for financial institutions based in the City of London to avoid liability for national insurance by paying their employees who work in the UK under an offshore arrangement; [R] [87711]

  (3) what recent reports he has received relating to tax avoidance schemes which involve the use of offshore arrangements in the payment of employees as a vehicle for avoiding (a) tax and (b) national insurance liability. [R] [87713]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to closing loopholes in the tax and NICs systems, which allow some people to avoid paying their fair share, increasing the burden on others. In his pre-Budget report the Chancellor announced that he was introducing measures to counter the avoidance of tax and national insurance contributions through the use of employees benefit trusts. I cannot comment on the activities of individual companies.

  Training and Management Courses
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 266W, on training and management courses, when he will publish the consultation document described. [87791]

  John Healey
  The Government are in discussion with a number of high street banks on the detail of their proposal and will consult small businesses in due course.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in each of the wards in the Wansbeck constituency benefit from receipt of the working families tax credit. [88158]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I understand from the Office for National Statistics that they expect to publish these figures within the next few weeks as part of neighbourhood statistics.

CABINET OFFICE

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to reform non-departmental public bodies at the regional level. [86325]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have no plans for major reforms to the way that non-departmental public bodies operate at a regional level. However, the White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice' sets out the Government's proposals to strengthen the existing regional institutions, including Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), who now enjoy increased funding and flexibility in the way that their resources can be used. In the future, in those regions where voters choose in a referendum to have an elected assembly, the RDA will be accountable to the elected assembly in the region, which will appoint the Chair and Board members and publish the regional economic strategy. Elected regional assemblies will also have a significant influence over other bodies such as the local Learning and Skills Councils, Small Business Service, Strategic Rail Authority, Environment Agency and cultural bodies, through making appointments, being consulted on strategies and co-ordinating activity.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the employment costs are, including benefits, of(a) ministers representing the Regulatory Impact Unit and (b) special advisers and their supporting staff retained by the Regulatory Impact Unit. [87607]

  Mr. Alexander
  No special advisers are retained by the Regulatory Impact Unit (R IU). The one part-time special adviser and two Ministers employed in the Cabinet Office will spend some of their time on RI U-related issues but the cost of this time is not separately identifiable from the time spent by them on other issues.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her European counterparts regarding the Agency Workers Directive; whether she has sought to make amendments to the Directive as it stands; and if she will make a statement. [87663]
  821W
  Alan Johnson
  As I said in the debate in European Standing Committee C on 10 July 2002, the Government would like to see further flexibilities introduced to the proposal. I have been discussing and will continue to discuss this proposal with Ministers in other member states, MEPs and Commissioner Diamantopoulou. I shall be producing an Explanatory Memorandum and Regulatory Impact Assessment on the revised proposal.

  Business Leaders
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 1039, if she will list the business leaders to whom she spoke between 27 November and 5 December, stating in each case whether the agreement to which she refers was volunteered. [87515]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: As the Official Report, makes clear, I was referring to a wide range of discussions with business leaders since Budget 2002, including several large meetings.

  Christmas Day Trading
  Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response she has received from major retailers to her appeal not to open on Christmas Day; and what action she plans for future years as a result of that response. [87987]

  Alan Johnson
  Consultation of major retailers earlier in the year indicated that the majority did not plan to open on Christmas Day 2002 or in future years.

  The need for any further action will be considered in the light of the practice of retailers at Christmas this year.

  Election Addresses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what legislation the Post Office is required to deliver election addresses free of charge at general elections; what the cost of delivery was at the last general election(a) in each constituency and (b) in total; and by whom those costs are met. [87342]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: A candidate's right to send election address post free is provided for in Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended by paragraph 17 of Schedule 8 to the Postal Services Act 2000. Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 entitles a candidate at a parliamentary election (subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the universal service provider may specify) to send free of any charge certain specified postal communications to each elector. Cost is a matter that falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Royal Mail Group plc and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent assessment she has made of the ability of small businesses to secure Employers' Liability Insurance; [87405]
  822W
  (2) how many businesses have gone into liquidation citing the inability to obtain affordable Employers' Liability Insurance in the last 12 months. [87403]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As businesses enter liquidation proceedings for a number of reasons, it is not possible to single out one issue, such as difficulty in obtaining Employers Liability Insurance as the sole cause of such proceedings.

  However, my Department is very concerned by reports of significant rises in insurance costs, particularly for small businesses, and is aware of the difficulties that this has posed for some firms.

  As announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report in November, the Government are conducting a review to assess the scale and nature of difficulties with the Employer's Liability Insurance system. The Department for Work and Pensions is leading the review and my Department will play a full and active role to represent the needs of business. Further details about the review are available at www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/2002/mdex.htm.

  Mozambique
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of trade between the UK and Mozambique was in the last year for which figures are available; what recent estimate she has made of UK investment in Mozambique; and what steps she has taken to encourage trade between Mozambique and the rest of the Commonwealth. [87062]

  Nigel Griffiths
  According to figures published by HM Customs and Excise, UK imports of goods from Mozambique in 2001 were valued at £7.5 million while UK exports were worth £12.6 million. In the nine months to September 2002 UK imports were worth £1.5 million while exports were £10.9 million. The figures do not take account of trade between Mozambique and British companies located in South Africa, for which statistics are not available.

  Information on UK investment in Mozambique is not available due to commercial confidentiality.

  Trade Partners UK has a small but busy section in Mozambique, assisting UK companies in the market and those wishing to access it for the first time. In addition TPUK has recently funded a high level delegation to the UK to highlight investment opportunities in a hydro-power project, Mpanda Ncua, and has given support to a trade mission from the UK planned for February 2003. It is not HMG's role to actively promote business between Mozambique and other Commonwealth countries. However, TPUK supported the Commonwealth Business Council in its efforts to run an investment promotion seminar jointly with the Mozambique Government in February 2002.

  Post Office Benefit Payments
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will oversee the second card option for post office payment after the changes in 2003. [86557]
  823W
  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Productivity
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the impact on productivity of the growth of the service sector relative to the manufacturing sector. [87838]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Concern is sometimes expressed that the growth of the service sector may slow overall productivity growth because measured productivity growth is lower in the service sector than in the rest of the economy. However this conclusion, which emerged in academic research in the 1960s, has been called into question by later research. Moreover a number of studies show that the UK service sector has considerable potential to catch up with best-practice productivity levels elsewhere. The Government are keen to encourage productivity growth and narrow the productivity gap in all sectors of the economy.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the costs of establishing a target of(a) 25 per cent. and (b) 30 per cent. of the UK's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. [87882]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Prospects for renewable energy, including the question of possible targets beyond the 10 per cent. target for 2010, will be addressed in the Energy White Paper which we expect to publish in the new year.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 520W, on the Social Chapter, what estimates her Department has made of (a) the overall cost to date and (b) the annual cost hereafter to businesses in the UK of implementing the five directives transposed from the Social Chapter. [87674]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates of the overall cost to businesses in the UK of implementing regulations transposing the five Social Chapter directives listed as follows were published in Regulatory Impact Assessments which are available from the Libraries of the House.

  The estimated total annual recurring implementation cost is as follows:

  Parental Leave Directive, including the 1999 extension to the implementing Regulations—£0.2 million;

  European Works Council Directive—nil;

  Part-time Work Directive—£4 million;

  Burden of Proof Directive in Sex Discrimination cases—£0.6 million;

  Fixed Term Employees Directive—£2 million.

  Solar Photovoltaics
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria have been used to exclude(a) on grid solar PV, (b) off grid solar PV and (c) hybrid systems including solar PV, from the proposed new community and household renewable energy grant scheme to be launched in January 2003. [87715]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's 'Renewable Energy in the UK—Building for the Future' report recommended that up to £10 million of support be provided as capital grants specifically for renewable energy schemes that engage local communities or individual households.

  The DTI has since undertaken a broad consultation exercise to inform the positioning, design and workings of this scheme. Through the consultation the DTI has revisited the initial recommendations of the PIU. An initial scoping exercise identified schemes, which had potential overlap with the proposed Community and Household Scheme (CHS), and concluded that such a scheme would be beneficial for the advancement of renewables in the UK.

  Although the PIU recommended that no restrictions be placed on technology, the DTI has sought to identify which technologies would enhance the public's understanding of renewables. The scheme has also been designed so that it would not duplicate work under way through other Government or Industry initiatives. Although solar PV has a significant contribution to make to enhancing the public's understanding of renewables, it is already supported by the first phase of the PV Major Demonstration Programme (MDP) which has a budget of £20 million. The programme has already supported PV installations by homeowners and local groups. Technologies such as solar water heating, small wind and micro hydro can also make a positive contribution to the public's understanding of renewables. These technologies, in contrast to solar PV, receive little or no Government support.

  The scheme also aims to tackle some of the other barriers to uptake such as installer accreditation. Again installer accreditation for solar PV occurs under the MDP and so any such work in the Community and Household would be redundant.

  On off grid applications, the DTI are currently looking at whether to expand the MDP to include off grid PV systems. On hybrid systems, customers will be able to apply to the CHS for the non solar PV component and to the MDP for the solar PV component of the hybrid system.

  The technologies supported by the CHS will be reviewed throughout the lifetime of the scheme and altered if necessary.

  Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many refused claims for compensation for former Icelandic trawlermen based in the city of Aberdeen are awaiting(a) first appeal and (b) a decision by the independent adjudicator. [87638]
  825W
  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The information is as follows:

  (a) 51 Aberdeen-based claimants are currently awaiting a decision on their claim by the official responsible for considering queries about the initial decision of the Watford office.

  (b) Eight Aberdeen-based claimants are currently awaiting a decision on their claim by the independent adjudicator.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many refused claims for compensation for former Icelandic trawlermen based in the City of Aberdeen have been overturned(a) at first appeal and (b) by the independent adjudicator. [87639]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The official responsible for considering queries about the initial decision of the Watford office (as regards either refusal of compensation or the amount awarded) has found in the claimant's favour in 51 cases involving Aberdeen-based claimants. Of these:
  Nine were as a result of rule changes made in November 2001;
  27 were as a result of new documentary evidence being provided to establish a longer period of continuous service than was originally calculated; and
  15 were as a result of a different view being taken on the claim.
  (b) The independent adjudicator has found in the claimant's favour in two formal appeals by Aberdeen-based claimants.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims under the Former Icelandic Water Trawlermen Compensation Scheme are still to be processed; how many appeals under the scheme are awaiting a decision; and what the average time to process an appeal has been. [87664]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There are no claims remaining that have not been considered on at least one occasion. There are 180 currently awaiting further information prior to an initial decision of the Watford office. There are 193 queries regarding the initial decision of the Watford office currently under consideration by the responsible DTI official. Over 1,600 other queries have already been responded to by him. There are 43 formal appeals currently with the independent adjudicator for consideration. The average time taken to process a formal appeal has been 57 days.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps were taken by her Department to publicise the Former Icelandic Water Trawlermen Compensation Scheme; how many representations her Department has received from fishermen enquiring about compensation under the scheme since the expiry date; and if she will extend the application process beyond that date. [87665]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The scheme was publicised in the local press and other relevant publications, with port area MPs and with the British Fishermen's Association, and on the DTI website. While the scheme was in operation, DTI officials also made numerous visits to the main port areas to meet former trawlermen and/or their representatives. Further publicity was arranged in 826W
  relevant publications and with port area representatives in advance of the 1 October 2002 closure date for new claims. Since that date, DTI officials have received fewer than 10 new inquiries from individuals who might have wished to claim compensation. The scheme rules made clear the closure date was final.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Former Icelandic Water Trawlermen Compensation Scheme, affidavits from independent witnesses testifying that a certain ship has been to Icelandic waters during the relevant period will be accepted as proof of that ship's validity and will trigger compensation for those having served on it; and if she will make a statement. [87666]

  Nigel Griffiths
  At the outset of the scheme, officials—in conjunction with local trawlermen and their representatives—compiled a list of Icelandic-water vessels based on independent contemporary documentary evidence. More vessels have been added to this list as further such evidence has come to light during the period of operation of the Scheme. There are now over 700 vessels on the list. We continue to believe that independent contemporary documentary evidence provides the best basis for assessing the status of particular vessels.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will include traffic wardens in those eligible for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal. [87184]

  Mr. Caborn
  No. The medal is being issued to the living holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, to serving members of the armed forces arid the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and to the '999' emergency services. Traffic wardens do not fall within any of these eligible groups.

  Community Developments
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the public organisations that make grant funding available for community developments, and the funds available last year for them to disburse. [87413]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department's annual report (May 2002, Cm 5423) gives details of all the public bodies sponsored by the Department and of any grant funding that they disburse.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what further action she has taken to increase the number of drug tests on competitors at elite sporting events in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [87887]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Government is firmly committed to combating doping in sport. The anti-doping programme in the UK is delivered through the national anti-doping organisation, UK Sport, in conjunction with sports
  827W
  governing bodies. As a result of the 2002 Spending Review this Government has allocated additional funds to UK Sport specifically to increase the number of public interest tests carried out under the anti-doping programme and to meet the additional costs of new blood tests. The funding, which amounts to £1.5 million in 2004–05 and £3.2 million in 2005–06, will ensure the continued quality and comprehensiveness of UK Sport's anti-doping programme.

  National Lottery
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much revenue has been collected from lottery sales in Morecambe and Lunesdale in the last 12 months. [87506]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information about National Lottery ticket sales is not collected by constituency. But the National Lottery Commission is able to provide information about sales broken down by post code area. In October this year in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) on 22 October 2002,Official Report, columns 182–83W, I placed in the House Libraries a table provided by Camelot plc listing sales by postcode area since the Lottery's launch.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total of uncommitted funds is from New Opportunities Fund Rounds 1 and 2; and if she will make a statement. [87651]

  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund had £1.5 billion available for its round 1 and 2 programmes which are designed to improve the quality of life for people and communities, address disadvantage and encourage community participation.

  The New Opportunities Fund has committed 93.11 per cent. of Round 1 and 2 funds. There is £97.5 million yet to commit.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment of the noise pollution caused by(a) amplified music and (b) television sets was made by her Department when considering licensing reform. [87408]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: We consulted local authorities and local residents groups, as well as representatives of the music industry, following the publication of our proposals for reform of the licensing laws, and considered views on public nuisance and the impact of various forms of entertainment on the community. The comments that were received during the initial review and in response to the publication of the White Paper led to our making the prevention of public nuisance one of the four primary licensing objectives of the Bill.

  During the consultation, no organisation or individual commented on the issue of noise from television sets. Subsequently, we have considered
  828W
  whether the live broadcast of television in public venues should be brought within the proposed licensing regime and concluded that this is not necessary.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Treasury about tax relief for those charitable organisations affected by the provisions of the Licensing Bill, with regard to the requirement for applying and paying for licences for fundraising events. [87450]

  Dr. Howells
  This Department has not had discussions with the Treasury with regard to this issue.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Support
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost of administration was in relation to the introduction of charging and means testing for housing support services in Northern Ireland. [87336]

  Mr. Browne
  In the interests of targeting resources to where the need is greatest I have decided that those who can afford to pay for their housing support services should continue to do so. However it is important that the administration costs of operating such an arrangement are kept to a minimum. Rather than spending around £250,000 to develop and administer a specific supporting people means test, I have decided that eligibility for housing benefit or any other means tested benefit, should be the automatic passport to free housing support services. This will be easy to operate with little additional costs in terms of administration.

  North-South Implementation Bodies
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what agreement he has reached with the Irish Government about the operation of the North-South Implementation Bodies during the period of suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will place a copy of the agreement in the Library. [85884]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In an exchange of notes on 19 November the British and Irish Governments agreed a mechanism so that during the period of temporary suspension of the Assembly, decisions on policies and actions relating to the Implementation Bodies, Tourism Ireland (a publicly owned company established as an area of co-operation by NSMC) or their respective functions could be taken. The agreement was made to ensure the continuation during suspension of the necessary public functions performed by the Implementation Bodies. The agreement, which came into force on 3 December, also provided that no new functions would be conferred on the Implementation Bodies during suspension. The exchange of notes will be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

  Personal Care
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent in each of the last three
  829W
  years in Northern Ireland in providing free personal care for those living in sheltered accommodation or living in their own homes. [87331]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the cost of providing free personal care for those living in sheltered accommodation or living in their own homes is not available. The provision of personal care includes services such as district nursing, home help, occupational and physiotherapy and applies to a number of programmes of care. Information at the level required could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public-Voluntary Sector Partnerships
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for partnerships between statutory bodies and the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. [87057]

  Mr. Browne
  Voluntary and community sector involvement in the design and delivery of public services is a key aspect of the Modernising Government agenda.

  There are numerous and diverse partnerships at local level, funded through grant aid and service level management, between the voluntary sector and statutory bodies such as district councils and health and social services trusts. Of particular importance are Local Strategy Partnerships, supported under Peace II and now working in every district council area in Northern Ireland.

  Further detail on the wide ranging sources of funding for partnerships between government and the voluntary and community sector can be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Voluntary Sector (Service Delivery)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives in and between Northern Ireland Government Departments are in place to encourage and facilitate the voluntary sector in delivery of services. [87058]

  Mr. Browne
  Government strategy for support of the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland is set out in "Partners for Change", a consultation document launched in June 2001. The strategy aims to add value to Government in Northern Ireland through a partnership approach with the voluntary and community sector, enabling the sector's contribution to service delivery, policy comment and achievement of government objectives.

  I have endorsed the final draft of partners for change and arrangements for publishing the document are currently in place. The document will be available early in 2003 and will be posted on the Department for Social Development's website.

  An allocation of £6 million from executive programme funds was announced on 7 October 2002 to maintain important services delivered by the voluntary and community sector, which otherwise might be lost due to funding difficulties. Applications for funding
  830W
  under this initiative have now closed and Departments aim to make recommendations to Ministers by the end of January 2003.

  Longer-term sustainability issues will be considered by a Task Force on Resourcing the Voluntary and Community Sector. This Task Force will consider the further diversification of funding sources for the sector and is due to report its conclusions by April 2004.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Breakfast Clubs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 551W, on breakfast clubs, if he will make it the Government's policy to fund breakfast clubs for all schools via mainstream funding. [87575]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My previous answer of 2 December explained that many schools already offer breakfast clubs as part of their study support or child care provision.

  "Investment for Reform" spelt out our intention that, by 2006, all schools should be providing study support, in breakfast clubs or otherwise. Funding will continue to be made available to local education authorities and schools to enable them to offer a wide range of study support activities, and we will be announcing our detailed plans in due course. It will be for schools and authorities to choose whether to run breakfast clubs in particular as part of their study support, as they are best placed to determine local needs and viability.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to ensure sustainability of breakfast clubs and out-of-school activities funded by the New Opportunities Fund when this funding finishes. [87617]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are committed to promoting study support in schools, including breakfast clubs. In "Investment for Reform", we spelt out our aim for all schools to be providing study support by 2006, in breakfast clubs or other activities. We hope that participating schools will also be able to use the extended schools programme, and child care initiatives, to offer an increased range of provision including breakfast clubs.

  Funding will continue to be available for study support activity after New Opportunities Fund grants finish. We will be announcing in due course our detailed funding plans for study support over the next three years. It will of course remain for schools and local education authorities to decide precisely what provision to offer with the resources at their disposal.

  Budget Deficits
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many universities and colleges are facing deficits in their budgets in the current financial year; and what estimate he has made of the cost to universities of remedying current budget deficiencies over the next(a) three years and (b) seven years. [87309]
  831W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: In 2000–01, there were 48 higher education institutions in England with budget deficits out of a total of 130. Universities receive funding from a variety of sources, both private and public and set out their accounts in their annual reports. The Higher Education Funding Council for England works with institutions in financial difficulty to enable them to return to a sound financial position over time. The Government's plans for public funding for future years will be announced alongside the higher education strategy document in January.

  GCSE Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the secondary modern schools which achieved better results at GCSE than the average for all-ability comprehensive schools in 2002. [87830]

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  England

  150

  70

  120

  240

  410

  South East

  80

  30

  80

  200

  300

  East Sussex local education authority

  90

  30

  90

  240

  330

  notes:

  1. Figures reflect all revenue grants relevant to pupils aged four to 19, in DfES's Departmental Expenditure Limits (excluding EMA and other grants where it is not possible to get figures on a comparable basis over time).

  2. The pupil numbers used are the maintained pupils underlying the SSA settlement calculations.

  3. 1997–98 figure for East Sussex has been estimated, to take account of local government reorganisation.

  4. 1997–98 figures take account of approximately £500 million nationally in respect of the nursery voucher scheme which was transferred to SSA in 1998–99.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  Maintained Schools (Guidance)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance his Department has given to maintained schools regarding avoidance of political bias in the display of photographs of politicians in school buildings. [87463]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Understanding our system of government is an important part of citizenship education, which became a part of the statutory National Curriculum for 11 to 16-year-olds in September 2002. It is for teachers to decide on the most appropriate materials, including visual aids, to encourage teaching and learning in the classroom. Teachers are aware of potential political problems and are professional in their approach. There are safeguards in law to guard against biased teaching. LEAs and schools must take reasonable steps to ensure that where political or controversial issues are covered, teachers offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views. The law on this is contained in sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (b) by Ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87357]
  832W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The information requested will not be available until the secondary school performance tables are published early in 2003. A copy of the analyses will be included in the House of Commons Library when the data are available.

  Government Grants
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average amount of central Government grant was per pupil in education in(a) England, (b) the South East, (c) East Sussex and (d) Eastbourne, in each of the last five years. [87591]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the Department's total recurrent grant per pupil allocated in England, the South East and East Sussex local education authority for the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02. It is not possible to identify separately the amounts for individual constituencies.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 608W.

  Plant Hire
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received about the CITB levy on the plant hire industry; and if he will make a statement. [87317]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In recent weeks I have received 153 representations from a total of 25 companies about the CITB levy on the plant hire sector. I have agreed to consider whether there is a case for removing hire services from the scope of the CITB and am awaiting proposals from the sector.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much CITB levy was received from the plant hire industry in the last three years. [87318]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Companies declaring their main activity to be "plant hire or repair" paid the following amounts of levy in the last three years:

  2000: £2,043,462

  2001: £2,364,100

  2002: £2,973,690

  Postcode Premium
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the future of the postcode premium in funding higher education institutions. [87230]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Higher Education Funding Council for England has been reviewing the level and method of distributing funding for widening participation. We favour funding indicators more closely related to the extra costs to institutions of recruiting and supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds. The income of their parents, whether they are first in their family to attend university and whether they attend schools with no tradition of sending large numbers to university, seem more appropriate indicators. The funding answer will take this matter forward.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is per year of educating an excluded child in a pupil referral unit. [86876]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: The Department has no analysis of how much cost is incurred in educating an excluded pupil at a pupil referral unit (PRU). This is due to the wide variance in provision that any particular excluded pupil would require from a PRU, as well as other factors such as the location of the PRU and the funding structure of the local education authority.

  Funding for PRUs is contained in the Social Inclusion: Pupil Support (SIPS) grant. This grant (£176 million in 2002–03) is designed to tackle bad behaviour in schools and to provide education for pupils outside mainstream schools. PRUs can also be funded from other sources and there is therefore no measure of costs for a PRU.

  There are currently 371 PRUs open in England.

  School Funding (Kent)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of schools funding per pupil was in(a) Kent and (b) Medway in each year since 1996; what the predicted spending for the next three years will be in each case; and what the capital investment was each year since 1996. [87728]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show the Department's total education standard spending assessment, recurrent and capital grant per pupil allocated to Kent and Medway local education authorities for the financial years 1998–99 to 2002–03. The local government reorganisation means that data for 1996–97 and 1997–98 does not conform to current boundaries so comparable figures are not available.

  Kent local education authority

  £

  SSA

  Recurrent grant

  Capital grant

  1998–99

  2,610

  20

  110

  1999–2000

  2,710

  70

  110

  2000–01

  2,830

  200

  300

  834W

  Kent local education authority

  £

  SSA

  Recurrent grant

  Capital grant

  2001–02

  2,970

  290

  290

  2002–03

  3,150

  320

  350

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect education SSA settlement figures (all sub-blocks, excluding, where relevant, the funding for 4-year-olds at private, voluntary and independent institutions) plus all revenue grants in DfES's departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged 4–19 (excluding EMA and other grants where it is not possible to get figures on a comparable basis over time).

  2. The pupil numbers used are the maintained pupils underlying the SSA settlement calculations.

  3. 2002–03 SSA figures include an element for LSC allocations in respect of school sixth forms.

  4. 2002–03 figures are provisional.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  Medway local education authority

  £

  SSA

  Recurrent grant

  Capital grant

  1998–99

  2,580

  20

  120

  1999–2000

  2,670

  80

  130

  2000–01

  2,790

  200

  270

  2001–02

  2,930

  300

  290

  2002–03

  3,120

  320

  350

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect education SSA settlement figures (all sub-blocks, excluding, where relevant, the funding for 4-year-olds at private, voluntary and independent institutions) plus all revenue grants in DfES's departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged 4–19 (excluding EMA and other grants where it is not possible to get figures on a comparable basis over time).

  2. The pupil numbers used are the maintained pupils underlying the SSA settlement calculations.

  3. 2002–03 SSA figures include an element for LSC allocations in respect of school sixth forms.

  4. 2002–03 figures are provisional.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  As a result of our drive to give extra resources to the front line, there will be no increase in central Government spending per pupil but a national average increase of over £540 per pupil in our plans for local government spending over the next three years.

  It is not possible to set out now education formula spending shares (EFSS) for Kent and Medway for 2004–05 arid 2005–06: they will depend on pupil numbers and indicator data at January 2003 and 2004. However, we have provided Kent and Medway with figures for total education formula spending for 2004–05 and 2005–06, together with forward projections at national level of pupil numbers for those years. We have also said that there will be minimum and maximum increases for authorities as we introduce the new LEA funding system. Indicator data will be averaged over three years to provide further stability and predictability in future formula spending shares. Kent and Medway will be able to use this data—together with local knowledge about pupil numbers and indicators—to form a good estimate of what their EFSS might be in those years. That will in turn allow them to provide schools with indicative budgets for the next three years.

  School Security
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what measures he is taking to improve security arrangements in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; [87805]

  (2) what grants are available to (a) primary and (b) secondary schools to improve on-site security arrangements. [87806]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has produced a range of guidance on school security, most recently the video "Can You See What They See?". Advice is also available on the school security website www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity.

  In 2002–03 funding of £10 million was provided to local education authorities from the capital modernisation fund for school security projects. This was allocated on a formula basis for their maintained schools, and it is for them to decide how best to use the funding to improve security in both primary and secondary schools.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much he estimates introduction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 will cost in respect of(a) staff training costs. (b) other recurrent costs and (c) capital costs over the quinquennium from September 2002, broken down by local education authority. [87116]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Local education authorities (LEAs) and schools are able to use record increases in funding for education made available by the Government, of £12.8 billion between 2002–03 and 2005–06 (of which £2.7 billion is capital) to implement their duties under the SEN and Disability Act 2001.

  Increases in the SEN Standards Fund and the Schools Access Initiative have provided specific sources of extra funding for local education authorities and schools to meet the requirements to include pupils with special educational needs and disabilities within schools and to establish local parent partnership and disagreement resolution services.

  In 2002–03 a total of £91 million was made available to LEAs and schools to support the needs of pupils with SEN and disabilities and vulnerable children from the Standards Fund and in 2003–04 will remain at this record level. Eligible expenditure from the fund includes training and between 1999 and 2002 the fund has been used to establish parent partnership services, which are now statutory services.

  Substantial funding has been provided, and continues to be provided under the schools access initiative to improve access for disabled children which is standing at £70 million this year and will increase again to £100 million from 2003–04 for the next three years.

  Specialist College Status
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will abolish the financial threshold for schools bidding for specialist college status. [87654]
  836W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Department will not be abolishing the sponsorship requirement for schools applying for specialist school status.

  Raising sponsorship is a key aspect of the Specialist Schools Programme. The main rationale behind it is the need for specialist schools to build partnerships with sponsors and the local community. As a task, raising sponsorship links into the enterprising ethos that is integral to the programme as a whole and it serves as a forum for the school's public presentation of its plans for specialist designation.

  The Department has already done much to help schools which are having difficulties raising the necessary sponsorship. We grant-aid the Technology Colleges Trust and the Youth Sport Trust, which advise schools on raising sponsorship. The Trusts are often able to help schools with money donated centrally, on the basis of criteria set out by sponsors.

  In 1999 we reduced the sponsorship requirement to £50,000, and in May this year we reduced the amount of sponsorship required by small mainstream schools (defined as those with under 500 pupils on roll) to £100 per pupil, subject to a minimum of £20,000, rising to £50,000 for a school with 500 pupils.

  In November the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the creation of a Partnership Fund. The Fund, which will contain £3 million in 2003–04, is designed specifically to help schools which have had serious difficulties meeting the £50,000 sponsorship requirement. The Department is in the process of developing criteria for the allocation of the fund, which will be managed by the Technology Colleges Trust. The criteria will be based around evidence that the school has made a real effort to raise sponsorship and has created valuable links with businesses.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for his Department(a) those comprehensive spending review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the comprehensive spending review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87693]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Department publishes progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its annual departmental report and autumn performance report. Progress against our CSR 98 targets was reported most recently in the 2002 autumn report, published in November, together with commentary where appropriate. A copy of the report is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Statemented Children
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children with statements have a transition plan. [85316]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition Appeals
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categories of representation may properly be considered in extradition appeals. [87633]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Extradition Act 1989 contains a number of statutory safeguards against surrender of which a fugitive can seek to avail himself before the courts. If no legal challenge is made, or if any that are made are unsuccessful, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide, in the exercise of residual discretion, whether to order surrender. In so deciding, he has regard

  Persons aged under 18 convicted at all courts of offences of arson, England and Wales 1992–2001, by police force area

  Police force area

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon and Somerset

  8

  9

  13

  8

  8

  4

  4

  5

  9

  8

  Bedfordshire

  5

  9

  2

  —

  2

  3

  2

  2

  8

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  8

  5

  2

  3

  5

  4

  3

  7

  7

  Cheshire

  6

  8

  19

  15

  10

  13

  10

  16

  7

  8

  Cleveland

  8

  8

  6

  8

  7

  8

  5

  3

  4

  11

  Cumbria

  8

  6

  2

  3

  5

  5

  5

  16

  13

  12

  Derbyshire

  12

  21

  8

  14

  11

  6

  11

  6

  9

  13

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  4

  12

  11

  14

  13

  8

  13

  15

  14

  Dorset

  5

  4

  8

  9

  10

  —

  4

  5

  9

  9

  Durham

  21

  15

  23

  11

  12

  26

  14

  14

  16

  18

  Essex

  12

  11

  13

  16

  14

  13

  24

  11

  9

  19

  Gloucestershire

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  5

  7

  4

  7

  3

  Greater Manchester

  10

  25

  23

  18

  18

  15

  12

  34

  47

  35

  Hampshire

  6

  6

  17

  24

  11

  9

  15

  23

  23

  29

  Hertfordshire

  5

  7

  4

  10

  10

  5

  4

  4

  10

  6

  Humberside

  20

  14

  21

  28

  19

  7

  10

  5

  15

  16

  Kent

  7

  2

  9

  5

  9

  12

  8

  23

  11

  12

  Lancashire

  9

  9

  22

  15

  16

  20

  15

  13

  34

  25

  Leicestershire

  4

  7

  11

  22

  8

  17

  22

  22

  14

  9

  Lincolnshire

  5

  6

  8

  5

  2

  5

  9

  8

  7

  9

  London, City of

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  5

  10

  10

  11

  8

  8

  12

  12

  10

  16

  Metropolitan Police

  19

  11

  15

  14

  7

  15

  17

  19

  31

  17

  Norfolk

  5

  8

  4

  9

  3

  5

  3

  3

  6

  6

  Northamptonshire

  5

  3

  8

  4

  7

  2

  1

  6

  6

  3

  Northumbria

  27

  26

  31

  24

  26

  16

  15

  26

  23

  30

  North Yorkshire

  4

  5

  8

  4

  5

  1

  6

  3

  6

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  21

  17

  21

  23

  15

  15

  16

  27

  17

  29

  South Yorkshire

  11

  6

  12

  9

  15

  26

  14

  25

  25

  14

  Staffordshire1

  14

  9

  23

  15

  8

  13

  10

  12

  *

  19

  Suffolk

  2

  5

  11

  1

  5

  5

  7

  6

  10

  10

  Surrey

  4

  4

  1

  4

  2

  4

  2

  9

  5

  5

  Sussex

  6

  10

  4

  4

  5

  9

  5

  8

  8

  13

  Thames Valley

  9

  5

  9

  22

  18

  3

  11

  8

  25

  14

  Warwickshire

  8

  2

  1

  4

  2

  4

  2

  1

  3

  West Mercia

  17

  10

  11

  7

  6

  6

  4

  20

  14

  14

  West Midlands

  28

  25

  31

  30

  16

  30

  22

  33

  27

  35

  West Yorkshire

  28

  32

  36

  20

  22

  48

  37

  33

  39

  41

  Wiltshire

  6

  8

  6

  3

  7

  6

  7

  5

  14

  7

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  4

  5

  3

  10

  8

  7

  5

  9

  2

  Gwent

  7

  5

  17

  6

  9

  59

  11

  10

  14

  11

  North Wales

  8

  4

  11

  10

  2

  5

  4

  4

  2

  10

  South Wales

  12

  7

  14

  12

  20

  21

  24

  16

  20

  25

  England and Wales

  406

  404

  517

  462

  411

  498

  432

  522

  586

  601

  1 Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for persons convicted in the magistrates' courts in 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of in-country
  838W
  to all the circumstances of the case and to any grounds for concluding that it would be unjust or oppressive to order surrender. As part of that consideration, the fugitive has an opportunity to make such representations against surrender as he would wish to be taken into account.

  Arson
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many under-18 year olds were convicted of arson in each year since 1992, broken down by constabulary. [86496]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  asylum applicants made their claim within (a) three days, (b) seven days, (c) 14 days, (d) 28 days and (e) 56 days of arrival in the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [87916]
  839W
  Beverley Hughes
  The length of time between the arrival of in-country asylum applicants in the UK and when they lodge their application for asylum is not available. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the hon. Member for Woking's letters of 18 September, 24 October and 14 November concerning a constituent, Mr. Raja Munir, and his application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK; [85031]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 3 December. concerning Mr. Raja Munir, Ref 85031, by what date he expects to reply to the hon. Member for Woking's letters. [86892]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: My noble Friend Lord Filkin wrote to the hon. Member on 16 December 2002. I apologise for the considerable delay in replying.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department intends to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Manchester Central of(a) 3 May, regarding Mr.LB, reference P010343/2, (b) 18 June, regarding Mrs.LE, reference P012404/2, (c) 19 June, regarding Ms MB, reference P012510/2, (d) 25 June, regarding Ms MG, reference P013216/2, (e) 26 June, regarding Ms SR, reference P013449/2, (f) 10 July, regarding Mrs.TK, reference P014227/2, (g) 11 July, regarding Ms CL, reference P014427/2, (h) 6 August, regarding Ms MM, reference P016718/2, (i) 16 August, regarding Mr.AD, reference P017226/2, (j) 12 September, regarding Mr.AHA, reference P018834/2, (k) 17 September, regarding Mr.MAM, reference P019319/2 and (l) 18 September, regarding Mrs.DAH, reference P019223/2. [85240]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]:

  (a) PO 10343/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2002.

  (b) PO 12404/2: I apologise for the considerable delay in replying to this letter. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety wrote to my hon. Friend on 4 December 2002.

  (c) PO 12510/2: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  (d) PO 13216/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2002.

  (e) PO 13449/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2002.

  (f) PO 14227/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2002.

  (g) PO 14427/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2002.

  (h) PO 16718/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 3 December 2002.

  (i) PO 17226/2: My noble Friend Lord Filkin wrote to my hon. Friend on 27 December 2002.
  840W
  (j) PO 18834/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2002.

  (k) PO 19319/2: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 8 October 2002.

  (l) PO 19223/2: I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly. The Entry Clearance Officer in Jeddah was authorised by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on 25 October to issue a visa in this case.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 14 August, 11 September, 7 November and 5 December relating to her constituent, Mr. Mohamed Mady. [87006]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 17 December 2002.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the mean delay for checks on volunteers was under the old system of police checks in the last 12 months of its operation; and what the mean delay for such checks has been in relation to volunteers under the new arrangements instituted by the Criminal Records Bureau in the last 12 months. [83900]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: Information is not available in the form requested. Under the previous arrangements some volunteers were subject to police checks via local authorities and other organisations but separate statistics were not collected. A number of voluntary organisations accessed police checks through a body called the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Service (VOCS), covering both volunteers and paid employees. Their last annual report covering the financial year 2001–2002 showed that they processed 13,535 police checks for voluntary organisations of which 6,595 were for paid employees and 6,940 were for volunteers. The average time for responses from the police was 30 days. VOCS' own handling time was additional.

  As to the current arrangements, no distinction is made in relation to the profession or status of an applicant. As a result, the IT system is not able at present to extract this data from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database (although it is expected to be able to do so in future when the system is updated). They are all subject to the same level of service. However, access to checks by the voluntary sector has been greatly increased with the advent of the CRB and many more volunteers are now subject to such checks.

  The average turnaround time for processing applications remains at about six weeks.

  This is measured from the point at which a correctly completed application form is received by the CRB, accompanied by all pertinent supporting details, to issuing a Disclosure.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation has been paid by Capita to the Government under the terms of the contract relating to the Criminal Records Bureaux. [86720]
  841W
  Hilary Benn
  There is provision under the terms of the contract between Capita and the Home Office for penalties for delay or poor performance. Capita has incurred liquidated damages for delay although the details remain commercial in confidence and cannot be divulged. The main priority is for the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita to collaborate in order to achieve further improvement in the quality of service.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is in place to support drug addicts on their release from prison; what information is passed to drug treatment agencies when a drug addict is released into their home community; and if drug addicts are tracked on release from prison to facilitate treatment. [87835]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: All prisons have a Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare service (CARAT), which seeks to put in place care plans for prisoners, which should identify need for throughcare on release. Prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less can receive support from CARATs. Prior to release, CARATs will warn of the dangers associated with loss of tolerance in prison and will try to establish a link with a community drug service. When this is not achieved, CARATs will provide a degree of support, where practical, for up to eight weeks after release.

  Prisoners serving sentences in excess of 12 months are routinely subject to supervision by the National Probation Service. CARAT workers will advise a supervising probation officer of any continuing, post-release drug treatment needs and will request the establishment of a link with a community drug agency. A prisoner's progress will be monitored until the expiry of the supervision period.

  As outlined in the Government's updated Drug Strategy 2002, published on 3 December 2002, the Home Office, alongside the National Treatment Agency, the National Probation Directorate and the Prison Service is working to improve the availability and quality of community support for ex-prisoners with drug problems and to ensure that an effective infrastructure is in place to bridge the gap between prison and community.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the number of drug addicts in(a) Hampshire and (b) England in each year since 1997. [87841]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Estimating numbers of drug addicts is very difficult and figures are not available for Hampshire or England for the years requested. The latest estimates for the number of Class A problem drug users in England and Wales range from 281,125 to 506,025. The first of these figures is closest to previously reported estimates. These figures come from a Home Office study entitled: "The Economic and Social Costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2000". Copies of this publication will be placed in the Library.
  842W
  Local figures are only available for those people with drug problems who have recently started drugs treatment. The most recent figures cover from 1 October 2000 to 31 March 2001. These show that for Portsmouth and South East Hampshire, Southampton and South West Hampshire health authorities a total of 501 people had entered treatment. Data are not available for the years requested.

  Female Convictions
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been convicted for(a) violent and (b) non-violent offences in each of the last five years. [86641]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Women convicted of violent and other offences in England and Wales 1997 to 2001

  Violent offences1

  Other offences

  1997

  3,829

  213,308

  1998

  4,234

  231,344

  1999

  4,073

  215,907

  2000

  4,214

  251,804

  2001

  4,111

  233,511

  1 Violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery

  Long Lartin (Tree Preservation Orders)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers his Department has to ignore tree preservation orders imposed by Wychavon district council on trees on land adjacent to Long Lartin prison; and if he will make a statement. [86917]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: With the exception of one tree which is in a dangerous condition, the Prison Service has no plans to remove trees on land adjacent to Heir Majesty's Prison Long Lartin for which planning applications have recently been submitted.

  Paul Burrell/Harold Brown
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of the police investigations relating to(a) Paul Burrell and (b) Harold Brown; and if he will make a statement. [86186]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the cost of the police investigations relating to both (a) Paul Burrell and (b) Harold Brown was, in total, approximately £310,000,00. It is not possible to distinguish separately the costs for each investigation.

  Prisoner Age (Wymott and Garth Prisons)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates are held in(a) Garth and (b) Wymott Prisons; and how many are over the age of (i) 65, (ii) 70, (iii) 75 and (iv) 80. [87027]

  Hilary Benn
  On 31 October 2002 (the latest data available) there were 652 persons held in Garth prison. Of these five were over the age of 65, one was over the age of 70, and there were none over the age of 75.
  843W
  On the same date there were 821 persons held in Wymott prison. Of these 28 were over the age of 65, nine were over the age of 70, three were over the age of 75 and one was over 80 years old.

  Prisons
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the number of suicides in prison. [87475]

  Hilary Benn
  The general prison population contains a large number of prisoners with a combination of psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug dependency, family background and relationship problems, histories of self-harm and previous abuse, all of which raise their risk of suicide. Good care and support from staff saves many lives but such instances go largely unreported. The current operating environment is very challenging because an increased prisoner population and movement of prisoners puts a strain on resources and makes it harder to prevent suicides. The Prison Service's approach, in close partnership with outside organisations such as Samaritans, better identify and support those who seem at greatest risk with an approach that focuses on relationships, processes and the physical environment.

  The Prison Service's suicide prevention and self-harm reduction programme includes a series of inter-related projects to improve pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements; inter-agency information exchange; prisoner care; detoxification; prisoner peer support, and the learning from investigations into deaths in custody.

  Piloting of these projects is focused on six establishments—Wandsworth, Feltham, Eastwood Park, Leeds, Winchester and Birmingham—although others are involved in aspects of the work. An investment of £21.69 million over the three year programme from April 2001 is allowing physical improvements to be made at these six sites, for example to reception and induction areas, and through the installation of more first night centres, safer cells, crisis suites and gated cells that enable staff to watch at-risk prisoners closely. The programme will be subject to an independent quantitative and qualitative evaluation. No resources have at present been allocated to work beyond April 2004.

  Thirty full-time suicide prevention co-ordinators (SPCs) were trained and located in the most high risk establishments, and a further 99 mostly part-time SPCs are now operating across the estate. There has been a continuing increase in the numbers of prisoner "Listeners" being recruited in high-risk establishments,

  Reparation orders, final warnings, action plan orders and parenting orders made between October 1998 and 30 September 20021

  October 1998–March 20002

  April–June 20003

  July–September 2000

  October–December 2000

  January–March 2001

  April–June 2001

  Reparation order

  1,270

  605

  1,800

  1,802

  2,077

  2,196

  Final warnings

  3,504

  4,434

  7,274

  7,332

  7,095

  7,657

  Action plan order

  841

  619

  2,027

  2,236

  2,497

  2,388

  Parenting order

  284

  144

  302

  278

  255

  278

  Total

  5,899

  5,802

  11,403

  11,648

  11,924

  12,519

  844W
  with 608 new Listeners recruited within these establishments between 1 October 2001 and 31 March 2002 alone, and further recruitment and training taking place.

  Concurrently, new health care screening procedures have been piloted at 10 establishments and are to be rolled out across the estate. Wing staff will be increasingly supported in their work by in-reach mental health teams and by the establishment where possible of dedicated drug detoxification units.

  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the period from 28 September 2001 to 27 September 2002, how many inmates of(a) HMP North Sea Camp, (b) HMP Leyhill, (c) HMP Stanford Hill and (d) HMP Kirkham were transferred to closed conditions for breach of the conditions of their community visit or facilities licences; how many of those inmates were subsequently charged with an offence against discipline under Prison Rule 51 Paragraph 8 in connection with the breach and what the licence conditions were that were breached in each case; how many inmates were not charged with an offence under Prison Rule 51 Paragraph 8, but were nevertheless transferred because they were deemed to have behaved inappropriately while on temporary release; what the nature of the inappropriate behaviour was in each case; what conditions of his community visit or facility licence Lord Archer was held to have breached that resulted in his transfer from HMP North Sea Camp to HMP Lincoln on 27 September; and whether he was charged with an offence against discipline in respect of those breaches. [87646]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not held centrally and I shall write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Punishment Orders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times(a) reparation orders, (b) final warnings, (c) action plan orders, (d) preventing orders and (e) court ordered secure remands have been issued in each month since their introduction. [86177]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The number of reparation orders, final warnings, action plan orders, parenting orders and court ordered secure remands are set out in the tables. The Youth Justice Board has provided the data from April 2000 onwards from returns provided by Youth Offending Teams.

  As there is no intervention called a preventing order, we have assumed that the information requested is for parenting orders.
  845W

  July–September 2001

  October–December 2001

  January–March 2002

  April–June 2002

  July–September 2002

  Total

  Reparation order

  1,947

  1,988

  2,493

  1,367

  823

  18,368

  Final warnings

  6,994

  6,660

  6,950

  7,040

  5,708

  70,648

  Action plan order

  2,214

  2,191

  2,682

  1,596

  1,153

  20,444

  Parenting order

  263

  270

  406

  239

  402

  3,121

  Total

  11,418

  11,109

  12,531

  10,242

  8,086

  112,581

  1 Data for reparation orders, final warnings, action plan orders and parenting orders include the period of the youth justice pilots, from October 1998 to March 2000, as well as national operation from then until the third quarter of 2002.

  2 Data for youth justice pilots only available as totals. The police final warning scheme, parenting orders, reparation order, and action plan order were piloted in selected areas across England and Wales between October 1998 and March 2000.

  3 Data for national operation since the youth justice pilots ended has been collected by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) based on returns from Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). These data are only available on a quarterly basis and the figures are provisional as they as based on YOT returns.

  Court ordered secure remands made between 1 June 1999–30 November 20021

  Number

  June 1999

  73

  July 1999

  79

  August 1999

  94

  September 1999

  111

  October 1999

  131

  November 1999

  139

  December 1999

  103

  January 2000

  110

  February 2000

  140

  March 2000

  131

  April 2000

  578

  May 2000

  52

  June 2000

  70

  July 2000

  58

  August 2000

  60

  September 2000

  45

  October 2000

  64

  November 2000

  44

  December 2000

  46

  January 2001

  71

  February 2001

  53

  March 2001

  51

  April 2001

  69

  May 2001

  71

  June 2001

  65

  July 2001

  102

  August 2001

  103

  September 2001

  94

  October 2001

  143

  November 2001

  142

  December 2001

  88

  January 2002

  136

  February 2002

  139

  March 2002

  151

  April 2002

  168

  May 2002

  201

  June 2002

  143

  July 2002

  194

  August 2002

  181

  September 2002

  205

  October 2002

  186

  November 2002

  181

  Total

  4,565

  1 Data for court ordered secure remands based on monthly returns collected by the Home Office between 1 June 1999 to April 2000. From April 2000, the YJB assumed responsibility for commissioning and purchasing secure remand places and they have provided the data from May 2000 to November 2002.

  2 Due to the transfer of secure remand responsibilities to the YJB from the Home Office during April 2000 only partial data are available for this month based on 60 per cent. of returns received from Local Authority Secure Units.

  Secure Units
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places in(a) local authority secure units, (b) young offender institutions and (c) secure training centres are planned in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04, and (iii) 2004–05. [85199]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Justice Board is responsible for purchasing an appropriate number of juvenile secure places from the providers. The number of places available in 2002–03 on 1 December 2002 and planned for 2003–04, subject to final decisions on allocation of funds following the Spending Review 2002 Settlement, are as follows.

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Local Authority Secure Units

  330

  330

  Young Offender Institutions

  3,066

  3,066

  Secure Training Centres

  170

  194

  Discussions are continuing between the Department and the Youth Justice Board about the provision of places in 2004–05.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to which bodies her Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87393]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 16 December 2002, by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on behalf of the Cabinet Office.

  Burundi
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what funding commitment was made by the United Kingdom at the November Geneva Round Table Donors' Meeting on Burundi; and what conditions were placed on the fulfilment of this commitment; [87145]
  847W
  (2) what funding commitment was made by the United Kingdom to Burundi at the Geneva Round Table Donors' Meeting of December 2001; what conditions were placed on the fulfilment of this commitment; and what proportion of this funding has been paid to date; [87147]

  (3) what funding commitment was made by the United Kingdom to Burundi at the Paris Donors Club Meeting of December 2000; what conditions were placed on the fulfilment of this commitment; and what proportion of this funding has been paid to date. [87146]

  Clare Short
  At the Paris Donors Roundtable Meeting in December 2000 we stated that although the UK would not become a substantial bilateral donor to Burundi we would play our part in support of others, particularly the multilateral agencies. We stated that we would continue our existing bilateral assistance (mainly humanitarian assistance, work with the media, HIV/AIDS prevention, and peace building). We said we would look favourably on making a contribution to the World Bank Multilateral Debt Trust Fund (MDTF). At the Geneva Round Table Meeting in December 2001 we pledged US$1 million to the MDTF. These funds were transferred earlier this year.

  At the recent Donors Round Table Meeting in Geneva, held on 27–28 November 2002, we agreed to consider an additional contribution of US$1 million to the MDTF.

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many civil servants are employed by her Department; and how much money was spent by her Department in the last 12 months in each local authority area. [87262]

  Clare Short
  On the number of civil servants, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer provided by my hon. Friend for the Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002.

  The question on local authority areas is not relevant to DFID as our work is focused overseas in developing countries.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects(a) funded and (b) supported by her Department have been engaged in providing assistance to the people of Kashmir during the past five years. [87455]

  Clare Short
  Over the past five years, my Department has given over £1.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to support their programmes in Jammu and Kashmir (J and K). We have given a number of grants to Save the Children Fund (SCF) to support their work, including £150,000 to provide food and non-food relief to conflict afflicted families, and £47,000 to help fund their continuing work with children and internally displaced people living in 848W
  camps and temporary accommodation. We have also helped fund a wide range of mostly small-scale NGO development projects in Kashmir, and through the Small Grants Scheme we have provided support for a maternity hospital in Anantnag.

  In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, we have funded a community education project in the Muzaffarabad district, and a basic health care project in the Neelum valley.

  During my recent visit to Delhi, I raised with the Government of India the prospect of DFID providing further support for development and conflict reduction in J and K. My officials are now taking this forward.

  Mauritania
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has given to deal with the food shortage in Mauritania. [87093]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: We have provided US$158,563 to World Food Programme (WFP) in 2002 for food assistance to Mauritania. A further emergency appeal from the WFP is expected shortly. This is expected to cover food shortage needs of five countries in the region, including Mauritania. We will be considering this appeal and are also considering a related proposal from Oxfam. Funding is also provided via the EC, of which DFID share around 19 per cent. In 2000 (the latest figures available) this amounted to approximately £7.8 million.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by her or her predecessor and (b) by ministers in her Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87352]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have notified the chairman of the NEPAD heads of state and Goverment Implementation Committee that they wish to participate in the African Peer Review Mechanism. [87214]

  Clare Short
  Algeria, Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda have signed the Declaration of Intent to accede to the African Peer Review Mechanism.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensioners (Portsmouth, South)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners within the Portsmouth, South constituency will benefit from the introduction of the pension tax credit in October 2003; and if he will make a statement. [85870]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of pension credit entitlement are not available at constituency level due to the insufficient sample cases in the survey data used. However, just under half of all pensioner households across Great Britain will be eligible for Pension Credit. Such information as is available relates to pensioners in the Portsmouth, South constituency receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and is as follows:
  As at August 2002, there were 3,200 MIG recipients in the Portsmouth, South constituency.

  Benefit Payments
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the process a customer will go through to ensure benefits are paid into(a) a new Post Office card account and (b) a bank account, when their DWP benefit book ends. [84290]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department is contacting customers and providing them with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to Direct Payment. Customers will then be able to consider the options available and choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances. They will be asked to provide details of their chosen account so that the Department can begin to pay their benefit or pensions by Direct Payment.

  Those who wish to use an existing account will simply need to provide their account details. DWP will issue a Personal Invitation Document (PID) to customers who choose to open a Post Office card account. This document is taken to a Post Office branch where the customer will be given a Post Office card account application form.

  Benefits
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to find the lost papers sent to his Department last July concerning the claim of Mrs Noreen Hooper of Brixham; and if he will make a statement. [81965]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of The Pension Service. As customers' personal details are confidential she will write to the hon. Member privately.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost of processing a CSA application has been in each year since its creation; and if he will make a statement on the results of the 850W
  operational readiness review conducted in September and October into the modernisation of payments programme. [83711]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Doug. Smith to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated December 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You ask what the average cost of processing a CSA application has been in each year since its creation and also, if the Secretary of State will make a statement on the results of the operational readiness review conducted in September and October into the .modernisation of payments programme.
  We do not have the average cost of processing a Child Support Agency application prior to 1999–2000. However, I have attached the details from that date to the present.

  £

  At 31 March

  Average cost per case

  2000

  77.65

  2001

  97.44

  2002

  84.48

  2002 (to October)

  90.28

  The cost per case has been calculated on the basis of the average number of staff employed on processing cases to assessment and the number of cases cleared in each of the years stated. The cost per case fluctuates due to corresponding changes in the quantity of cases cleared; the number of cases cleared changes in accordance with the Agency's operational priorities.
  The Payment Modernisation Programme has advised that the gated review process within the Department allows for a number of formal reviews. The Payment Modernisation Programme successfully navigated through the Operational Readiness Review gate during September and October. This enabled the Programme to commence the first phase in the move towards Direct Payment, including mailings sent to Veterans Agency customers from 7 October and Child Benefit customers from 28 October 2002.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what external audit he has commissioned of the Child Support Agency's new IT system. [85859]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from D. Smith to Mr. Mark Todd, dated December 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You ask what external audit he has commissioned of the Child Support Agency's new IT system.

  The new IT system is being built and will be operated, by EDS, a major IT service provider in the private sector. A number of reviews have been carried out over the life of the project designed to assure the Agency that the IT system will meet its requirements. These fall into three main areas:
  The Department's own Internal Assurance Service have carried out a number of audits on specific parts of the system.
  A technical review, focussed on the approach to development and testing, was carried out by an external organisation, in early 2001. The Department's own Technology Office have also continued to validate the on-going development following that initial technical review. In addition, there have also been a

  851W
  number of reviews of the wider programme, including the approach to developing the IT system carried out by external consultants.
  The Office for Government Commerce has carried out two project 'gateway' reviews. The first, in April 2001, concentrated on the development phase of the project and the second, in February 2002, on the-readiness for implementation, including the IT system. Each of these reviews highlighted the risk inherent in building and implementing a large complex IT system; but have confirmed that the Agency's risk management processes are effective.
  National Audit Office have been kept informed of the: development of the Agency's new IT system and have regular briefing sessions to keep them updated on the key issues at the various stages of development: Their staff receive copies of the high level strategies, other low level documents for information and copies of-the end of stage reviews and internal audit reports that have been carried out on specific areas of the Child Support Reform Programme that are delivering the reforms. Later this year they intend to produce a position statement building on the comments they made last year in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the CSA's complaints system and (b) the Independent Case Examiner's Annual Report 2001–02. [86534]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Archy Kirkwood dated 18 December 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying the your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on (a) the CSA's complaints system and (b) the Independent Case Examiner's Annual Report 2001–02.
  The Agency recognises that it needs to improve the handling of complaints and as a result conducted a detailed review of the complaints process. The recommendations from this review are being taken forward as part of the Child Support Reform programme. The key deliverable from this work is a standard process and organisation for handling client complaints. This will include:
  Dedicated complaints resolution teams.
  Clients, staff and stakeholders knowing how a complaint will be progressed whatever the client's location.
  Complaint resolution plans agreed with the client, which specify the actions and timescales to resolve the complaint.
  Senior Resolution Managers heading up a technical assurance team in each Business Unit. These teams deal with cases that cannot be resolved by the complaints resolution teams or have been referred to them by the Chief Executive or Area Director.
  Accepting, recording, tracking and resolving complaints over the telephone A new aftercare process to ensure that once a case is back on track, it remains so.
  A Centre of Excellence, to analyse and learn from complaints data.
  In 2001/02 the Child Support Agency has worked hard with the Independent Case Examiner to reduce the backlog of outstanding complaints. Advice on how the Agency might best improve the way it handles complaints has proved invaluable.
  Using this information the Agency has made some significant steps forward in improving its service to our clients including:
  Restructuring the front end of its business to provide an end-toend service for new clients, and on each team have a dedicated specialist complaints handler Creating new IT support for debt management, appointed new bailiffs improve efficiency and reduce the complaints about lack of activity in this area
  852W
  These improvements are a part of the comprehensive modernisation programme in which the Agency is engaged and against that background we will continue to work closely with the Independent Case Examiner to significantly reduce the number of complaints referred to her office where she finds that the Agency has not done enough either to apologise, to offer compensation and redress or to resolve the position for the future.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost was of processing a Child Support Agency application in each year since the CSA was created. [86703]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. Smith to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated December 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You ask what the average cost was of processing a Child Support Agency application in each year since the Child Support Agency was created.
  I refer you to my previous answer to parliamentary question (ref no. 83711) which states:
  'We do not have the average cost of processing a Child Support Agency application prior to 1999/00 however, I have attached the details from that date to the present.

  At 31st March

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2002(to Oct)

  Average cost per case (£)

  77.65

  97.44

  84.48

  90.28

  The cost per case has been calculated on the basis of the average number of staff employed on processing cases to assessment and the number of cases cleared in each of the years stated'.

  CSA
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what percentage of CSA cases where the resident parent is(a) a private client and (b) not a private client, (i) the non-resident parent paying regular child maintenance and (ii) the identity and contact details of the non-resident parent are known to the agency. [81955]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated November 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask in what percentage of Child Support Agency cases where the resident parent is (a) a private client and (b) not a private client (i) the non-resident parent paying regular child maintenance and (ii) the identity-and contact details of the nonresident parent are known to the Agency.
  84% of private clients and 74.8% of non private clients are, where amounts are due to be paid. in receipt of child maintenance payments. Unfortunately, we do not collect details of the number of non-resident parents where we have contact details.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether a claim for Disability Living Allowance in respect of ME may be classified as relating to mental illness. [87128]

  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance depends on the effects that severe physical or mental disability has on a person's need for personal care and/or their ability to walk, and not on particular disabilities or diagnoses. The benefit is available to people with myalgic encephalomyelitis (which can have a physical basis or a psychological basis, or can be due to a combination of factors) on exactly the same terms as other severely disabled people, and they can qualify for it provided that they meet the usual entitlement conditions.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of extending entitlement to the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to the over-65s. [87750]

  Maria Eagle
  Up to date estimates are not available. However, information from the 1996–97 Disability Survey suggested that the annual cost of extending entitlement to the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to people who claim after the age of 65 would be in the region of £2.7 billion1.

  1 Costs is rounded to nearest 100 million and subject to a significant margin of error reflecting underlying uncertainties of modelling entitlement from available survey data. Cost includes effects on income related benefits.

  Disabled People (Opportunities)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are in place to(a) encourage employers to increase the opportunities offered to disabled people and (b) challenge people to donate time to charitable and community projects in the European Year of Disabled People. [86867]

  Maria Eagle
  Jobcentre Plus will continue to operate a number of measures involving employers during the European Year of Disabled People. Programmes such as WORKSTEP, Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation will identify job opportunities and help disabled people into work.

  We have launched a project fund of £2.3 million to enable a wide range of disability organisations to undertake community projects across the country. We are sponsoring more than 170 projects.

  In addition we are using the National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for the European Year to encourage participation among its membership organisations. These include the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, and a range of organisations representing disabled people.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many inspections have been undertaken in North Staffordshire to measure compliance with the requirement for companies to have current employers liability insurance. [84048]
  854W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are not able to break down information specifically for North Staffordshire. Information available covers the Marches area, which comprises Shropshire and Staffordshire.

  During the period 1 April 2002 to 30 September 2002 HSE recorded a total of 117 contacts with companies where Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) was covered in the Marches area. These contacts were achieved by a combination of visits and phone calls.

  The display of a valid certificate for employers liability insurance is one of a number of issues covered by HSE Inspectors and Workplace Contact Officers. There were four occasions in the Marches area during the period April to September 2002, where a valid certificate of employer's liability could not be produced. In each case HSE made a statutory request (Notice to Produce') for its production. All four companies complied with the request within the stated period.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what timetable has been established for the review of employers' liability insurance. [87481]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, columns 23–24WS.

  Hand-written Medical Reports
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many hand-written medical reports in relation to(a) Attendance Allowance, (b) Disability Living Allowance and (c) Incapacity Benefit were prepared by doctors employed by Medical Services or its predecessors, in the five years to October 2001; how many of these reports were completed by a person other than the relevant doctor; how many completed by someone other than the relevant doctor were the subject of disability appeal tribunal hearings; in how many of the cases, which were the subject of appeal, the original decision was altered on the basis of medical evidence; and how many claimants sought and received copies of the hand-written medical reports. [86118]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the period 1 September 1998 to 31 October 2001 790,023 Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance reports and 1,450,554 Incapacity Benefit reports were completed. No records are kept of the number of reports completed before the contract for Medical Service was let in September 1998.

  All reports were provided by approved doctors and were hand written. In July 2001 Medical Services were made aware of two reports which had been completed by another person, from contemporaneous notes made by the approved doctor, in the interests of better legibility. As a result, guidance was issued to all doctors that no report for Medical Services can be hand written by any person other than the relevant doctor.

  As the Department does not keep records of the information used by a decision maker in individual cases it is not possible to identify the number of appeals related to reports completed by someone other than the

  855W
  relevant doctor. Neither is it possible to identify cases where the original decision was altered on the basis of medical evidence.

  The Department does not keep records of requests made for copies of medical reports.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his officials have met the Social Security Advisory Committee to discuss the regulations concerning housing benefit reform; and whether the Committee has requested the referral of the regulations. [83870]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are fully committed to involving the Social Security Advisory Committee in the drafting of new regulations supporting Housing Benefit reform.

  Officials have met the Committee to provide an initial introduction to Housing Benefit reform, and draft regulations will be presented to the Committee early in the new year. The Committee will then decide whether they wish the regulations to be referred formally.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have had income from a private pension or permanent health insurance taken into account for the purposes of calculating their incapacity benefit claiming and what the average reduction in benefit has been for people affected in this way. [86717]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Incapacity Benefit (IB) exists to provide a measure of earnings replacement for people of working age who are incapable of work. Where a person is duplicating this provision, the law provides for this to be taken into account. If a person claiming IB receives an occupational pension, personal pension or payments through a permanent health insurance scheme of £85 per week or more, their IB is reduced by half the amount which exceeds £85. Only people making claims from 6 April 2001 are affected by the new rules.

  As of 31 August 2002, 17,500 people have had their IB reduced under these rules with an average reduction of £33.18.

  Notes:

  1. Number of people who have had their benefit reduced is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Source:

  5 per cent. samples of the Incapacity Benefit computer system, which exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Number of schemes notifying the Pensions Schemes Registry (PSR) they are commencing wind up

  Number of members in schemes notifying PSR they are commencing wind up

  Number of schemes notifying PSR they are commencing wind up and are still in the process

  Number of members in schemes notifying PSR they are commencing wind up and still in the process

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  7,334

  321,254

  84

  10,271

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  6,530

  322,699

  113

  2,309

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  6,003

  321,991

  4,287

  101,236

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  5,304

  316,205

  1,903

  74,403

  1 April 2001–31 March 2002

  4,651

  301,646

  2,206

  73,038

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which postcode areas Jobcentre Plus regulations are in force and in which particularly mandatory interviews for claimants in receipt of benefits other than Jobseekers Allowance apply. [86716]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Mandatory work-focused meetings were introduced from October 2001 in 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices and 39 work-focused interview sites. The postcode areas covered by these offices and sites are listed in a schedule to the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 (SI 3210).

  These regulations were revoked in June 2002 and have been superseded by the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2002 (S11703). These regulations do not include a schedule of postcodes, but allow for the gradual rollout of the new Jobcentre Plus service. The offices that have been rolled out under these regulations, and the postcodes that they cover, are in the table.

  Office

  Postcodes covered

  Bridgnorth

  DY7 5DR, DY7 5DS, DY7 5ER, DY7 5EU, DY7 5LF, DY7 5LJ, DYI2 1SU, ST19 9AP, TF11 8, TF11 9, TF12 5, TF13 6, WR15 8, WV5 7, WV6 7, WV7 3, WV8 1, WV15 5, WV15 6, WV16 4, WV16 5, WV16 6

  Cheetham

  M7 4DU, M7 4YG, M7 4YB, M7 4YT, M7 4YE, M7 4YH, M7 8YS, M7 4QA, M8, M9

  Fraserburgh

  AB 43

  Kirkby St. Chads

  L9 0, L9 5, L9 8, LIO 0, LIO 1, L10 4. LIO 6, LIO 8, L32, L33

  Nelson

  BB9

  Plympton

  PL7, PL21

  Spen Valley

  WF13, WF14. WF15, WF16, BD4, BD11, BD12, BDI 9

  Note:

  Where a full postcode is not given the office covers the whole of the postal area shown

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensions scheme windups have there been in each of the past five years when the company has been(a) solvent and (b) insolvent; and how many members have been affected in each case. [86550]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information that is available is in the tables.

  There are different reasons why pension schemes are wound up. The schemes' sponsoring employer might, for example, become insolvent or the employer might decide to wind up one type of pension scheme in order to replace it with another type.
  857W

  year

  Number of schemes that completed winding up

  Number of members in schemes that completed winding up

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  23,953

  1,139,303

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  17,196

  899,679

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  12,045

  786,367

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  7,446

  427,509

  1 April 2001– 31 March 2002

  3,315

  196,841

  Notes:

  1. The information is based on data held by the Pension Schemes Registry (PSR). It includes all types of pension schemes. The PSR registers schemes for tracing purposes and to enable it to collect the levy from all those pension schemes required to pay it. The PSR was not designed to provide comprehensive statistical data on schemes winding up. However, the information held by the PSR is the most relevant material available.

  2. The PSR does not hold information about whether the sponsoring company of the pension scheme was solvent or insolvent, this information is not required for their purposes.

  3. There are no figures available for the period 1 April 2002 to date, due to a change in the Pension Registry's computer system. These figures will be available after March 2003.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Government remains committed to the commitment on page 103 of the 1998 Green Paper, Cm 4179, on increasing the proportion of pensioners' incomes that comes from the private sector. [86737]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State,Official Report, 17 December 2002, columns 694–710.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people he estimates will claim state pension in each of the next five years. [87520]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Number of men and women reaching state pension age between 2003 and 2007

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  2007

  Men aged 65

  275,000

  274,000

  271,000

  258,000

  274,000

  Women aged 60

  332,000

  343,000

  349,000

  355,000

  435,000

  Note:

  Figures are mid-year estimates of men aged 65 and women aged 60 in the UK, rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department 2001 based Population Projections.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners within the Harwich Constituency will benefit from the introduction of the pension tax credit in October 2003. [85252]
  858W
  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of pension credit entitlement are not available at individual constituency level due to the insufficient sample cases in the survey data used. However, just under half of all pensioner households across Great Britain will be eligible to Pension Credit. Such information as is available relates to pensioners in the Harwich constituency receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and is as follows:

  As at August 2002, there were 4,200 MIG recipients in the Harwich constituency.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Eastern region will benefit from the pensions tax credit. [85280]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: Estimates of pension credit entitlement are not available on a regional basis due to the insufficient sample cases in the survey data used. However, just under half of all pensioner households across Great Britain will be eligible for Pension Credit. Such information as is available relates to pensioners in the eastern region receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and is as follows:
  As at August 2002, there were 133,700 MIG recipients in the Eastern region.

  Skills Training Pilots
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how the skills training pilots in North Nottinghamshire and Leeds are being evaluated; how many participants there were; how many sanctions were imposed; and if he will make a statement; [86701]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce the skills training pilot throughout the United Kingdom. [86702]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Between September 2001 and April 2002 we piloted a number of approaches aimed at encouraging greater take up of basic skills provision by people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. These included testing different mechanisms to identify those with basic skills needs, and the use of financial incentives and/or benefit sanctions to encourage the take up of training.

  In North Nottinghamshire we piloted the use of benefit sanctions if a client refused an offer of training or left training early without good cause. In Leeds we combined the use of sanctions with financial incentives of £20 per week on top of their benefit for taking up training and £100 for achieving a basic skills qualification. In the two pilots, 1,623 clients had a possible basic skills need identified. Of these, 18 had sanctions applied, three because they failed to attend a basic skills assessment and 15 because they failed to attend training or left early without good cause.

  All the basic skills pilots are subject to an extensive, longitudinal evaluation study. This is looking at both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the pilots. The final evaluation report will be available in summer 2003. We will use the evidence from the evaluation to decide what changes we might make to help encourage more Jobcentre Plus clients to take up offers of help to improve their basic skills.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Mr. Liam Campbell and Mr. Michael McKevitt have been awarded legal aid in respect of civil charges due to be brought against them relating to the bomb attack in Omagh on 15 August 1998. [87059]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It would be inappropriate to comment on individual legal aid applications. The grant or refusal of civil legal aid is a matter for the Law Society of Northern Ireland, through its Legal Aid Committee.

  CAFCASS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations she has had with CAFCASS regarding(a) the ratification of its new standards and (b) the complaints procedure it may put in place. [87316]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  CAFCASS is a non-departmental public body and there is no requirement for my Department to ratify their national standards. CAFCASS's corporate plan for 2002–06, agreed with Ministers and published in February 2002, set out CAFCASS's commitment to develop national standards and a new complaints procedure for the service. CAFCASS consulted widely on their proposed national standards and complaints procedure. CAFCASS intend to implement both next year.

  Parental Responsibility
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the Government's policy is on the EU proposal for a Council Regulation on Mutual Recognition of Decisions on Parental Responsibility; if he will place a copy of the current text of the Proposal in the Library; and whether the current text will be detrimental to the effective operation of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction between EU member states. [87246]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government support the underlying aim of this proposal, namely to extend the principle of mutual recognition to all decisions on parental responsibility by establishing a clear and coherent set of rules for attributing jurisdiction, and putting in place arrangements for co-operation between the courts and central authorities of member states. Agreement was reached at a Council of Ministers meeting on 29 November, on revised provisions relating to child abduction. The Government support strongly these additional measures which will, for intra-EU cases, augment the 1980 Hague Convention without affecting its operation, and have met with approval in the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference. A copy of this agreement has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Transsexual People
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects full legal status to be granted to transsexual people; and if she will make a statement. [87784]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government is committed to legislating as soon as possible to give legal recognition to transsexual people in their acquired gender. I refer the hon. Member to the Ministerial Statement I gave on Monday 16 December 2002.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) when she expects to respond to the European Court of Justice ruling that discrimination against transsexuals is in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive; [87280]

  (2) what plans she has for ending discrimination against transsexuals. [87276]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the Ministerial Statement I made on Monday 16 December. This sets out our plans for giving transsexual people legal recognition in their acquired gender. Transsexual people are already protected from discrimination in employment and vocational training by the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, subject to limited exceptions. The Government are considering whether those exceptions should be modified in respect of transsexual people granted legal recognition in their acquired gender.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to provide sufficient affordable housing in the south-west. [86330]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has increased investment. The south-west will receive £74.3million for affordable housing through the Housing Corporation's ADP in 2003–04, up £12.5million on this year. And reforms to the planning process will make the system more responsive to the need for affordable housing. Housing market imbalances are a key consideration as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister develops a long-term programme of action for thriving communities—my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has promised to report back to the House on this in the new year.

  Comprehensive Performance Assessment
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) capacity support and (b) intervention will be available for under-performing authorities identified through the comprehensive performance assessment process. [86331]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government want the public to receive a continuously improving standard of services from local authorities. The Government will work with those authorities which are identified as poorly
  861W
  performing by the comprehensive performance assessment to ensure that they move swiftly to put an effective recovery plan in place.

  Decent Home Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in setting the decent home standards. [86332]

  Mr. McNulty
  The decent home standard was finalised in February and guidance on its implementation was issued in Mach.

  Firefighters' Training
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what disruption to the training of firefighters has been caused by the allocation of fire-fighting equipment from training facilities to the armed forces. [86333]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Some courses have had to be postponed at the Fire Service College at Moreton in Marsh due to the non-availability of appliances. The scope for re-arranging these courses will be reviewed in the new year in consultation with the fire brigades.

  Local fire authorities who have provided reserve training red engines, have reported no significant disruption to their training schedules.

  Local Authority Housing (Sheffield)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received since May concerning the future of local authority housing in Sheffield. [86334]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since May 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received representations from the Leader, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Executive of Sheffield city council, from Jean Gleadall, Chair of Sheffield Tenants and Residents Together, and from an individual tenant and from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam.

  Homelessness
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policies are for tackling homelessness. [86335]

  Mrs. Roche
  The March 2002 report, "More than a Roof", sets out our new approach to tackling homelessness. This includes stronger homelessness legislation, £125 million investment this year, and action to sustain reductions in rough sleeping and to ensure that homeless families with children are not forced to live in B&B hotels.

  "More than a roof' and the Government's response to it set out a challenging new approach to tackling homelessness. One that focuses as much on the problems homeless people face as the places they live.
  862W
  Specific measures include:
  £125 million investment to tackle homelessness (2002–03);
  a commitment that by March 2004 local authorities will ensure that no homeless family with children has to live in a B&B hotel, except in an emergency—and in these cases use should not be for longer than 6 weeks;
  changes to housing benefit rules worth around £10 million, to boost incentives for private sector leasing by local authorities. This change increases the housing benefit subsidy levels for self-contained private sector leasing which makes it more financially viable, especially when compared to B&B subsidy rates.

  Planning
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans to reform the planning system. [86336]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on 18 December 2002.

  New Towns
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with representatives of the New Towns since the Government's reply to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's report on the Future of the New Towns. [86337]

  Mr. McNulty
  Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been in touch with the New Town Special Interest Group to discuss the way forward in the context of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable communities agenda.

  Transport and Social Exclusion
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Social Exclusion Unit report, "Transport and Social Exclusion". [86338]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit published interim findings from its transport and social exclusion project on its website in May 2002. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  The Unit's final report, which builds on the interim report and examines the links between transport provision, the location of services, and social exclusion, will be published shortly.

  Council Housing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the provision of council housing. [86339]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to increase the provision of council housing.

  Increases in the supply of affordable housing are now delivered through Registered Social Landlords.

  Housing
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to further encourage development of housing on brown-field sites and through refurbishment. [86340]
  863W
  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, `Housing' gives priority to re-using previously-developed land within urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings in preference to the development of green-field sites. Planning policies are backed by a package of fiscal measures, including a 150 per cent. tax credit for cleaning up contaminated land, reductions in VAT to encourage conversions of existing property into dwellings and the re-use of long-term empty homes, and a tax allowance for flats over shops to encourage use of redundant space.

  British Standards (Compliance Costs)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has had regarding compliance costs relating to British Standard EN 54.4 and EN 54.2. [86341]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not received any recent representations about compliance costs relating to British Standard EN 54.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will introduce legislation to license landlords of houses in multiple occupation. [86342]

  Mr. McNulty
  As announced in the Queen's Speech, the Government intend to publish a draft Housing Bill this session. The Bill will, among other measures, include provisions to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation.

  Following consultation and scrutiny of the draft Bill, it is the Government's intention that it be introduced to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has made towards resolving the firefighters' dispute. [86343]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member for Vale of York to the answer given by my right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 18 December 2002,Official Report.

  Council Tax Banding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to review the council tax banding system. [86344]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government Bill currently before this House clarifies the power to vary the number of council tax bands. Ahead of the next English council tax revaluation in 2005, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to change the housing bands for council tax; how he estimates they will benefit poorer people; and if he will make a statement. [87372]
  864W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government Bill currently before Parliament clarifies the power to vary the number of council tax bands. Work on an English council tax revaluation will begin in 2005, with council tax bills based on updated property values issuing in 2007. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the concerns of people who live in low value houses about the current width of band A. Ahead of revaluation the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will decide on any changes to the banding structure nearer to the time of the revaluation.

  Local Authority Performance Measures
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will review the measures he uses to assess the performance of local authorities with reference to the initial experience of such measures. [86345]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services", charged the Audit Commission with developing and implementing the methodology for Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of local authorities in England. The Commission reported the CPA outcomes for county and unitary authorities last week. An assessment framework for district councils is currently being developed and trialed.

  Both the Audit Commission and the Government will wish to reflect on what has been learnt from CPA this year.

  High Performing Councils
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional freedoms and flexibilities he expects to be able to give to high performing councils. [86346]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For the very best authorities there will be no ring-fencing of funding (other than grants passed to schools); a three year 'inspection holiday'; removal of almost all requirements to produce plans and an opportunity to discuss with Government further freedoms through an Innovations Forum.

  South-east Regional Assembly
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received about the establishment of a regional assembly in the South East in the last 12 months. [86347]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Between 9 May 2002, when the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" was published, and 6 December 2002, we received 215 written or e-mailed responses to the White Paper which can be identified as having come from the South East. In addition we have received 2,333 cut-out coupons, in response to a campaign organised by Conservative MEPs in the South East, which express opposition to an elected assembly in the region.

  Electoral Pilot
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have applied to participate in the May 2003 electoral pilot programme; and which type of programme they have applied for, in each case. [87464]
  865W
  Mr. Leslie
  Sixty three applications to hold an electoral pilot scheme at the May 2003 local elections have been received. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich issued on 17 December 2002 a written statement which lists the 41 applications which have been accepted, relating to non e-voting pilot schemes.

  A further 20 applications were submitted by councils wishing to run e-voting pilots. As set out in the prospectus that we published in September, the successful applicants for e-voting pilots will be announced in January. The 20 applicants for e-voting pilots schemes is tabled as follows:

  E-Voting—Total: 20

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Chester City Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  East Northamptonshire Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Malvern Hills District Council

  Norwich City Council

  Rushmoor Borough Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  South Somerset District Council

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  St Albans City and District Council

  Stratford-on-Avon District Council

  Stroud District Council

  Swindon Borough Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Waveney District Council

  The applications submitted by Nottingham City Council (dual early-postal and traditional voting pilot) and by Mid-Suffolk District Council (all-postal pilot in three wards only) have not been accepted at this stage. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials will be in discussion with those authorities to consider whether revised applications can be put forward.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 12 December ref. 86872, on environmental impact assessments, for what types of project an environmental impact assessment is mandatory. [87906]

  Mr. Leslie
  Projects for which Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Schedule 1 to the Regulations lists projects for which EIA is always required. Schedule 2 lists those that the planning authority must screen to establish whether they are likely to have significant effects on the environment, in which case EIA will be required. There is nothing to prevent a developer voluntarily undertaking an assessment for a project for which there is no statutory requirement for EIA.

  Fire Safety Bill
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to publish a fire safety bill. [87800]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government will publish a White Paper on the Fire Service in the spring. This will set out in detail the legislative and other changes required to take forward the modernisation programmes set out in the final report of the Independent Review of the Fire Service.

  Fire Services
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government intend to review the funding formula for the fire service with regard to the funding of specialist non-fire services undertaken by the fire service. [87802]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 5 December, as part of the provisional local government finance settlement for England for 2003–04, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced proposals resulting from the review of the local government grant distribution system. This includes a new fire distribution formula which takes account of the widening role of the fire service as a fire and rescue service. The Bain report, published on 16 December 2002, recommended that the Government look again at the formula.

  We will consider this and Bain's other recommendations in a White Paper to be published next year.

  Helplines and Hotlines
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many calls(a) Supporting People helpline and (b) High Hedges hotline have received so far. [87467]

  Mr. McNulty
  Up to 13 December the Supporting People helpline has received 2,987 calls. We do not have a dedicated high hedges hotline. However, we estimate that since June we have taken about 100 telephone calls on high hedges and our Trees and Problem Hedges website has attracted almost 5,000 visitors.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless people are living rough, broken down by health authority. [87203]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  On 12 September 2002, it was announced that an estimated 596 people are sleeping rough on any one night in England based on data collated from local authorities in the summer of 2002. Because health authority areas and local authority areas are not coterminous, it is not possible to give the number of people sleeping rough broken down by local health authority area.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what support he gives to homeless people discharged from hospital. [87206]
  867W
  Mrs. Roche
  Under the homelessness legislation, local housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for people who are unintentionally homeless and who have a priority need for accommodation. This would include people who are vulnerable and unintentionally homeless on leaving hospital.

  In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with the Department of Health on its revision of the Hospital Discharge Workbook, due to be published shortly. This emphasises that all acute hospitals should have formal admission and discharge policies, which will ensure that homeless people are identified on admission, and their pending discharge notified to relevant primary health care services and to homeless service providers, so that people are not in a position of being made homeless at this point.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on improving the access of homeless people to health care under the national homelessness strategy. [87447]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Homelessness Directorate's report, "More than a roof", set out a new approach to tackling homelessness, focused on the problems that homeless people face in the places where they live. It identified addressing health needs as critical in helping homeless people as well as preventing homelessness.

  In the Cross-Cutting Review on health inequalities, which the Government published on 20 November, inequalities faced by vulnerable groups—including homeless people—were identified as a top-line priority. As part of Government's response to this through measures to improve access to health services for vulnerable groups and others, the Government have put in place more than 1,300 Personal Medical Service Pilots and 42 NHS Walk-in Centres. Local authorities are expected to work with a range of organisations to deliver their homelessness strategies, including Primary Care Trusts on appropriate health services.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many copies of Drug Services for Homeless People: A good practice handbook have been distributed; and what range of organisations has received it. [87465]

  Mrs. Roche
  All Drug Action Teams (DATs) and key local authorities and homelessness agencies were e-mailed a letter from the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and myself about Drug Services for Homeless People: a good practice handbook on 4 December. They were directed to www.homelessness.odpm.gov.uk/homelessness/pubs/drug-services/index.htm where the document can be downloaded, and were given the opportunity to be e-mailed the document directly. In addition, over 700 hard copies of the handbook are being posted this week to all DATs, Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) co-ordinators, local authority Housing Directors and other key contacts. Further free copies are available from my Department's free distribution centre.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding his Department is setting aside for(a) the research into the impact of temporary
  868W
  accommodation on health and education of homeless families and (b) the project to evaluate different models of family support to establish good practice announced in his press release of 3 December; when he expects this work to be completed; and which Government and non-Government groups will be involved. [87466]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be commissioning a major survey of homeless households in temporary accommodation early in the new year. The research will examine the factors that led to homelessness among a representative sample of households placed in temporary accommodation under the homelessness legislation, and the impact of homelessness and life in temporary accommodation on those households.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's procurement guidance strongly advises against releasing the project budget in advance of commissioning the work as this can distort competition. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will ensure that sufficient funding is available to cover the estimated cost of the research which we anticipate will take up to two years to be completed.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult other Government Departments, including the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, on the research. In taking forward the work, the appointed contractors will be expected to consult local authorities and other interest groups.

  In line with the commitment to tackle homelessness more effectively we are also commissioning a project to evaluate different models of family support. The project will examine models led by different agencies, the voluntary sector, Primary Care Trust and a local authority (Hull City Primary Care Trust, Blackpool City Primary Care Trust, Leicester City Council and the Field Lane Foundation in London). All the models chosen demonstrate multi-agency working and have a health focus. The research will examine the effectiveness of the models in preventing repeat homelessness and will identify good practice to influence future delivery of services.

  The evaluation will commence in February 2003 with a review of each service by June 2003, and a final paper by December 2003. Again, it is not appropriate to release the project budget at this stage but we will ensure that there is sufficient funding available to cover the estimated cost of the evaluation. In taking forward the work, the appointed researchers will be expected to consult other relevant interest groups and agencies, drawing on other examples of good practice in the field of family homelessness.

  Local Strategic Partnerships
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is his policy that local community and strategic partnerships should be subject to legislation on admission to meetings. [87905]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local strategic partnerships are not statutory bodies. However, each LSP must work for, and be seen to work for the people it serves. We consider that there should be transparency and openness in the way LSPs operate and that information should be easily
  869W
  accessible. The accreditation of LSPs in receipt of the neighbourhood renewal fund specifically addresses these issues in respect of decision making and other processes of an LSP.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list, for the last year for which information is available, the SSA and net spending of each local authority, and the percentage by which the latter varies from the former. [87917]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information for 2002–03 budgets has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total central government grant to(a) Taunton Deane Borough Council and (b) Somerset County Council was, broken down by type of grant, in each year since 1990. [87720]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The total central government grant for Taunton Deane and Somerset County Council since 1990–91, as reported by the local authority, is set out in the tables.

  (a) Taunton Deane

  £ million

  Revenue grants

  Year1

  General grants 2—

  Specific grants inside AEF

  Capital grants

  Total central Government grant

  1990–91

  -

  0.14

  0.23

  -

  1991–92

  -

  0.21

  0.96

  -

  1992–93

  -

  0.19

  0.98

  -

  1993–94

  5.71

  0.20

  0.65

  6.56

  1994–95

  7.05

  0.22

  0.86

  8.13

  1995–96

  6.98

  0.23

  0.75

  7.96

  1996–97

  6.77

  0.17

  0.65

  7.59

  1997–98

  6.66

  0.18

  0.55

  7.39

  1998–99

  6.23

  0.18

  0.49

  6.90

  1999–00

  6.24

  0.20

  0.55

  6.99

  2000–01

  6.51

  0.17

  0.24

  6.92

  2001–02

  6.75

  0.24

  0.16

  7.15

  2002–03

  6.91

  0.24

  0.16

  7.31

  11990–91 to 2000–01 are outturn figures. 2001–02 and 2002–03 are budgeted/provisional figures.2– General grants include revenue support grant, SSA reduction grant, central support protection grant, GLA general grant, redistributed business rates and neighbourhood renewal fund. Between 1990–91 and 1992–93, under the community charge system, these grants were paid into Taunton Deane's collection fund, and supported expenditure by both Taunton Deane and Somerset county council.

  Sources: Revenue grant information from RO forms (1990–91 to 2000–01) and RA forms (2001–02 and 2002–03). Capital grant information from COR forms (1990–91 to 2000–01), CPR4form (2001–02) and CER form (2002–03).

  (b) Somerset

  Revenue grants

  Year1

  General grants2

  Specific grants inside AEF

  Capital grants

  Total central Government grant

  1990–91

  -

  22.71

  3.73

  -

  1991–92

  -

  27.07

  1.75

  -

  1992–93

  -

  30.47

  6.61

  -

  1993–94

  194.33

  37.96

  4.50

  236.79

  1994–95

  199.33

  39.59

  8.05

  246.97

  1995–96

  186.05

  14.98

  4.73

  205.76

  1996–97

  197.38

  13.97

  4.14

  215.49

  1997–98

  197.86

  11.71

  2.51

  212.08

  870W

  (b) Somerset

  Revenue grants

  Year1

  General grants2

  Specific grants inside AEF

  Capital grants

  Total central Government grant

  1998–99

  205.88

  15.35

  3.58

  224.81

  1999–00

  216.26

  20.89

  6.94

  244.09

  2000–01

  227.87

  40.66

  6.86

  275.39

  2001–02

  237.25

  42.86

  8.08

  288.19

  2002–03

  244.01

  45.98

  7.30

  297.29

  1 1990–91 to 2000–01 are outturn figures. 2001–02 and 2002–03 are budgeted/provisional figures.

  2 General grants include revenue support grant, SSA reduction grant, central support protection grant, GLA general grant, redistributed business rates and neighbourhood renewal fund. Between 1990–91 and 1992–93, under the community charge system, these grants were paid into the collection funds of the district councils in Somerset, and supported expenditure by both the districts and Somerset county council.

  3 Between 1990–91 and 1994–95 this includes police grant. From 1995–96 police grant was paid directly to Avon and Somerset Police. The rise in specific grants in 2000–01 can be attributed mainly to extra grants related to Education Standards Fund, Teachers Pay Reform and Magistrates Court.

  Sources: Revenue grant information from RO forms (1990–91 to 2000–01) and RA forms (2001–02 and 2002–03). Capital grant information from COR forms (1990–91 to 2000–01), CPR4form (2001–02) and CER form (2002–03).

  Local Sport
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that sport is provided for within local authority community plans; and if he will make a statement. [87650]

  Mr. Leslie
  The content of each local authority's community strategy will vary from one area to another, depending on local priorities as established in consultation with the local community and other partner organisations. The recent announcement concerning freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities recommended that local cultural strategies should be subsumed within community strategies. Where this happens, the profile of sport will be raised in forming part of the strategic vision for the area. In addition, the role of all cultural and leisure services within community strategies will be included in the forthcoming evaluation which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will commission early in 2003.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money has been distributed through the New Deal for Communities to fund programmes aimed at increasing benefit take-up. [86739]

  Mrs. Roche
  New Deal for Communities is a key programme in the Government's national strategy to renew the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. It tests out the new approaches in the strategy, in 39 neighbourhoods across England.

  The Government have provided the following funding to enable Benefits Agency—and latterly, Jobcentre Plus staff—to work with New Deal for Communities partnerships on issues relating to benefits and helping people to find jobs.

  871W

  1999–2000—£1.3 million

  2000–01—£1.6 million

  2001–02—£1.7 million

  This funding initially aimed to provide information and advice on all Social Security benefits including housing benefit, which can be paid to people on low incomes, and other in-work benefits. Following the creation of the Department for Work and Pensions—bringing together the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service—there has been an equal emphasis on moving people to a more work ready state, job brokering, advising about the various New Deal programmes and in-work benefit advice.

  The NRU pays for additional DWP/Jobcentre Plus staff to work in each NDC area. This equates to an extra £50,000 per year for each neighbourhood. Typically, it enables DWP to provide 1–2 dedicated members of staff to work in support of the partnership.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information centrally about the amount of funding allocated by individual partnerships to programmes to increase benefits take-up.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) the number of staff in and (b) the cost of the (i) Rough Sleepers Unit and (ii) Homelessness Directorate in each year since each was established. [87434]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is in the table.

  year

  Number of staff

  Administration budget cost (£ million)

  1999–2000

  19

  0.73

  2000–01

  36

  1.34

  2001–021

  30

  1.3

  1 Homelessness Directorate which incorporated the Rough Sleepers Unit was announced by Lord Falconer on 3 December 2001 and came into being on 1 April 2002.

  872W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 267W, if he will require the Rough Sleepers Unit to record rough sleepers who are also asylum seekers separately from other rough sleepers for the purposes of the street count. [87932]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information from counts undertaken by local authorities does not identify rough sleepers who are asylum seekers. As rough sleepers are not woken, it is not possible to obtain information on their personal status. However outreach teams are encouraged to get as much information about people sleeping rough in their areas as possible so that individual solutions can be found to their rough sleeping where it is possible.

  Rural Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to ensure the delivery of services to sparsely populated rural areas; and what resources he is making available. [87707]

  Mr. Leslie
  Service provision in rural areas is a matter for the delivery bodies in the first instance. For local authorities, the recent provisional local government finance settlement gave every authority a grant increase of at least 3.0 per cent., with education authorities receiving at least 3.5 per cent., Rural shire districts did particularly well, their grant increasing by an average of 7.6 per cent.

  Standards Board
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of distributing the Standards Board leaflets to hon. Members' offices(a) in their constituency and (b) in the House in December. [87834]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information about how to make a complaint about breaches of the Local Authorities Codes of Conduct was distributed by the Standards Board for England to hon. Members(a) in their constituencies at a total cost of £5,019 and (b) in the House at a total cost of £622.

HEALTH

  "Valuing People"
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is being provided to each local authority to meet the requirements of "Valuing People". [85501]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policies for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers are set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001.

  Some £3 billion a year is already spent on health and social care provision for people with learning disabilities. The proposals in "Valuing People" will help to ensure that this money is spent effectively and efficiently. People with learning disabilities will also benefit from the general growth in total health and social services spending and from specific initiatives.

  The White Paper announced the creation of two new funds, the implementation support fund and the learning disability development fund. The support fund, £2.3 million a year for three years from April 2001, is being used to support a range of initiatives connected with the White Paper's programme of action. These include developing and expanding advocacy services across the country.

  The development fund has both revenue (£22.6 million) and capital (£20 million) elements. £2 million of the revenue element is being used to fund the "Valuing People" support team and its related activities, with the remainder being distributed to health authorities. It was distributed to the then health authorities (HAs) in March 2002 to support priorities for service change as outlined in joint investment plans they drew up with their partner local authorities. The distribution was based on the NHS general allocation formula except that five authorities received additional money to help them meet the needs of their old long stay population. Where a health authority related to more than one local authority, the allocation was to be divided according to the size of their respective resident populations unless all the parties agreed to an alternative distribution.

  The distribution by HA has been placed in the Library.

  Learning Disability Partnership Boards were invited to bid for funding from the capital element of the Development Fund. A list of the successful boards has been placed in the Library, but the money will not all be spent in this first financial year.

  Child Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of children in residential care
  874W
  and (b) the total number of staff in residential care establishments for children on 1 June in each of the years since 1997 [80474]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about the numbers of looked after children placed in residential placements is shown in the table. This includes children looked after in local authority children's homes and in residential accommodation provided by voluntary and private sector organisations.

  Children looked after in residential placements at 31 March 1997 to 2001

  Number of looked after children in residential placements

  Total looked after children

  1997

  6,600

  51,200

  1998

  6,700

  53,300

  1999

  6,600

  55,500

  2000

  7.000

  58,100

  2001

  6,800

  58,900

  Notes:

  1. Data exclude children being looked after under any agreed series of short-term placements.

  2. Residential placements include children's homes and hostels and secure units.

  3. It excludes residential schools.

  Source:

  Department of Health Form—CLA 100.

  Information about the numbers of staff employed in residential care establishments for children is not available as at 1 June. The table shows the whole time equivalent (wte) number of staff employed by local authorities in England in residential care establishments for children as at 30 September, for each year from 1997 to 2001 (the latest year for which data are available). Similar information is not available about the numbers of staff employed by the independent sector.

  Number employed (wte)

  1997

  13,300

  1998

  12,900

  1999

  12,400

  2000

  12,100

  2001

  11,900

  Source:

  Form SSDS001.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs retired(a) early and (b) due to ill-health in each year since 1977; and how many left the profession in each year. [84495]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Data in the format requested is not readily available. The number of principal and assistant general medical and ophthalmic practitioners in England and Wales who have received a retirement pension before age 60 and on the grounds of ill-health in each of the financial years 1985 to 2002 is shown in the table.
  875W

  General Medical and Ophthalmic Practitioner Retirements

  Year

  Before 60

  III-health only

  Total

  1985

  25

  100

  125

  1986

  29

  112

  141

  1987

  59

  92

  151

  1988

  30

  109

  139

  1989

  31

  118

  149

  1990

  43

  136

  179

  1991

  57

  163

  220

  1992

  53

  143

  196

  1993

  70

  161

  231

  1994

  54

  168

  222

  1995

  82

  180

  262

  1996

  156

  206

  362

  Leavers

  October

  October

  October

  October

  September

  September

  Total

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999 September 2000

  2000–01

  2001 March 2002

  1,058

  1,040

  1,030

  1,090

  1,313

  687

  6,218

  Acute Trusts
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which acute trusts are running a deficit in this financial year. [87423]

  Mr. Hutton
  The audited information in respect of the 2002–03 financial performance of National Health Service trusts, including acute trusts, will he published in their individual annual accounts. The audited information will be available centrally in autumn 2003.

  Brain Injuries
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has made available for rehabilitation services for brain-injury patients in London in each of the last three years; what funding he will make available for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [86281]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not earmark funds for particular services, such as brain injury rehabilitation. Primary care trusts are responsible for ensuring that services for patients needing brain injury rehabilitation are in place. The configuration of this service provision, however, is a matter for local decision makers as they are best placed to understand the health needs of their local populations.

  We would expect that the substantial extra funds this Government have provided to the national health service will help provide improved services for all patients including those needing rehabilitation after a brain injury.

  Care Beds
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what changes to the number of(a) private care beds and (b) council care beds he expects to occur in Chorley council area over the next five years; [87048]

  (2) how many care beds there are in the Chorley council area; and how many he estimates there will be in each year from 2003 to 2008. [87047]
  876W

  General Medical and Ophthalmic Practitioner Retirements

  Year

  Before 60

  III-health only

  Total

  1997

  112

  181

  293

  1998

  150

  172

  322

  1999

  112

  143

  255

  2000

  84

  141

  225

  2001

  183

  147

  330

  2002

  184

  172

  356

  Total

  1514

  2644

  4158

  The number of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) who left English Health Authorities from October 1996 to March 2002 is shown in the table.

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available for Chorley council area.

  At 31 March 2001 there were 11,600 residential care beds in Lancashire local authority and 1,700 nursing care beds in south Lancashire health authority. Data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Forecasts of the number of care home places are not made centrally.

  On 23 July 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced additional funding to provide more help for older people. The funding is intended to support 6,000 more care home places in England by March 2006.

  Care Housing Pl4ces (Elderly)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of the 50 per cent. increase in the number of extra care housing places for older people, announced on 23 July 2002. [81686]

  Jacqui Smith
  We propose to increase extra care housing places for older people by 50 per cent. between 1997 and 2006. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  Consultant Surgeons (Suspensions)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant surgeons were suspended from clinical duties in the past two years. [87891]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts report suspensions lasting longer than six months or longer to the Department. The number of consultants reported has decreased since 30 September 2000.

  Year

  Total consultants suspended in period

  October 2000 to September 2001

  23

  October 2001 to September 2002

  18

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients experienced delayed discharge from hospitals in(a) England and (b) Wales in the last quarter; [82835]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the duration of delayed discharges, as a percentage of delayed discharges, waiting (a) less than eight days, (b) eight to 14 days, (c) 15 to 28 days and (d) more than 28 days in the last quarter; [82486]

  (3) what proportion of patients awaiting discharge from hospital were delayed from being discharged due to awaiting (a) a care home placement, (b) assessment, (c) public funding, (d) a domiciliary package and (e) other reasons in the last quarter. [82487]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 25 November 2002]: Delayed Discharge figures for Quarter 1, 2002–03 are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of Welsh resident patients who have had their discharge from hospital in England delayed, in each hospital with more than 20 patients in this category. [87157]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, in preparing for the introduction of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc) Bill, it was established that the percentage of Welsh resident patients admitted to hospitals in English health authorities near to the border in 2000–01 was very small, an average of 7.5 per cent. of all admissions. No health and social care communities are reporting as many as 20 delays.

  Epilepsy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if an initial health needs assessment of epilepsy has been produced by(a) eastern, (b) London, (c) northwest Greater Manchester, (d) north-west Lancashire, (e) north-west Mersey and Cheshire, (f) northern region, (g) Yorkshire, (h) central south-east, (i) Kent, Surrey and Sussex, (j) south-east five counties, (k) south-west, (l) Trent NOR COM and (m) west midlands NHS regions; which of these NHS regions has agreed a common service strategy for the commissioning of epilepsy services, involving providers and patients/carers representatives in the process; and

  All practitioners1, NHS plan GPs2, unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)3 in Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority and England as at 31 March 2002

  Number4

  Of which aged:

  Total

  Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–59

  England

  All Practitioners

  32,011

  1,305

  3,557

  5,497

  6,272

  5,376

  Percentage

  4.1

  11.1

  17.2

  19.6

  16.8

  Of which:

  NHS Plan GPs

  28,950

  341

  2,648

  4,859

  5,894

  5,259

  Percentage

  1.2

  9.1

  16.8

  20.4

  18.2

  UPEs

  27,956

  285

  2,441

  4,698

  5,774

  5,140

  Percentage

  1.0

  8.7

  16.8

  20.7

  18.4

  878W
  which of them has agreed common standards, implementation and investment plans for the provision of epilepsy services; [86238]

  (2) whether the necessary purchasing arrangements, including setting up service agreements, financial risk-sharing models and establishing primary care trust-led consortia, have been put in place by (a) eastern, (b) London, (c) north-west Greater Manchester, (d) north-west Lancashire, (e) north-west Mersey and Cheshire, (f) northern region, (g) Yorkshire, (h) central south-east, (i) Kent, Surrey and Sussex, (j) south-east five counties, (k) south-west, (l) Trent NORCOM and (m) west midlands NHS regions. [86239]

  Mr. Hutton
  The majority of epilepsy services are provided in a primary or secondary care setting and are not specialised services. The organisations listed in the question are regional specialised commissioning groups whose function is to commission specialised services, generally located in tertiary hospitals; non-specialised services such as epilepsy services are not within their remit. Surgery is appropriate for less than 5 per cent. of epilepsy patients. It is provided in neurosciences centres and is subject to the same access targets as other forms of elective surgery.

  We expect to publish an action plan for epilepsy services following the recommendation in the chief medical officer's 2001 annual report that we should improve the standard of services for people with epilepsy. The action plan will also address the findings of the national clinical audit of epilepsy-related death, which was published in May 2002.

  In addition to the epilepsy action plan, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish an appraisal of anti-epilepsy drugs next year, followed by a guideline on the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy in 2004. We are also developing the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions, which will focus on improving services for neurological conditions, including epilepsy. We expect to publish the NSF in 2004.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the age distribution of general practitioners in(a) Hampshire and (b) England. [87236]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The age distribution of general practitioners in England and in Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority as at March 2002 is shown in the table.
  879W

  All practitioners1, NHS plan GPs2, unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)3 in Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority and England as at 31 March 2002

  Number4

  Of which aged:

  Total

  Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–59

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight StHA

  All Practitioners

  1,184

  40

  153

  206

  251

  209

  Percentage

  3.4

  12.9

  17.4

  21.2

  17.7

  Of which:

  NHS Plan GPs

  1,035

  6

  95

  172

  236

  203

  Percentage

  0.6

  9.2

  16.6

  22.8

  19.6

  UPEs

  1,024

  6

  93

  172

  231

  201

  Percentage

  0.6

  9.1

  16.8

  22.6

  19.6

  Number4

  Of which aged:

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70 and over

  Unknown

  England

  All Practitioners

  4,633

  3,379

  1,419

  506

  66

  1

  Percentage

  14.5

  10.6

  4.4

  1.6

  0.2

  0.0

  Of which:

  NHS Plan GPs

  4,594

  3,365

  1,419

  506

  65

  0

  Percentage

  15.9

  11.6

  4.9

  1.7

  0.2

  —

  UPEs

  4,525

  3,281

  1,358

  454

  0

  0

  Percentage

  16.2

  11.7

  4.9

  1.6

  0.0

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight StHA

  All Practitioners

  164

  128

  29

  4

  0

  0

  Percentage

  13.9

  10.8

  2.4

  0.3

  0.0

  —

  Of which:

  NHS Plan GPs

  163

  127

  29

  4

  0

  0

  Percentage

  15.7

  12.3

  2.8

  0.4

  0.0

  —

  UPEs

  163

  125

  29

  4

  0

  0

  Percentage

  15.9

  12.2

  2.8

  0.4

  0.0

  —

  1 All Practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA),

  PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  2 NHS Plan GPs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS Others.

  3 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  4 Headcount

  Note:

  Data has been converted to match April 2002 StHA boundaries.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Health Funding
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was granted from each source of support within his Department to(a) Westminster City Council and (b) the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, outside the revenue support grant settlements, in each year since 1997 [85832]

  Westminster City Council

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Grant

  AIDS Support

  800

  770

  810

  798

  547

  547

  1—

  Drugs and Alcohol Specific Grant

  27

  33

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officer Services

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Health (Adults)

  539

  539

  804

  904

  1,006

  1,013

  1,014

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  —

  —

  26

  26

  82

  146

  376

  Training Support Programme

  215

  198

  196

  319

  355

  212

  —

  Community Care Special Transitional Grant

  2,305

  2,171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Adult Asylum-Seekers' Accommodation

  3,847

  5,306

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  880W
  Jacqui Smith
  The tables show the funding made available by the Department to Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea outside the revenue support grant settlements in each year since 1997.
  881W

  Westminster City Council

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Persons from Abroad Children's Grant

  2,835

  3,753

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children's Grant

  41

  879

  2,769

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership2

  —

  —

  1,755

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  Prevention2

  —

  —

  146

  222

  —

  —

  —

  Promoting Independence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,979

  1,150

  —

  Carers'

  —

  —

  137

  384

  554

  696

  615

  Children's Services

  —

  —

  755

  1,234

  3,216

  5,286

  1—

  Deferred Payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  64

  87

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51

  53

  1—

  Building Care Capacity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  422

  884

  —

  Preserved Rights

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,907

  1—

  Residential Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  606

  1—

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  1—

  Performance Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  302

  686

  Improving Information Management

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  187

  164

  Secure Accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Care Direct

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Access and Systems Capacity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  842

  National Training Strategy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Human Resource Development Strategy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  Mental Health

  180

  120

  218

  50

  —

  186

  1—

  HIV/AIDS

  250

  250

  —

  414

  300

  —

  1—

  1 TBA—to be announced.

  2 The partnership and prevention grants combined in 2001–02 and became the promoting independence grant.

  Note:

  PFI credit approvals of £4.3 million were also issued to Westminster in 1999–2000.

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Grant

  AIDS Support

  890

  760

  780

  816

  592

  563

  1—

  Drugs and Alcohol Specific Grant

  —

  33

  644

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officer Services

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Health

  515

  515

  693

  760

  830

  835

  836

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  —

  —

  20

  20

  61

  107

  332

  Training Support Programme

  163

  161

  162

  204

  195

  180

  1—

  Community Care Special Transitional Grant

  1,509

  1,414

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Adult Asylum-Seekers' Accommodation

  2,326

  4,604

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Persons from Abroad Children's Grant

  1,277

  1,550

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children's Grant

  152

  647

  1,496

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership2—

  —

  —

  1,162

  1,002

  —

  —

  —

  Prevention2

  —

  —

  103

  157

  —

  —

  —

  Promoting Independence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,324

  793

  —

  Carers'

  —

  —

  95

  270

  393

  496

  480

  Children's Services

  —

  —

  560

  916

  2,390

  3,871

  1—

  Deferred Payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  53

  71

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  38

  1—

  Building Care Capacity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  265

  563

  —

  Preserved Rights

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,701

  1—

  Residential Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  388

  —

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  1—

  Performance Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  201

  541

  Improving Information Management

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  167

  139

  Secure Accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Care Direct

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Access and Systems Capacity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  National Training Strategy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Human Resources Development Strategy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  Mental Health

  115

  62

  300

  —

  350

  89

  1—

  HIV/AIDS

  200

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  1 TBA to be announced.

  2 The partnership and prevention grants combined in 2001–02 and became the promoting independence grant.

  882W

  Homeless People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of homeless people are addicted to(a) alcohol and (b) drugs. [87204]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1998, the Social Exclusion Unit's report into rough sleeping stated that 20 per cent. of rough sleepers were misusing drugs. In July 2002, research by the charity Crisis found that 83 per cent. of single homeless people were drug users. Figures for people misusing alcohol were at around 30 to 50 per cent. in the SEU report, and recent anecdotal evidence suggests that this figure is still around the same.

  On 4 December 2002, the Home Office's Drug Strategy Directorate and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Homelessness Directorate published new guidance entitled "Drug Services for Homeless People: a Good Practice Handbook", which is aimed at addressing these figures through mainstream and specialised drug services.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Homelessness Directorate is taking to improve the health care of homeless ple. [87435]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Homelessness Directorate's report, "More than a Roof", set out a new approach to tackling homelessness, focused on the problems that homeless people face in the places where they live. It identified addressing health needs as critical in helping homeless people, as well as preventing homelessness.

  In the Cross-Cutting Review on health inequalities, which the Government published on 20 November 2002, inequalities faced by vulnerable groups, including homeless people, were identified as a top-line priority. As part of Government's response to this through measures to improve access to health services for vulnerable groups and others, the Government have put in place more than 1,300 Personal Medical Service Pilots and 42 NHS Walk-in Centres. Local authorities are expected to work with a range of organisations to deliver their homelessness strategies, including primary care trusts on appropriate health services.

  In addition, all local housing authorities are now required, under the Homelessness Act 2002, to conduct a review of homelessness in their district and to adopt a strategy, by July 2003, which must include plans for ensuring that accommodation and support are available for homeless people. As made clear in the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance for local authorities, published jointly by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects local housing authorities to work with a range of organisations to deliver the aims of the homelessness strategy and ensure that all the support needs of homeless people are taken into account. This includes working with primary care trusts (PCTs), to deliver appropriate health services to this client group.
  884W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training general practitioners receive in relation to the health needs of homeless people. [87436]

  Mr. Hutton
  Government do not specify the content of the general practitioner training curriculum. This is the job of the joint committee on postgraduate training for general practice (JCPTGP), which is the competent authority for general practice training in the United Kingdom. The JCPTGP is an independent professional body, and it is required by section 9(3) of the Vocational Training Regulations 1997 to determine and publish the curriculum to be followed by a GP registrar, a trainee GP.

  The Regulations do specify seven competencies which must be tested, and which the curriculum must therefore teach:
  factual medical knowledge sufficient to enable the doctor to perform the duties of a GP;
  the ability to apply factual medical knowledge to the management of problems presented by patients in general practice;
  effective communication, both orally and in writing;
  the ability to consult satisfactorily with general practice patients;
  the ability to review and critically analyse the practitioner's own working practices and to manage any necessary changes appropriately;
  clinical skills; and
  the ability to synthesise all the above competencies and apply them appropriately in a general practice setting.

  GPs are expected therefore to learn in training the skills needed to deal with all their patients.

  Invoice Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of external suppliers his Department paid in(a) accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) where no such conditions exist, within 30 days of receipt of an undisputed invoice in each of the last five years. [86878]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: The Department's payment performance in each of the last five completed financial years is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Percentage paid

  1997–98

  95.3

  1998–99

  94.4

  1999–2000

  95.3

  2000–01

  95.8

  2001–02

  94.7

  Mental Health Acts
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to expedite hearings of people detained under the Mental Health Acts. [82694]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Secretary of State for Health is required to provide all detained patients with a speedy review of their detention. This responsibility is supported by a secretariat who manage the process and organise the hearings from four regional offices working within a national listing policy. Patients detained under
  885W
  section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 are listed within seven days of their application being filed and all other patients as soon as is practically possible, having regard to the interests of justice.

  All four Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) offices work within these national procedures and the throughput of cases is managed by a team, headed by a case manager.

  In April 2002, an independent review of the MHRT administration was undertaken. The Department is considering the results of the review and what action might be taken further to improve the service.

  A project to support a better IT system is in progress and additional staff resources have been provided to the offices since the review began.

  Officials from the Department of Health and the Lord Chancellor's Department have been working closely with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to speed up recruitment of members and to elicit a better response to recruitment campaigns.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether prisoners in(a) Garth and (b) Wymott prisons are included in the funding calculation for Chorley South Ribble PCT. [87046]

  Jacqui Smith
  Prisoners classified by the Office for National Statistics as normally resident in Her Majesty's Prison Garth and HMP Wymott are included in the population figures on which funding calculations for Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust are based. From April 2003 the methodology for taking account of prisoners in PCT allocations will change. PCTs with prisons in their boundaries will receive allocations that take into account the secondary physical health care needs of whole of the local prison population.

  Prisons (Mental Health)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prisoners suffer from psychiatric morbidity. [87444]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics, estimated that around 90 per cent. of prisoners had at least one of the five disorders; personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse and drug dependence, considered in the survey.

  Public Health Laboratories
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies will undertake the work of the Public Health Laboratories until the Managed Pathology Networks are in operation. [87724]

  Mr. Hutton
  As outlined in the recently published document, Future arrangements for microbiology laboratory services, all Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) laboratories, except for those designated as 886W
  Health Protection Agency (HPA) laboratories, will transfer into the management of National Health Service trusts on 1 April 2003.

  The Department of Health document, Pathology—the essential service, draft guidance on modernising pathology services, supported the development of managed pathology networks as an effective means of delivering improved pathology services.

  The consultation period for this document ended on 30 September 2002. The results of the consultation are currently being considered. It is expected that new guidance will be released to the NHS in the new year.

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the definition of very sheltered accommodation is; and how many very sheltered accommodation places there were in each year since 1996. [86292]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 December 2002 ]: The definition of very sheltered housing used by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for housing investment programme purposes is:
  Very sheltered housing covers schemes for frail older people that have more provision of a greater level of care than ordinary sheltered housing: for example; the provision of meals, extra wardens, care assistants and additional communal facilities such as special bathrooms and sluice rooms.

  The number of very sheltered housing places between 1996 and 2000 is:

  Number of places

  1996

  17,577

  1997

  18,041

  1998

  19,062

  1999

  19,577

  2000

  20,269

  For 2001 and subsequently, figures will be available from "Supporting People" supply mapping.

  Specialised Services (Commissioning)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he received as part of its review of commissioning arrangements for specialised services from(a) regional specialised commissioning groups, (b) local service providers, (c) commissioners, (d) patients' representatives and (e) carers' representatives. [86236]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of 53 responses were directly submitted to the review of commissioning arrangements for specialised services of which many were composite responses:Regional specialised commissioning groups: 11 responses
  Local service providers: 14 responses
  Commissioners: 3 responses
  Patients' representatives, including voluntary sector organisations and carer's representatives: 14 responses
  Plus a further four responses from medical professional bodies, three responses from joint Department/national health service bodies and other four responses.

  Trust Mergers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the acute hospitals in England and Wales that are subject to(a) merger and (b) restructuring proposals. [85792]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following acute hospitals in England are subject to merger proposals: Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust and Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust.

  Information on individual trust based restructuring proposals is not held centrally.

  Issues related to acute hospitals in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Vaccinations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stocks of vaccines are held by the NHS for illnesses known to have the potential to be used in biological warfare. [86034]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department holds stocks of anthrax and smallpox vaccines centrally on behalf of the national health service. Such stocks can be rapidly deployed across the United Kingdom for use in the NHS in the event of a bioterrorist incident. A small stock of Anthrax vaccine for protection against occupational exposure is held by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). A stock of botulinum antitoxin is also held by the PHLS for use in the NHS.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fisheries
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  From 1 January 1999 all British registered fishing vessels over 10 metres in length and catching more than 2 tonnes of quota stocks have had to demonstrate an economic link with fisheries-dependent communities in the United Kingdom. This link can be demonstrated in a number of ways, for example by vessels landing at least 50 per cent. by weight of their quota catch into the UK or by employing a crew of whom at least 50 per cent. are normally resident in a UK coastal area.

  In 2001, 1,438 vessels caught more than 2 tonnes of quota stocks and in each case achieved a satisfactory economic link, primarily through landings into the UK. The arrangements have resulted in UK-registered but foreign-owned vessels continuing to land and incur expenditure at UK ports. Additionally some 500 tonnes of quota was made available for re-distribution to the UK fleet.

  A full report by the Fisheries Departments in the United Kingdom on the operation of the economic link measures in 2001 and their impact has been placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  National Languages Strategy
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  Today we are publishing our National Languages Strategy.

  To date the focus for language learning has been targeted at secondary schools, when for many it is too late to excite and motivate the desire to learn another language This has resulted in a declining number of people post-16 studying languages and a shortage in the number of language teachers at both primary and secondary level.

  We want to increase flexibility in the curriculum at Key Stage 4 to give pupils the opportunity to pursue additional vocational routes, and therefore we have decided that Modern Foreign Languages should be an entitlement at Key Stage 4 and not a compulsory subject. We must recognise that our current system is not delivering the language learning system that is required in the 21st Century. It is our responsibility as a government to take steps to reverse this trend and rebuild the capacity to deliver language learning at all levels, starting in primary schools and continuing to adult learning.
  52WS
  The strategy that we are publishing today looks beyond the classroom in order to maximise and promote language learning opportunities. Our strategy will be geared towards both motivating individuals to learn—the push factor—while at the same time ensuring that high quality and appropriate opportunities are available—the pull factor. Creating the appetite for learning while at the same time broadening and enriching the options available, are the two key planks of our languages strategy.

  The starting point of this strategy is to provide a flexible system of language learning for all, to develop the capacity of the system so that every pupil at Key Stage 2 has the opportunity to study at least one foreign language by the end of this decade, and ensure that language learning has a key place in the transformed secondary school of the future.

  Our strategy therefore has three overarching objectives: to improve teaching and learning of languages, including delivering an entitlement to language learning for Key Stage 2 pupils by 2010, making the most of e-learning and ensuring that opportunity to learn languages has a key place in the transformed secondary school of the future: to introduce a national, voluntary recognition system, to complement existing qualification frameworks and give people credit for their language skills; and to increase the number of people studying languages in further and higher education and in work-based training by stimulating demand for language learning, developing Virtual Language Communities and encouraging employers to play their part in supporting language learning.

  We face a number of challenges, but we are committed to improving language learning. Our strategy proposes a number of measures to address these issues.

  First, we recognise that there is a shortage of modern foreign language teachers at secondary level, and relatively few primary teachers have been trained to teach languages. We will work with the Teacher Training Agency, with teachers and with other professionals and language experts to build a new pool of primary language teachers and other language specialists who can support language learning.

  But we must also recognise that our strategy alone is not enough to deliver our ambitions. We will extend and revitalise the Language Assistants programme and there will be more opportunities and incentives for language undergraduates to work in schools. But even this is not enough. We must, and we will, draw on the diversity of skills of language speakers within the community and other education institutions. We will do this by providing a short "Teaching a Foreign Language" qualification, to give people the additional teaching skills and recognition to work with teachers in the classroom.

  Secondly, there is little provision that targets individual learners, enabling them to learn at their own pace, and few opportunities for recognition at various stages of their learning either in school, further education, higher education or the workplace. We will introduce a new voluntary recognition system to

  53WS
  complement existing national qualification frameworks and the Common European Framework. This will give people credit for their existing as well as newly-acquired language skills and form a ladder of recognition from beginner level to a standard which sits alongside GCSE, A level and NVQ national qualifications.

  Thirdly, we are aware that too many schools and teachers are working in isolation, without access to support networks. LEAs will have a key role to play in supporting schools in the implementation of the strategy. We propose that LEAs should be the coordinators of primary language learning programmes, ensuring that every primary school has a language coordinator and that by the end of the decade every Key Stage 2 pupil is offered the opportunity to study at least one foreign language.

  LEAs will provide expertise, commitment and a strong co-ordinating role drawing together headteachers; local Specialist Language Colleges; the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT) Comenius Centre networks; other schools with language strengths; Higher Education Institutions; business; and language speakers within the community and other education institutions.

  Finally, we acknowledge that whilst more schools are using ICT in language teaching, its use is underdeveloped in over three-quarters of primary schools and a third of secondary schools. We will continue to work with public and private sector providers to raise the quality and widen the range of online teaching and learning materials. We are determined to make the most of opportunities to collaborate with other countries by looking at how twinning can add to the learning experience.

  We will appoint a National Director for Languages to champion language learning and drive forward our strategy which will run alongside the Government's overall Primary Strategy to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in primary schools.

  Our strategy will be supported by direct investment, which will rise to £10 million per year by 2005–06. It will also benefit from our broader programmes to support the school workforce, invest in school improvement, and raise standards of teaching and learning, and from programmes managed by our key partners.

  Languages should take their proper place at the heart of initiatives and activities to further the wider social, economic and political agenda. To do this we must recognise the limitations of the current system and build the capacity to deliver a more flexible, responsive system of learning which embeds learning in primary schools and provides provision tailored to the needs of individuals of all ages, throughout their lives.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Proceeds of Crime Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has appointed Mr Andrew Clarke as the Appointed Person under section 290 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 54WS
  2002. He will act as an independent person to oversee searches conducted under new cash seizure powers where no prior judicial authority is obtained. He will also prepare and submit an annual report on the operation of the search power to the Secretary of State, a copy of which will be laid before Parliament. Mr Clarke's appointment will commence on 30 December 2002 to coincide with the introduction of the cash seizure powers under the Act.

  Youth Offending Teams
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  To provide regular external scrutiny of youth offending teams (Yots) a new joint inspection programme has been developed by Her Majesty's Inspectorates of Probation, Constabulary and Prisons, the Social Services Inspectorate (England and Wales) and the education inspectorates, (OFSTED for England and ESTYN for Wales) in consultation with the Home Office and the Youth Justice Board.

  The programme is expected to start in April 2003. Its purpose will be to:
  'report to the Secretary of State and through him, Parliament and the public, on the effectiveness of Yots in fulfilling their statutory duties to prevent offending by children and young people and thereby protect the public, whilst safeguarding their rights and promoting their welfare'.
  It will assess the impact Yots and partner organisations have on offending, help to improve their performance and inform the further development of the YJB's effective practice and quality assurance strategy.

  Led by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, the inspection team will include representatives from the full range of inspectorates concerned with Yots' work. They will aim to inspect all Yots in England and Wales over a five to six year cycle.

TRANSPORT

  Blue Badge Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  I have considered the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee's (DPTAC) recommendations on the scheme which were based on the responses to the discussion paper circulated to key disability organisations and others earlier this year. I have also discussed those recommendations with my colleagues in the devolved administrations and the Northern Ireland Office who have responsibility for the Scheme.

  We are proposing to take forward most of the recommendations that were made. A summary of our responses on each of the recommendations has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  There are a number of areas in which we have undertaken to look at amending primary legislation, in particular to ensure that the tools needed for effective enforcement are available to local authorities and the police. We will be seeking opportunities to introduce those changes as soon as possible.
  55WS
  We recognise the need to ensure that badges are only issued to those who most need them but we are not yet convinced that criteria for eligibility need to be restricted by law. With the devolved administrations and the Northern Ireland Office, we would prefer to see much clearer and stronger guidance issued to local authorities, as the issuing bodies, on how they should undertake that function. If, after a period of monitoring the impact of that guidance, it is clear that there are still problems with the policy on issuing, we would consider legislation at that stage. We will, in co-operation with the devolved administrations, be setting up a working group shortly to help us draw up common guidance that each administration will use.

  Further research is required in a number of areas, for example, to consider the setting up of a national database of badge holders. My Department will be taking that forward, in collaboration with the devolved administrations and the Northern Ireland Office, as part of our research programme.

FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH

  NATO Parliamentary Assembly
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Ms Gillan) has replaced the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Oversight Commissioner
    AIM
    1. The Oversight Commissioner is being appointed in order to provide independent scrutiny of the implementation of the changes in criminal justice arrangements and structures flowing from the Government's decisions on the Criminal Justice Review and the provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. These changes will be set out in the revised Implementation Plan to be published by early 2003.

    FUNCTIONS
    2. The Commissioner will monitor and review progress achieved in implementing change; receive information, as required, from the agencies responsible for progress; and provide public assurance about the implementation process.
    3. In pursuit of these functions, the Oversight Commissioner will:
    be provided with information, including objectives and timetables as appropriate, on the implementation of the changes to the criminal justice system. This information will be provided by the Department of the DPP(NI), the Court Service, the Probation Board (PBNI), the Prison Service, the Police Service (PSNI), and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO), and in respect
    56WS
    of issues covering the criminal justice system as a whole will be co-ordinated by the Criminal Justice Board (which comprises the heads or senior representatives of the agencies listed above). Information may also be provided by other bodies as appropriate.
    Conduct progress review meetings with the agencies and, as appropriate, the Criminal Justice Board on the implementation of the criminal justice changes. Meetings may also take place with Ministers and officials and with other office-holders and bodies as appropriate. These meetings will be a forum to discuss issues arising from implementation and to enable the written information to be supplemented.
    Provide a report to the responsible Ministers (the Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General) every six months. The Ministers will place these reports before Parliament and publish them (subject to the omission of any parts whose laying or publication would, in their opinion, be against the public interest or which might jeopardise the safety of any person). Such reports will include:
    an account of the progress which has been achieved in implementing the planned changes; and
    the Commissioner's observations on how any delays in implementation have arisen and how they might be addressed.
    Meet (at the Commissioner's discretion) with other relevant organisations or agencies, including the political parties and community leaders, to discuss progress in the implementation of the criminal justice changes.

    ACCOUNTABILITY
    4. Nothing in these terms of reference should be taken as affecting the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General; or encroaching on the independence of the judiciary, the DPP(NI), or the Chief Constable in controlling and directing the Police Service; or the responsibilities of any other agency or the Policing Board.
    APPOINTMENT
    5. The Oversight Commissioner will be appointed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, for an initial term of three years, at which point the continuing need for the office will be reviewed. A separate note on the Terms and Conditions of Appointment will be agreed with the Commissioner.
    STAFF
    6. Appropriate staff to support the Commissioner will be provided by the Secretary of State, on terms determined by the Secretary of State.
    VARIATIONS
    7. These terms of reference may be varied at any time by the responsible Ministers [following consultation with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister]. Details of any changes will be published.
DEFENCE

  Review Board for Government Contracts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  I am pleased to announce that the Government has accepted the findings of the Review Board Report that the existing Profit Formula should be retained pending the outcome of the next general Review which is expected in the second half of 2003. I am arranging for copies of the Report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Tri-Service and Army Training
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 17 October (Official Report, column 571) I announced that a special appraisal of the initial training of non-Officer recruits of all three services would take place. This review was to be conducted independent of Service and commands and to report directly to Ministers. The work is nearing completion and I now plan to make findings public in January next year.

  Surrey Police continue their investigation into deaths at Deepcut and it would be inappropriate to comment on this area until their inquiry is complete.

  Royal Air Force
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of the Battle Honour "Kosovo" to the Royal Air Force as listed below. Squadrons which were required to operate under constant threat of attack and had demonstrated gallantry and spirit during the allied air campaign over Kosovo during the period 24 March and 20 June 1999 have been awarded the battle honour "Kosovo" with the right to emblazon the honour on their Squadron Standards. Squadrons which provided direct support to the air campaign have been awarded the honour "Kosovo" without the right to emblazon the honour on their Standards.

  With the Right to Emblazon "Kosovo" on Squadron Standards

  Number 1 (Fighter) Squadron

  Harrier GR7

  Number 9 Squadron

  Tornado GR 1

  Number 14 Squadron

  Tornado GR 1

  Number 31 Squadron

  Tornado GR 1

  Without the Right to Emblazonment

  Number 7 Squadron

  Chinook

  Number 8 Squadron

  E3D

  Number 23 Squadron

  E3D

  Number 51 Squadron

  Nimrod

  Number 101 Squadron

  VC10

  Number 216 Squadron

  Tristar

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Stage 1 Report of the Quinquennial Review (QQR) of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) Defence Agency has today been published and copies of the report placed in the Libraries of the House.
  58WS
  I announced terms of reference for Stage 1 of this review in the reply I gave on 20 July 2001 (Official Report, column 710W) to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Maryhill (Ms McKechin).

  In line with central guidance on QQRs, the principal question addressed during Stage 1 has been whether the Ministry of Defence continues to require an in-house intelligence and security training capability The clear conclusion from Stage 1 is that the provision of defence intelligence and security training is essential; the events of September 11 and subsequent operational activity has confirmed this. Following careful analysis of the current arrangements for delivering this training and taking into account the requirements and views of training sponsors and customers, it is clear that the DISC remains a cost effective means of delivering this function.

  The study concluded that the Agency performs this function well, but identified two issues that have reduced its overall effectiveness. These relate to the dual role of the Chief Executive (who is also Director of the (Army) Intelligence Corps) and to a lack of clarity around the margins of the Agency's function concerning the provision of operational manpower and of policy type advice. The study has clarified that the core role of the DISC should be the provision of intelligence and security training The QQR team addressed this in its Stage 2 work and identified a range of specific solutions to these issues.

  In relation to the issue of dual-hatting, the Agency's Owner has already taken steps to mitigate diversion of the Chief Executive's (CE) efforts. A separate study has been commissioned to review the Command and Control arrangements for the DISC and for Intelligence Corps units, and to develop a framework for the command and control of the DISC that will separate the appointments and thereby de-conflict the various responsibilities of the CE. This will provide a clear distinction between the CE as a customer and as a provider, removing any confusion or conflict between the two roles. The study will report in February 2003 and its findings will inform both the DISC Key Targets for Financial Year 2003–04 and bids for funding.

  In relation to a lack of clarity around the margins of the Agency's function, the Owner is also taking steps over the next few months to transfer the Agency's operational role. The precise timing and nature of this will be determined as part of implementation of the recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter. Additionally, the Owner has taken action to constrain the extent to which the DISC provides advice on intelligence matters to a level that is commensurate with its training role.

  The study also noted that the central issues affecting the core role of the DISC must be considered in the context of implementing the pan-MOD Defence Training Review (DTR) and the two strands of work cooperated closely throughout the QQR. DTR will rationalise the provision of individual education and training in MOD, including intelligence and security

  59WS
  training and is thus approaching the functions of the DISC from a broader perspective. Recent decisions on the early implementation of DTR at Chicksands have increased the significance of this work The proposed joint Security, Languages, Intelligence and Photography (SLIP) Defence Training Establishment (DTE) that will subsume the DISC is to be implemented with effect from April 2003 as an early demonstration of the progress towards rationalisation that DTR will bring.

  We have concluded that the DISC should remain an Agency within MOD, in view of the benefits of rationalised training and increased visibility and accountability this has already delivered. In addition to the Stage 2 work described above, additional work has been completed on improving the Agency's Key Targets and on investigating the potential for increasing the application of E-Learning to intelligence and security training, which is consistent with recommendations of the Defence Training Review. This will enable the Agency to achieve its full potential as a centre of training excellence.

  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Key Targets proposed for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) Defence Agency for Financial Year 2002ߝ03 have been agreed, following consideration of the recommendations of the Quinquennial Review of DISC, the findings of which have now been announced to Parliament. These are the targets the Agency has been working to throughout this year.

  The role of the DISC is to train the Armed Forces and other Intelligence agencies in intelligence and security disciplines, and conduct after capture; to maintain an operational capability; and to contribute effective and timely advice to the Armed Forces on appropriate intelligence and security training matters. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 2002 are:

  Key Target 1—Training OutputߞQuantity

  To deliver, within the resources available, the agreed Training Programme and to establish an accurate baseline of the number of successfully completed Man Training Days (MTDs) within the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) process, to be used for comparative measurement in Financial Year (FY) 2003ߝ04.

  Key Target 2ߞTraining Quality

  To ensure that at least 80 per cent. of Training courses complete Internal Validation, to introduce a programme of External Validation, and to complete at least 10 per cent. of External Validations within FY 2002ߝ03, through the application of the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) methodology.

  Key Target 3ߞEfficiency

  To reduce the current cost of delivering the average training place made available by 2 per cent. (£3 per day) in FY 2002ߝ03, and to establish the average cost of a successfully completed MTD to be used as a measurement from FY 2003ߝ04.
  60WS
  Key Target 4ߞOperations

  To satisfy the operational tasking of the Defence Debriefing Team (DDT) and the Field HUMINT Team (FHT).

  Service Accommodation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The contract for the first phase of the £1 billion Single Living Acommodation Modernisation (SLAM) programme was awarded today.

  The contract is being awarded to Debut services, a Birmingham based consortium led by Bovis Lend Lease and Babcock Support Services, who will work in close co-operation with Defence Estates (an Agency of MOD) and Service Client representatives to achieve the delivery of the project.

  The contract comprises new build and refurbishment projects across the country and will deliver primarily single room en-suite accommodation. This will meet the aspirations of our single servicemen and women for improved living conditions that meet modern standards and is the result of extensive consultation of service personnel. This is particularly relevant, as one of the main reasons for personnel leaving the Services is the current poor quality of living accommodation.

  The Project is planned to upgrade progressively the worst accommodation to Grade 1 physical condition over a five-year period. This will involve in the region of 16,000 bedspaces and ancillary accommodation across all ranks of single servicemen and women in the three services.

  The contract is being awarded on "Smart Procurement" principles and contains an innovative incentivised condition to encourage the Prime Contractor to work more efficiently.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Greater London Authority
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I am today issuing a consultation paper on proposed changes to the rules for London Mayoral and Assembly elections. This consultation follows from recommendations which were made by the Greater London Returning Officer earlier this year. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the House Library.

  Electoral Pilots
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government is looking at many ways, including e-voting, to modernise our electoral system and to increase the opportunities that people have to vote. To test the robustness of the new options and to build public confidence in them, we are continuing to promote an extensive programme of pilot innovations at local elections.
  61WS
  In September we, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association, published a prospectus inviting applications from English and Welsh local authorities to apply to run electoral pilots at local elections in 2003. The closing date for applications to run pilots in the May 2003 local elections was 29 November 2002.

  Today I am able to announce that I have accepted 41 applications to hold non e-voting pilots at the May 2003 local elections. The names of the successful local authorities and the type of pilot that they are planning to hold are listed at the end of this statement. The next step will be for us, working with authorities and in consultation with the Electoral Commission, to draw up the statutory orders authorising the pilots.

  I am pleased that, following consultation with the independent Electoral Commission, we are able to take forward so many applications. The standard of applications demonstrates the commitment of local authorities to meeting the Government's exacting requirements. These pilots are an important step towards making elections more relevant, straightforward and accessible for voters.

  Of 41 applications accepted, 33 involve all-postal ballots. Five applications include e-counting, three in combination with an all-postal ballot. Three authorities plan to extend the voting hours, including voting on a number of days before the main polling day of 1 May. The other 4 applications are to pilot changes to ballot papers and their administration. Altogether, these pilots will cover 4.8 million electors.

  We expect to announce in mid-January which of the applications to hold e-voting pilots at the May 2003 local elections have been accepted.

  All-Postal Pilots Total: 30

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Brighton & Hove City Council

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Corby Borough Council

  Darlington Borough Council

  Doncaster Borough Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council Herefordshire Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

  City of Lincoln Council

  Newcastle City Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Rutland County Council District Council

  City of Salford Council

  Sedgefield Borough Council

  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  62WS

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Borough of Telford & Wrekin Council

  Trafford Borough Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  All-Postal & E-Counting Pilots Total: 3

  Derwentside, Chester-le-Street, and Wear Valley

  District Councils (joint application)

  Redcar & Cleveland Council

  St. Helens Council

  E-Counting Pilots Total: 1

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Other Pilots (with traditional elections) Total: 7

  Borough of Charnwood Council: Watermark on ballot paper

  Manchester City Council: Automated issue of postal ballot papers

  Medway Council: Extended voting hours

  North Kesteven District Council: Ballot paper changes and limited mobile voting

  North West Leicestershire District Council: Watermark on ballot paper

  South Oxfordshire District Council: Extended voting hours and limited e-counting

  Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Council: Extended voting hours and early mobile voting

  Local Government Bill
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Last year's Local Government White Paper announced that each best value parish or town council would be paid a grant of £30,000 per year when legislation permitted. This sum would cover audit costs and the corporate costs of carrying out work relating to best value, such as the preparation of performance plans and the management of reviews.

  Provision has been made in the Local Government Bill, published last month, to enable these grants to be paid. Subject to Parliamentary approval, we expect to make the first payments in 2003–04, providing councils with a grant of £45,000, comprising £30,000 for 2003–04 and £15,000 for 2002–03.

  We have also agreed that, on an exceptional basis, the Audit Commission will not charge their fees for auditing best value town and parish councils' 2003–04 performance plans, and will reimburse the fees paid by these councils for auditing their 2002–03 performance plans. This should amount to a total saving of approximately £10,000 for each best value town and parish council.

  Building Regulations
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Too many people experience noisy neighbours, whether late night parties, or loud television. This can have a significant impact on quality of life. It is also one of the things councils gel the most complaints about. At a time
  63WS
  when we are encouraging the construction industry to build to greater densities, this issue is even more important.

  That is why I am publishing official guidance on new amendments to the Building Regulations, which will be available this week. The amendments and guidance will improve standards of sound privacy between homes, and will go further to improve the sound insulation of walls and floors within the home, as well as between rooms in hostels, hotels and residential homes.

  The scope of Part E of the Building Regulations will extend beyond separating walls and floors in houses and flats, to deal with reverberation in the common parts of blocks of flats, and also acoustic conditions in schools. The new requirements for Part E come into force on I July 2003.

  We are also addressing the need to remove barriers to trade in construction products by providing guidance on new European fire safety testing measures for those products. This will enable manufacturers to more easily comply with European Standards as well as existing British Standards.

  Amendments to the Approved Document for Part B of the Building Regulations come into effect on 1 March and will facilitate harmonisation between our existing national test procedures and those which have been produced in support of the Construction Products Directive (CPD).

  Boundary Commission for England
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today appointed, for a second term, Mr Robin Gray as a member of the Boundary Commission for England. His appointment is effective until 31 December 2006.

HEALTH

  Plasma Supplies
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  On the evening of Monday 16 December, the Department of Health completed its purchase of the largest remaining independent US plasma collector, Life Resources Incorporated. This will secure long-term supplies of non-UK blood plasma for the benefit of NHS patients, and ensure that the current global plasma shortage will not reduce the availability to National Health Service patients of life-saving plasma products. An independent option appraisal conducted by KPMG concluded that this purchase was the most cost-effective way of achieving these objectives.

  Plasma is used to manufacture products for the treatment of a wide range of conditions. Every year the NHS uses:

  5,000 kilos of albumin for the tens of thousands of patients treated for burns, shock and major trauma.

  2,000 kilos of intravenous immunoglobulin for patients with immune disorders. This includes 1,800 patients with primary immune deficiency who require an injection every 2–3 weeks
  64WS
  throughout their lives to protect them against infection. Thousands more patients are given intravenous immunoglobulin to treat neurological and other conditions.

  120,000 bottles of Anti-D immunoglobulin to protect unborn children suffering from haemolytic diseases of the newborn. This affects roughly 64,000 pregnancies a year and, in a small number of cases, can cause stillbirth, severe disability or death after birth from anaemia or jaundice.

  400,000 bottles of Factor VIII to treat around 3,000 haemophilia patients.

  Around 45 per cent, of the plasma products needed by the NHS in England and Wales are manufactured by the NHS-owned Bio Products Laboratory. The remainder are purchased by the NHS on the open market from third party commercial suppliers. In 1998, the Government instructed BPL to stop using UK plasma to make these products because of concerns about the theoretical risk from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Since then, BPL has purchased plasma from the United States. The US has no reported cases of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and is the only country able to supply the quality of plasma that BPL needs in sufficient quantity. The US collects 60 per cent, of the world's plasma and supplies between 35 per cent.ߞ45 per cent, of the plasma products used in Europe alone.

  Up to now these supplies have been dependent on contracts with US plasma collection companies. Over the past two years most of these companies have been purchased by commercial manufacturers wishing to secure their own plasma supplies. This radically reduced the amount of US plasma that BPL could buy under contract and threatened our ability to supply sufficient non-UK plasma products to NHS patients.

  Without continuing secure supplies of US plasma, BPL faced shutdown by 2004 with a consequent removal of massive volumes of plasma products from the NHS market. Independent market analysis by KPMG demonstrated that commercial suppliers would not be able to provide sufficient, secure supplies of plasma products to the NHS if BPL closed. Immediate action was therefore needed to secure long-term supplies of high quality, US plasma for BPL.

  The Department of Health has purchased the trade and assets of Life Resources for an up front payment of £48.8 million with a further £21 million tied into the performance of the company up until the end of 2006. The Department has paid a commercial price for the business assets based on same analysis as a private sector purchaser would have undertaken.

  Life Resources has supplied BPL with plasma since 1999. It has extremely high quality and safety standards overseen by the US Food and Drugs Administration and the UK Medicines Control Agency. All the company's collection centres are inspected by BPL on a rolling two year programme. BPL's team also inspected every centre prior to the purchase.

  An effective corporate governance regime has been established for the ongoing management of Life Resources. The company will be run by its existing US management team and report to a US parent company, DCI Biologicals Incorporated. DCI Biologicals will

  65WS
  report to a UK parent company, Plasma Resources Ltd. The Board of Plasma Resources Ltd is chaired by Richard Douglas, the Department of Health's director of finance and investment.

  The Government has appointed Mr Philip Gushing as non-executive chair of DCI Biologicals. Mr Gushing is highly qualified for this role. His previous positions include Chief Executive of Inchcape (1996ߝ9) and Chief Executive of Vitec Group PLC (2000ߝ1). He is also currently Chairman of Paragon Print and Packaging Limited, Spalding, Lincs, and a non executive director of Ikon Office Solutions Inc, Philadelphia, USA. He was appointed to Chair DCI because of his extensive international business experience, including a career involving American operations since 1977. He also has extensive international acquisitions experience built up over 20 years.

  This deal is a logical extension of the existing relationship between the NHS and an established US plasma supplier, Life Resources, and is a pragmatic solution to the problem of securing supply.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  The Forty-eighth Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for 2001ߝ02 has been published today and copies have 66WS
  been laid before Parliament. The Reviewing Committee provides independent advice to the Minister for the Arts on the pre-eminence of cultural objects seeking export licences, using the Waverley criteria. During the year, following recommendations from the Reviewing Committee, temporary bars were placed on the export of 34 objects, including paintings, drawings, photographs, sculptures, furniture and manuscripts. Of these, 20 items valued at £2.7 million were purchased by institutions in the UK. The report contains the Reviewing Committee's comments on policy matters relating to the operation of the export control and the protection of cultural objects, and details of each case considered during the reporting year 1 July 2001ߝ30 June 2002.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  King Edward VIII (Abdication)
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  In an answer to a written Question on 11 June 2002, I stated that official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII would need to be re-reviewed by Departments before release and that it was hoped that the results of the review would be known and put into effect by the end of the year. I am pleased to announce that the review has now been completed; the papers have been identified and are now being prepared for release. It is expected that they will be made available at the Public Record Office during January.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Nigel Simeon, Lord Bishop of Manchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth and the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Standing Order 22
2.40 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham asked the Leader of the House:
Whether he will draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 22 (Lords not to converse whilst the House is upon business).
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to remind delinquent Lords of the terms of Standing Order 22. It reads:
"If any Lord has occasion to speak with another Lord while the House is sitting, they are to retire to the Prince's Chamber, and not converse in the space behind the Woolsack; or else the Lord Speaker is to call them to order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation".
This is therefore quite a modern problem: the Standing Order is dated 30th March 1670.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer, and I hope that, after this, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not be agitated too much in future. Does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that this practice has become far worse in recent years and that it is sometimes very difficult to pay attention to the debate because several conversations are going on at the same time? I wonder whether the House could not comport itself better when Question Time ends. There tends to be such a chorus of conversation as Peers leave the Chamber that it is very difficult to hear the opening few minutes of the first speech in the following debate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think there are two serious points here. I believe that some noble Lords do not realise that their carefully wrought aphorisms, intended only for their immediate neighbour, are in fact picked up by the microphones. It is very disconcerting, particularly if one is trying to answer a question, because one simply cannot hear the question. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, is right. Very often I have sympathised with colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, and on ours, who are trying to address the House above a good deal of noise as
644
noble Lords leave the Chamber. In March 1999, the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, reported that,
"too many Lords have taken to conducting background conversations in the Chamber. This should be strongly discouraged".
I think we would all agree with that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that if we are to continue with a self-regulated House it imposes a responsibility on all of us to stick to the rules? We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Denham for having raised the matter. I am aware that on occasions I have been seen to whisper to one of my colleagues and I shall now desist.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the trouble with whispers is that they are normally not whispers at all. Plainly, this is something that the life Peers have learnt from the hereditaries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Standing Order also refer—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, she thinks so too. We appreciate the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Despite the astonishingly high quality of conversation on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, we accept a certain degree of guilt by association. We therefore confess that we have some responsibility in the matter. In future we shall maintain a trappist silence during all appropriate periods. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his Question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that a good deal of the blame rests on the Liberal Democrats, but I forgive them.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that if supplementary questions related more directly to the substantive Question on the Order Paper your Lordships would be less likely to hold conversations behind the Woolsack or elsewhere? Will he also keep in mind and acknowledge that this place is after all a Parliament where we parley and speak? It is not a morgue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, addressing myself to the last part of that observation, it sometimes feels like it. It is true that supplementary questions often do not relate to the Question. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, now firmly declines to answer such questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Denham, pointed out, it is difficult to hear if other noble Lords are speaking at the same time because what they say is picked up by the microphones.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sure that these Benches are grateful for the noble and learned Lord's absolution. Would he care to comment on the difference between a whisper and a conversation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, whispers are much more interesting.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as the Standing Order ultimately requires the sanction of stopping "the business in agitation", will we be given a demonstration of "in agitation" so that we shall recognise it when it happens?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that the Standing Order is free of all doubt. It should be considered by the Privileges Committee. Does the agitation refer to the business, to your Lordships or, Heaven forfend, is it supposed to relate to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the conversations that go on are not only off-putting for the speaker and those listening to the speech but are also most disturbing for the occupant of the Woolsack at the time? Can the noble and learned Lord tell me when was the last occasion on which the Standing Order was enforced, by whom and against whom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, speaking from memory, I think it was 15th January 1572.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, although conversation is forbidden, can one talk to oneself?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one should not, but one does.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that such conversations create additional difficulties for those Peers who are hard of hearing? There are quite a number of them in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that such conversations are disconcerting when one is trying to give a courteous and full reply whether one hears fully or not. Such conversations are discourteous, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, implied in the Question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, should not the Standing Order apply particularly to noble Lords on the Front Bench who often chatter among themselves when they should be listening to the debate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Standing Order should be particularly appropriate for those who are members of single-member parties.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House also bear in mind, unlike another place, this is the only matter
646
upon which our Speaker and Deputy Speakers are empowered to act from the Woolsack so far as order in the House is concerned and that there are those of us who would not wish to impose any additional burdens upon our Speaker in respect of order in the House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept that. We are all willing to blame others for doing what we normally do ourselves. There was one occasion when I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, challenged one of my noble friends as regards asperity of language but I have not myself come across agitation in your Lordships' House recently.

Japanese Knotweed
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to stop the spread of Japanese knotweed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides measures for prohibiting spread of this invasive species. Under Section 14 it is an offence to plant or otherwise cause Japanese knotweed to grow in the wild.
Waste containing Japanese knotweed is controlled under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environment Agency produces detailed guidance for landowners and managers on how to control this species.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is it correct that much research is devoted to the problems caused by Japanese knotweed? When I first asked a question on the matter in 1989 nothing much was going on. Therefore, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply. Have any successful prosecutions been brought under the 1981 Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no central record of all the prosecutions that take place, but I suspect that there are very few. I am aware of a prosecution earlier this year, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which related to fly-tipping the waste of Japanese knotweed.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that this particular pernicious weed, and a number of other foreign species, continue to spread? Although the action taken under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is entirely laudable, a further approach would be desirable to attack the sites where they flourish.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, certainly the species is aggressive and difficult to shift and so requires some

647
effective measures to remove it from places such as river banks, where it creates danger by causing flood problems, and other amenities and land. For that reason, the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of policy on that and other invasive non-native species, which is due to report within the next couple of months.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I understand that this appalling weed, as many of your Lordships may know, is perhaps the largest female clone on the globe. Whether that has any impact on what should be done about it, I do not know. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is looking at me angrily, so I shall move on quickly. Given that the weed is present in perhaps over half the country, is there a good case for introducing biological controls against it, such as appropriate insects and fungi? The invasive nature of the weed is due to the lack of such predators in its environment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the subject of female clones. It is certainly true that new methods of control need to be identified. Among the possibilities is that of biological control. It is a strong weed and has such a firm hold because, although it is a non-native species, it has been here since the early 19th century and has established itself. Therefore, one would need a pretty strong biological control system, which might well have side effects. All those points are being considered.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what is the botanical name of Japanese knotweed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am extremely glad that noble Lady asks that question. I am sure that I have the name somewhere. No, on second thoughts, I shall have to write to her.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I do not know whether I can help the Minister. Are we talking about the plant that is known in the United States as Japanese kudzu? This is a serious question because, if it is the same plant, I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the devastating effects that kudzu has had on trees and forests in the southern United States.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would appear that I have neither the Latin nor the Japanese name for the plant. There have been problems in the United States with the plant that we are discussing, although I am not sure whether it is the same plant as the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred. Japanese knotweed has had devastating effects on parts of other countries besides our own. We have had some success in controlling it in particular areas. As the Environment Agency has said, it has threatened flood defences. There
648
is a scheme in Cornwall that takes a focused approach to eradicate the weed, but it is very resource intensive, so we need to find other ways.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, it is called Fallopia Japonica.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I had the Japonica bit, but the other bit failed me.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, far be it from me to minimise the threat from Japanese knotweed, but is it not a fact that the pink-flowered Himalayan balsam is just as threatening? Indeed, it is more so because it is attractive, invasive and difficult to eradicate because of its proximity to watercourses.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that this is another invasive species to which we must pay attention. Of course, it does not have such a strong hold as Japanese knotweed, which was also brought over primarily for ornamental purposes. Some people, at least, find Japanese knotweed attractive. Balsam is among the plants that we shall need to consider under any changed strategy.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in Streatham, my son is not allowed to put oat his garden waste in plastic bags because he has an infestation of Japanese knotweed in his garden, so it has to be burned in situ?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not particularly aware of Lambeth Council's approach to the problem, but it is true that one is not supposed to put Japanese knotweed in normal garden waste. The prosecution to which I referred earlier related to that matter.

Foreign Language Teaching in Schools
2.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the teaching of modern foreign languages in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, today we published our languages strategy. Our vision is to create an appetite for learning, broadening and enriching the options available. We aim to provide a flexible system of learning languages for all ages; the opportunity for every key stage 2 child to study at least one foreign

649
language by the end of this decade; and to ensure that language learning has a key place in the transformed secondary school of the future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and congratulate her on finally introducing a strategy. Does she accept that, having produced a strategy, the time will come for delivering it? Is she satisfied that the Government have the resources to deliver it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind words about the strategy. I am satisfied that in spending time on producing the strategy, and through an approach that ensures that we have time to deliver it, we shall have the resources to do so. It will be a strategy of which we can rightly be proud.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the problem in question is as much about public motivation as teacher provision. Will the Minister comment on an earlier government's introduction of compulsory teaching of French at 11?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the thrust of the right reverend Prelate's comments. However, I understood the comment about motivation and opportunity. We have to provide the opportunity for children to learn languages earlier, and for all of us to continue with language learning, and to see its relevance and appropriateness, throughout the rest of our lives.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister concerned by the fact that our continental neighbours can produce qualified teachers to teach languages from the age of seven, when Her Majesty's Government have to ask retired businessmen and others to help? Does it worry the Government that they cannot produce what our neighbours produce and have produced for many years?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, next year we propose to double the number of qualified teachers coming into primary schools. However, I caution noble Lords against the way in which the "Today" programme, particularly, represented our policies and strategies in terms of other people. There are many people in this country who are bilingual, trilingual, and whatever one calls it when one speaks four languages—quadrilingual, perhaps. Those people can offer us some expertise. By using our teaching assistant route, we propose to enable those people, through a qualification, to offer support in the classroom.
I have just been to a school in London where there were teachers teaching languages, with the support of teaching assistants who could offer a greater variety of languages—Spanish and French, for example.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, in view of our short-sighted reluctance to learn foreign languages, would the Minister give maximum publicity to page 13 of the strategy document, which states:
"Businesses need people with language skills … German being the most in demand"?
Should that not indeed be virtually self-evident, given the importance of German in Europe, both demographically and economically, with 100 million native speakers and up to another 100 million who are thoroughly competent to use it, not least in the old Austro-Hungarian empire into which the European Union is extending?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand the importance of German. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, rightly said that businesses referred to German as a language of particular concern. Sixty per cent of British trade is with non-English speaking countries. In a survey conducted in four English regions in 2001, more than 45 per cent of respondent companies said that they had experienced language barriers in their business dealings. I hope that noble Lords will enjoy reading the strategy over the Christmas break and will see that there has been and will continue to be business involvement in its development.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, while I welcome the plans to teach languages in primary schools, is the Minister aware of the research that shows that the best time to teach languages to children is before they are seven? They learn the language more easily and it gives them an ability to learn another language later on in life. In view of that, do the Government have any plans to extend the teaching of languages in primary schools to the beginning of school and even into nursery school? To resource such a scheme, would the Government consider adopting the Liberal Democrat policy of encouraging gap-year students from other European Union countries to train as language assistants and to come to teach in our primary and nursery schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are very interested in using students from other countries to come here and support the policy. Noble Lords may have read in some early press reports that we are also considering the role of our own language undergraduates, who could support us in that regard. We are at this stage looking specifically at children of seven years of age and up. However, I recognise from my own visits to early years settings and primary schools that many offer language opportunities. We will of course continue to support and encourage that and keep the strategy under review. Our ambition is to have the quality language support and education that all noble Lords wish to see.
Lord Renton: My Lords, which is now given priority in our schools: the teaching of foreign languages or the teaching of English, which is now the language of the world?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is absolutely critical that our children learn to speak,

651
read and write good English. At the heart of the Government's strategy is the literacy and numeracy strategy. I am sure that all noble Lords agree with and endorse that. We may consider English to be the language of the world and we are most fortunate in its wide use but many languages are spoken on our planet. There is a great need for us to converse with, to trade with and to understand all of our neighbours on this planet. That is why we should endeavour to support language learning for our children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister help teachers in this regard? If there is an entitlement for all children to be taught a language within the course of this decade and if there is an obligation in law for schools to be obliged to make that provision—I point out that the teaching of the language is dependent on an ad hoc arrangement—at what point is the school in breach of its obligation and at what point can the parent draw on that entitlement for their child?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, within the primary area there is as yet no statutory requirement on a school to make such provision. We have set out an eight-year timetable to enable all schools to offer that to children. The local education authority comes into that arrangement as our partner in ensuring that that is available. We have deliberately not used in the strategy the perhaps more simplistic approach of saying, "We will enable every primary school to be able to offer French by having at least one teacher 'who speaks French"; rather, we have sought to be more diverse. We have deliberately said that we believe that our eight-year timetable will provide that. It is our intention to make that not a burden on schools but an opportunity. Our job is to work in partnership to ensure that that can be delivered. However, it is not as yet an entitlement in law.

Belfast Agreement
3.4 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the Irish Taoiseach that "while Stormont was suspended, the Belfast agreement was not".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the agreement is very much alive. Devolved government had, unfortunately, to be suspended. Other institutions, such as the North-South Ministerial Council, were necessarily bound up in that suspension. Many aspects of the agreement remain fully in force, including the important guarantee of consent to constitutional change. We are intent on pursuing the many reforms and benefits flowing from it.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. I had anticipated, knowing him a little, a monosyllabic response. Does he agree that any attempt to continue the cross-border
652
institutions while the Assembly is suspended would be in complete breach of the spirit and letter of the Belfast agreement?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we should do our utmost to co-operate fully with the Government of the Irish Republic. That is in the interests of everyone living south or north of the Border. There is continuing and, I suggest, appropriate contact between the two Governments because that will be the way forward for all of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
Lord Laird: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Belfast agreement was sold to the unionist community in Northern Ireland on the basis that it was safe to take part in cross-border bodies because there would be a unionist veto? Does he share my disgust that a few days ago the Irish Government, without consulting anyone else, rewrote the Belfast agreement to take out the unionist veto and unionist consent? We were simply taken out of the decision-making loop. That has produced a system that appears to involve joint authority between the British Government and the Irish Government. Does he understand the disgust that we in Northern Ireland feel now that there is a clear breach of the Belfast agreement? A document that we were told could not be amended has been amended by the Dublin Government. Does he agree that if, in a few months, there has been no continuation of devolution, there is likely to be no North-South Ministerial Council or implementation bodies?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that the Belfast agreement could properly or reasonably be described as having been amended. There is the veto in that agreement which I referred to earlier; namely, no constitutional change without the approval of the majority of those living in Northern Ireland. That is critically important. However, it would be foolish and irresponsible for the British Government not to co-operate as fully and appropriately as possible with the Irish Government. That is in the interests of everyone living on the island of Ireland.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a rather warped, black-lettered and strict constructionist interpretation of the Belfast agreement is wholly negative and does not help the process to continue? It is vital for Northern Ireland in particular that cross-border business and other transactions continue to take place. I am sure that he will agree that we cannot suspend normal activity in Northern Ireland simply because we currently have an abeyance in the devolutionary settlement.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The Belfast agreement is an instrument for our common purposes and we need to make it work. I believe that it has worked very significantly and I am confident that it will continue to do so. The noble Lord is right to say that we cannot

653
simply put a line under the Belfast agreement and it is not useful to indulge in hyperbole. I remind the House that 11 people have lost their lives as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland this year. That is 11 too many. Noble Lords will want to compare that with the lamentable numbers of deaths in previous years.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal said that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount. Does he recall that in selling the Belfast agreement—I was one of the negotiators—to the people of Northern Ireland there were three interdependent strands? Strand one is not now in operation. The Assembly was suspended and is increasingly unlikely to be in place by May. That being the case, can the Belfast agreement continue indefinitely without an Assembly at Stormont?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that the Assembly is increasingly unlikely to be re-elected. Our aim, hope and purpose is that there should be Assembly elections in May, as the Secretary of State has said on many occasions. I repeat my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton: the Belfast agreement is an instrument—an agreement—for our purposes. It is not the terminus of our efforts; it is a useful way of going towards that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that governments anywhere who share a common frontier have to be in constant co-operative arrangements with each other regardless of the particular institutional form that that may take? As a supplement to that, can the noble and learned Lord give us any good news regarding the harmonisation of fuel duties between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot deal with that specific matter. But the noble Lord's general point—as so often is the case, if I may respectfully say so, in his comments on Northern Ireland—is a civilised and reasonable approach. We cannot wish away the boundary; we cannot wish away our past separate and joint history.

UK Exports
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing about the widening gap in the trade in goods which, according to the figures for October, are at a record high.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, although the United Kingdom economy continues to perform well, we are a very open economy and therefore not immune to last year's global slowdown. UK exports have been affected by the depressed level of demand in many of our main overseas markets.
654
The Government are working to improve the United Kingdom's competitiveness in order to narrow the productivity gap with other countries through policies that spur enterprise, promote competition and encourage innovation, investment and the acquisition of skills.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the deficit in trade in goods in October was the worst since records began to be kept in 1697? Is that not indicative of a real crisis in the economy with a buoyant consumer demand largely being met by imports and our own manufacturing sector, together with productivity and capital investment, being in the doldrums? Is that not an issue that requires much more attention than it appears to be getting at present?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that if I attempt to put the figures in context I shall be accused of complacency. I hope that my original Answer made it clear that we are not in any way complacent about the problems, and in particular the export problems, of the manufacturing industry in this country.
Although October's trade in goods was the highest cash deficit in history, it nevertheless represented only 3.4 per cent of gross domestic product. There have been many higher figures—as much as 4.8 per cent in 1989. At the same time, we have had surpluses in both services and in investment income—surpluses of £0.9 billion in October and of £2.8 billion in investment income in the second quarter of this year.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the difficulties that heavy industry in the United Kingdom has—in particular the steel industry. Has he any further information as to what could be termed the "wicked" American protectionism that affects not only steel imports from the United Kingdom but also from elsewhere and other products that affect our manufacturing industry in general? What is America's position now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say that there has not been a reversal of America's position on steel imports. We are still in negotiations with them. We still feel very strongly—we made clear at the time—that the protectionism shown in favour of the United States' steel industry is an abuse. We are strongly opposed to it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that in 1973 the proportion of our GDP represented by manufacturing was 32 per cent and that it has now dropped to 18 per cent? Can he also confirm that out of 28 million employees, fewer than 4 million are now employed in the manufacturing industry?
Can the Minister tell us to what level employment in manufacturing industry will need to fall before we believe that there is a crisis that needs to be confronted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, are almost entirely

655
accurate. My figure is 19 per cent for manufacturing industry, but that is still enormously important for us because it represents the majority of our exports and 4 million people employed in manufacturing. But again, I hope that I am not accused of being complacent if I put it in context; in all the major developed countries of the world, including the United States, France and Germany, there has been a similar decline in manufacturing as a proportion of their gross domestic product.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the gap is wider with the European Union or with the rest of the world?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of the figure of £3.6 billion deficit in goods in October of this year, which was the basis of the original Question, £1.2 billion was in trade with the European Union and £2.4 billion was with the rest of the world. Since approximately half our trade is with the European Union, it will be seen that proportionately our deficit with the European Union is lower.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while talking of the European Union, is it not a fact that the very comparable economies of France and Germany show very positive balance of trade surpluses while going through the same difficulties as we are? How is it that we seem to be so much worse off?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think the basic answer to that was contained in my original Answer: we are and always have been a very much more open economy than many other European countries. We have a higher proportion of our gross domestic product involved both in exports and in imports with major markets around the world. Therefore, we have been particularly vulnerable to the slowdown. When one recalls that the growth in world trade in the year 2000 was 12 per cent and that there was no growth at all in world trade in the year 2001, one can see the kind of problems that we are facing.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we shall have two repeated Statements this afternoon. The first, from my noble friend Lord Evans, will be on the size of the Scottish Parliament and the second, from my noble friend Lord Bach, will be on Iraq contingency preparation. The Statements will be taken between the two afternoon debates.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 7th January to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Crickhowell to be taken after the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Grenfell.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Courts Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 7 to 31,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 32 to 40,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 41 to 60,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 61 to 91,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 92 to 98,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 99 to 101.—( The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Constitution
3.17 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth rose to call attention to the nature of the British constitution and the consequences of constitutional change; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to hold this debate today. One or two Members of your Lordships' House have commiserated with me on the timing, suggesting that this is not the best time of year for holding a debate. For the past two years, I have spoken on the very last sitting day before Christmas, so to speak on the penultimate day actually constitutes something of a step forward for me. In any event, I see this debate not as an isolated occurrence but rather as a prompt for a much wider debate about the very nature of our constitution.
My basic proposition is simply put. It is that we spend too much time debating specific items of constitutional change and not enough debating the nature of the constitution itself. Over the past three decades we have seen changes that have affected fundamentally the constitution of the United Kingdom. Yet the changes that have taken place have been treated as essentially disparate and discrete, each justified on particular

657
grounds but without being related either to one another or to a clear view of the constitution that is needed for the United Kingdom.
In a pamphlet published just over a decade ago, my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell made the point that we used to be good at reflecting on national institutions and their place in our constitutional arrangements. Our problem in recent years, he argued, was that we had rather lost that capacity. In immediate post-war decades, we rather took our constitutional arrangements for granted. Later, when those arrangements appeared not to be delivering what was expected of them, calls for constitutional reform began to be heard. Those calls, though, were made in response to what were seen as specific problems and were not couched in the language of constitutional discourse. There was no wide or sustained debate reflecting on the nature of our constitution and what we expected of it.
During the 1980s and 1990s, we did begin to see a debate, with more coherent approaches to constitutional change emerging. However, the changes that have occurred in recent years have not been rooted in any particular view of constitutional change. The result has not been a new constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom but rather what Professor Anthony King, in his Hamlyn Lectures in 2000, referred to as a new constitutional "unsettlement". We are making profound changes without any clear, coherent view of where we are going.
I shall identify briefly the fundamental changes that have occurred. The changes of the past 30 years have occurred essentially in two overlapping waves. The first was our membership of the European Community, now the European Union. The terms of the original treaties, as amended by subsequent treaties, have wrought a fundamental change to our constitutional arrangements. They have, among other things, brought about a new judicial dimension to our constitution. Indeed, membership has brought about what Aidan O'Neill QC refers to, in the latest issue of Public Law, as,
"a paradigm shift in the United Kingdom constitution",
enabling the judges to assert the sovereignty of judicial power over and against the executive and Parliament. Membership of the EU can be seen now as a basic tenet of our constitution, but it is one that does not often fit well with the other tenets.
The other wave has comprised the changes enacted under the present Government. We have seen some major constitutional changes. Two of the most prominent changes, of course, have been devolution and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. The Human Rights Act 1998 has bolstered the growing judicial dimension of the constitution. So, too, has devolution, as the courts are, in effect, constitutional courts for the devolved areas of the United Kingdom. We thus have a major judicial dimension, one that challenges some of the fundamental tenets of the constitution but one that has not been brought about
658
by conscious intent or as a product of a clear, sustained debate. The implications—for the courts and the constitution—are well drawn out by O'Neill in his Public Law article. We have, he argues, the making of a potential constitutional crisis.
I make no comment on the merits of the particular changes. That is not my purpose; rather, my point is that we need to consider them in terms of the wider picture. I appreciate that it may appear strange for a Conservative to want to move beyond seeing such changes as anything other than piecemeal reform. But what we have seen are changes that, collectively, move us to a different plane. We have not seen the occasional change that addresses a particular problem and one that can be absorbed within our existing constitutional framework. In short, we cannot see the changes as organic.
I concur with the analysis offered by the distinguished lawyer, Robert Stevens, former Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, in the prologue to his recent book, The English Judges. He observes that, traditionally, the growth of the English constitution has been organic, the rate of change glacial. Until recent times, he says, there has perhaps been only one exception: the period from 1640 to the arrival of Robert Walpole as the king's first minister in 1720. He writes:
"This period represented the transformation of the Constitution from the admittedly weak English version of the Divine Right of Kings to a dimly perceived form of constitutional monarchy and responsible government".
He makes the point that, of course, there were important constitutional developments over the following centuries. Yet, vital as the Reform Acts and other measures were in moving Britain towards a modern democracy, they were, as Dr Stevens notes,
"essentially independent acts rather than part of a dramatic period of constitutional restructuring'".
However, the period from 1970 to 2000, he argues, provides a practical and psychological transformation comparable with the earlier constitutional revolution. That is the crucial point. We have not seen the occasional independent Act but rather several measures that, taken together, alter the nature of the constitution and deliver, in Professor King's words, a new constitutional unsettlement.
Given that, it is essential that we stop looking at each change that has been enacted and each proposed reform to our constitution as some discrete development and, instead, engage in a more coherent debate about the very nature of our constitution and the type of constitution that we want for this country.
We are nowadays, I think, a little clearer as to what a constitution is. Your Lordships' House last year established a Constitution Committee, which I have the honour to chair, and, in our first report, we outlined what a constitution was and identified the key tenets of the British constitution. In so doing, we were drawing on established sources. So, we know what a constitution is. But do we know what a constitution is for? In a recent article in Political Studies, Duncan Ivison reminds us of the distinction between "positive" and "negative"

659
constitutionalism. Positive constitutionalism sees the constitution as enabling the will of "the people", as a collective body, to be paramount. As Ivison writes:
"The constitution is presented as a 'system of politics', where the provision of … goods such as the protection of rights and the rule of law fall within rather than outside politics".
As he goes on to note, the constitution, in Richard Bellamy's words, becomes,
"rooted in political and social structures rather than pre-political legal norms".
Negative constitutionalism, on the other hand, constrains the will of the people. The constitution stipulates what a state can and—most importantly of all in this context—cannot do. It is meant to protect against the arbitrary excess of power. I quote Ivison again:
"Negative constitutionalism places great emphasis on the containment of political power and on minimizing the damage government can do. This is justified according to either (i) certain fundamental 'pre-political' considerations, such as universal individual rights, the equal value of individual welfare, or the impartiality of the rule of law; or (ii) in more strategic concerns to do with increasing the prospects for civil peace by decreasing the scope of governmental power".
That distinction is not only challenging; it also relates to the nature of constitutional debate in this country.
I mentioned that several approaches to constitutional change emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. Debate largely polarised around two of them. There was the liberal approach to the constitution, seeking a new constitutional settlement and doing so on the basis of negative constitutionalism—wanting to constrain an over-mighty state. And there was the traditional approach, wedded to the existing Westminster model of government, essentially a modified form of positive constitutionalism—the will of the people being expressed through, but tempered by, the parliamentary process.
The debate between the liberal and traditional approaches was overshadowed by the debate among practitioners as to the merits of particular reforms. That, I think, has been a mistake—potentially, a tragic mistake. We have debated the merits of particular parts but not stood back to look at the effect on the whole. It is essential that we stand back and discuss the constitution as a constitution. It is a major challenge. I wear my academic hat in saying that it is a major challenge for both parties. For the Government, the challenge is immediate. For my own party, the challenge is prospective.
For the Government, the challenge is one of deciding what sort of constitution they are trying to achieve with their raft of constitutional changes. I have asked Ministers what coherent intellectual approach to constitutional change underpins the reforms that they have introduced. Generally, they have avoided answering. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to reply to this debate. Not only is he now the Minister with responsibility for constitutional issues, he is the one senior Minister who has attempted to articulate principles underpinning the Government's constitutional changes. However, he has ploughed a lonely furrow, joined by few of his
660
colleagues, and has sought to give coherence to measures that fall within no clear conception of what the constitution is for. The question for government is: what sort of constitution are they trying to create for the United Kingdom? Are they driven by an adherence to negative or positive constitutionalism'? Only when we know the answers to those questions can we properly assess the particular changes that they favour.
The challenge for my own party is prospective. The party has embraced the traditional, or Westminster, model that has served the nation well. We may have failed in the early 1970s in thinking through the consequences, in constitutional terms, of membership of the European Community, but our approach otherwise has been consistent. The problem is prospective in that a future Conservative government will have to decide how to respond to a very different constitutional framework from that which existed when they were last in office. Do they embrace a conservative, a reactionary or a radical approach? That is, do they seek to conserve the constitution as it exists at the time? Do they seek to recreate the constitution as it was prior to the general election of 1997? Or do they seek an entirely new approach, recognising—as William Hague did in a speech on the constitution in 1998—that the clock cannot be put back?
As for the Liberal Democrats, they have embraced the liberal approach and their approach is thus coherent. I have made the point before in your Lordships' House that though I profoundly disagree with the approach they take, at least I can engage with it. Their problem is essentially a practical one: how far can they go along with a government who appear to deliver half or rather a quarter of a loaf without necessarily having any commitment to the whole loaf?
I conclude by posing what I see as the fundamental questions. Should our constitution be the consequence of disparate and discrete changes, driven by arguments specific to each particular change, or should it be the result of a clear view of what the constitution is actually for? Does the type and level of debate that we have had in recent years offer the prospect of a misshapen, perhaps dysfunctional, constitution—dysfunctional because, as we have no view of the whole, we have no way of seeing how each part fits with the other parts? And does not current debate about, for example, regional government or reform of your Lordships' House serve to highlight that very problem? In short, are we not looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope? I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I welcome the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on the changes in our constitution. There is a need for this debate. I wish we had the benefit of a similar debate in the House of Commons. In particular, I would dearly like to hear how the newer Members see their role. Certainly, there has been a diminution of the House of Commons as the great power in the land—about

661
which I feel very sad. The House of Commons was the central forum where all arguments were set out, decisions made and, if necessary, the executive challenged. That has been its historical role. In a limited way, there are signs that that situation may be returning. I hope that that is so.
When I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, was initiating this debate, my first question was: how do we think the constitution is doing? My answer is, "Not very well". Devolution has yet to prove itself. The dominance of the executive over Parliament has increased. The unique position of Cabinet government has seen its former power greatly reduced. The Official Opposition are weak. Elections, both national and local, have resulted in the lowest turnout for many decades. Only the Select Committee system seems to be adequately examining the state of our government departments and the policies that they are pursuing.
Obviously, any debate on constitutional matters cannot fail to take account of the present discussion on House of Lords reform. There are two aspects of this to which I shall refer. The first is that there are those who seek to use the House of Lords to remedy the defects of the House of Commons. Few can doubt that the Government are having an easier ride in the House of Commons, both from a feeble Opposition, as well as having relatively few difficulties with their own Back-Benchers. I would have wished to have heard their opinions expressed in a similar debate to the one that we are having today.
In some circumstances, the House of Lords can remedy the shortcomings of scrutiny in the other place. But surely, the better answer is "Put your own house in order first". The second aspect is the need to avoid a second Chamber so much like the House of Commons as to cause a parliamentary logjam. There is much more to say on this, but perhaps that can wait for the very important debates in the New Year.
I have always believed that our constitutional arrangements are maybe the best, but are certainly among the very best in the world. During my time in Parliament, we have seen the still-to-be-digested consequences of the poll tax—that shameful tax imposed upon us. We have also seen the reduction in power of local authorities, devolution and impending regionalism. All those have changed fundamentally the way that we run and organise our national life.
Perhaps we may examine some aspects of our past and make a comparison with an area I know—Manchester. It was at the beginning of the last century that Manchester felt it needed to have an inland port. The Manchester Ship Canal was built, covering 30 miles from Liverpool to the centre of Manchester. It cost an immense amount of money, but a decision was made that it could be done, and it was done. No one can conceive of anything like that happening in local government today.
In more recent times, the airport was built. Manchester airport was the only airport run by its local authority. When the Government wanted to take
662
it over, the local authority said "No". I remember the speeches at the time: our forefathers built the ship canal, therefore Manchester should have the confidence to build its own airport. But that has gone. We do not see any of that today. That is finished, and that is sad.
In addition, we had the finest libraries in the country, built on the same local initiatives. Birmingham, too, had its own successes. But that is impossible to see today—Manchester was even having difficulties funding the Halle orchestra, and that is a shame.
Councillors were very important people. Councillor Pariser was one of the great unsung heroes of the old city council. He was chairman of the education committee. He decided that between the university and the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology—a distance of about a mile—he wanted to see a campus that brought education together. It was a brilliant idea. However, there was great need for housing in the post-war years and he had to square it with that. Councillor Pariser had the courage and support to produce the university in order that it would civilise the city, and the city would teach the university some of the facts of life. That was the type of local initiative which could be found, but it cannot be found today.
Some Members of the House of Commons are not acquitting themselves in the ways of the past. The House of Lords is relatively free of party dogma. We have expertise, experience, the executive and legislature. The constitution does not depend on party—it should not be dominated by party, nor intimidated by it—and in this Chamber, fortunately, it is not. The position is different in the other place. I refer to the diminution of the position of Members of Parliament. The Leader is not so dependent on Members of Parliament. In the days of Harold Wilson, before the election by party members, he had to ensure that he had support in the House of Commons. There is now a large majority in the House of Commons and the role of the government Back-Bencher is diminished.
The role of the government Back-Benchers is crucial because they can bring about changes and alterations in policy. As a result, many changes have been made. There were also Members with outside experience—people who had been successful before coming to the House of Commons. I could mention, for example, Richard Cobden, but in more recent times people of reputation and standing came into the House of Commons and brought about changes as a result of their experience.
That experience is hardly present today. Election to the House of Commons is largely obtained by means of persevering in party activities, either local or national. Successful people from outside, without the kind of dedication required in party matters, are not so likely to be selected. In this House, we have a wealth of talent and experience that is valuable in producing effective political comments and improvements to legislation.

663
Another change in the House of Commons is that the salary is now more attractive and rebellion is less attractive. If a person is a Member for only one Parliament, he or she can return to a previous occupation. If a person is a Member for more than one Parliament, it is difficult to return to that occupation. After two elections, therefore, the future of that Member of Parliament is irrevocably changed.
That, too, has consequences on the views of Members wanting to keep a government in power not just because they believe it is the right thing to do, but additionally for their own purposes. It is essential that the tradition of the House of Commons is maintained.
There is much more to say on the matter, but I want to comment on House of Lords reform because we shall be dealing with that in the New Year. We have in this place a degree of courtesy not because we are kinder but because here the Government do not have a majority to force through any decision. We have to succeed in this place by debate and argument and sometimes by careful consideration of the views of others. That is the task imposed on us and one to which I hope we shall return in our debates on the future of this Chamber and the way in which House of Lords reform is to proceed.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth deserves congratulation on the way he opened the debate. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that when he refers to the constitution as doing badly, he should bear in mind that, however hard we try, the voters will not necessarily produce the result that we want; and they do not always do so, as I shall show.
The report on House of Lords reform is open-minded and complete in mentioning the alternatives. It is lucid and excellent in the way that it does so. Of the alternative methods, only two are to my mind feasible. One is that this House should be fully appointed and the other is that it should be 80 per cent appointed and 20 per cent elected. Those elected should be representative of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.
The argument in favour of having 20 per cent of our 600 Members elected is to ensure that those parts of the United Kingdom are adequately represented among us. Of course, they are to a great extent already. If one looks across your Lordships' House, one finds that already i t is wonderfully representative of all parts of the UK. It is possible that by having more Members appointed by an appointments commission, those areas would be even better represented than if 20 per cent of our Members were democratically elected to represent them.
I fought and won 10 general elections for another place. The constituency consisted mainly of wage earners and I never had a majority of less than 5,000. I always doubted whether more than 25 per cent of those who voted really understood the issues. I once
664
heard the great Winston Churchill say in relation to elections to the House of Commons,
"Democracy works badly but we cannot have any other system".
That applies to the House of Commons which, rightly, nevertheless, has constitutional supremacy. But there is no need to apply that sad democratic description to your Lordships' House, because it would not happen here.
During my 57 years' experience as a parliamentarian—I hope noble Lords do not think that it is too long—I have witnessed great changes in both Houses. When I first entered the Commons in 1945 after the war, Members were paid only £800 a year by way of a salary. Out of that, one had to pay all one's expenses, including employing a whole-time secretary, so one had to have another source of income. I therefore returned to my practice as a junior barrister.
It was hard work doing both jobs, but not impossible. Now being a Member of another place has become an almost whole-time occupation. It varies according to the individual and the nature of the constituency. In those days, we had members of every profession in the Commons. We had farmers, financiers and a wide range of people accustomed to responsibility of importance.
Now membership of the Commons is a well-paid and mainly full-time job. One cannot get away from that. Therefore, few MPs enrich the Commons with experience of responsibility elsewhere. One regrettable example of that is that the Government could not and a Queen's Counsel in the House of Commons to become Attorney-General. For the past five years, we have had the privilege of having the Attorney-General in this House for the first time since that appointment was first created hundreds of years ago.
Of course, there have also been other tremendous changes in your Lordships' House. An important one occurred in 1958 when, as an Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, I helped the late "RAB" Butler pilot the Life Peerages Act through the House of Commons. All of your Lordships, except the Bishops and the 92 hereditary Peers, are now Life Peers.
As both noble Lords said, among your Lordships there is a vast range of people accustomed to responsibility of importance. We even have three Field Marshalls and a Marshall of the Royal Air Farce, besides the Law Lords and representatives of every profession. If your Lordships were to be democratised, that would no longer be so. Indeed, this House would no longer be of the great value that it is as a revising Chamber, and it would come into conflict with the Commons, even if we became a mere democratic microcosm of the Commons. I hope that we never will.
Those are among my reasons for warmly supporting the view of so many Members of the Commons, and I believe almost all noble Lords, that we should not be democratised but should remain an appointed Second Chamber with the power to ask the Commons to think

665
again, while enabling that democratically elected body to have the last word. The Parliament Acts would remain as they are.
I want to mention one other matter. Paragraph 48 of the report suggests that all Members of this House should serve for only 12 years. That would be all right for elected Members if we had them, but it would be absurd for most life Peers. However, if a life Peer can no longer make a useful contribution he should retire from your Lordships' House. I would do so if I felt that I was no longer able to play any part.
The late Labour Peer Lord Shinwell was a wonderful example to us all. I remember our celebrating his 100th birthday with a splendid ceremony in this House. In the Library there is a memorial to him. Right up to the age of 100 he played a valuable part here. Let us not destroy such opportunities!
3.51 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, not only for his admirable chairmanship of the Constitution Committee but also for managing to place on the Order Paper a Motion so extraordinarily widely worded that it leaves those of us participating free to say almost anything on the subject.
It is the fashion nowadays in your Lordships' House—indeed, it is a requirement on us—to declare interests, which we also do compulsively. In respect of constitutional reform it is more a case of having to confess that I am a bit of an old lag. I have form on these issues; for 20 years, from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, I wore various hats as director of the National Committee for Electoral Reform, chairman of the Rights Campaign and chairman of the Constitutional Reform Centre; and as one of the founders of Charter 88 I laboured in the salt mines of constitutional reform.
I have to say that they were fairly barren years. Despite the help of many Members of both Houses from all parties, we had a sense of pushing water uphill on those issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, then Mrs Thatcher, said at a seminar at Oxford of the prospect of a bill of rights—Conservative colleagues will recognise the tone of this quotation—"Bill of rights, bill of rights: if we're in it isn't needed, and if Labour's in it's too late!"
Yet looking around now, the reward for the labour of those years which so many of us shared has been, if not in heaven, at least in your Lordships' House—of course many people are inclined to confuse those two institutions. As a member of the Constitution Committee and now chairman of the Hansard Society it has been an exhilarating experience to see this country undertaking a radical programme of constitutional reform in the past few years. To have been in Parliament during that period has been a great privilege.
Although I shall be critical of the Government shortly, every credit should be given to New Labour for embracing the constitutional reform agenda when
666
in opposition and for having the nerve and determination in their first term in office to press ahead with an ambitious programme of constitutional reform. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that that was not without a certain amount of encouragement from these Benches.
Defining the British constitution is extremely difficult. Despite his scholarly leadership, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Norton, would agree that the Constitution Committee almost gave up on defining the constitution. It was thanks to him that in the end we succeeded in arriving at a fairly humble and workmanlike definition.
The problem is that, since it is not written down, the British constitution has some of the characteristics of a mirage. It is all towers and turrets, fountains and flags; it looks splendid in the distance, but when you come closer it tends to dissolve away into the gritty sand of the exercise of power and it is difficult to get your hands around what it actually is.
I thought that, in the brief interventions we are allowed, the best way of approaching constitutional reform—which I take to be an attempt to put the exercise of that power on a more rational, accountable and transparent basis, is to test how we are doing several years into this programme in readjusting the relationships in three dimensions: first, that between the state and the citizen; secondly, that between the centre and the locality; and thirdly, that between the executive and the legislature.
I turn to the first of those dimensions. Moving as we are from a top-down state-to-subject relationship towards a shared culture of citizenship is extremely difficult. We should recognise when talking about institutional change that it requires accompanying cultural change of one sort or another. The Human Rights Act was a great step in the right direction. All credit is due to the Lord Chancellor for his leadership on that Bill. Would that he had been as successful in repelling Sir Humphrey on freedom of information, where a great deal of progress remains to be made.
I turn to the second dimension: the relationship between the centre and the parts of the United Kingdom. There is now no doubt whatever that devolution has been a great success. It has been more successful than its opponents feared, even if it has not yet developed as its protagonists would wish. So far so good. In two dimensions at least we have partial success in constitutional reform. It is when we come to the third dimension that we realise where the failure is: the rebalancing of the relationship between the executive and the legislature—I certainly am not brave enough to take on the subject of the judiciary.
If anything, the elective dictatorship that Lord Hailsham pointed out many years ago has become worse. The popular plurality for Labour has morphed into a massive parliamentary majority via the electoral system. The second Chamber seems to be picked up and dropped like a toy by the Government on the whim of Ministers, instead of being reformed in a sustained and comprehensible way. Gallant attempts at parliamentary reform by the Leader of the House in another place have been resisted at the last ditch by a conspiracy of the Whips' club.

667
The media, even those committed to public service broadcasting objectives, treat Parliament as a subset of politics, entertainment and showbusiness. Ministers pander to that by giving them a priority that they do not assign to MPs. The Civil Service is suffering from creeping politicisation and there is no sign of the civil service Bill promised by the Government. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would address that matter in his reply.
Talking of elective dictatorship, perhaps I may address the Conservative Benches. One of the great mysteries of modern times is why the Conservative Party has not adopted electoral reform, because at one stroke it could secure its own increasingly uncertain future—that is indeed what has happened in Scotland—it could demolish Labour's preposterous majority; and it could reassert choice and popular will on the part of the people. I would not go so far as to repeat Winston Churchill's charge, when he was a Liberal, that the Conservative Party is a stupid party, but I would certainly say that in this respect it seems to be one volume short of the collected works of Bagehot.
If my analysis is of two partial successes and one abject failure, there are reasons. The first was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his introductory speech: there is a total lack of joined-up thinking. For the Government these are serial pragmatic measures rather than being part of a comprehensive analysis of what needs to be done. The second is that the Government are still torn between Locke and Hobbes versions of what the constitution should be. The voice is the voice of Locke, speaking noble words about reform, but the hands—and they seem to be rather hairy hands—are the hands of Hobbes, supporting sovereignty undiluted.
Until the Government make up their mind whether they are committed to pluralism, decentralisation and openness, this fatal ambiguity will persist and we shall not get the constitution we deserve.
4 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, when I looked at the list of speakers I very nearly withdrew my name. Five are professors—the noble Lords, Lord Norton, Lord Holme, who has just spoken, Lord Morgan, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth is a considerable academic.
Shortly after I became Speaker I went to Oxford to talk to the Study of Parliament Group. The master of the college asked me whether I had been up at Oxford. When I said, "Yes", he asked me, "Which college?". When I said, "Cowley Barracks" he did not think that it was terribly funny. I then asked whether they were all academics. They all said that they were and I drew to their attention the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary—of no practical value; not leading to a decision; academic.
I shall concentrate on practical issues. I am a Member of the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords Reform but I do not intend to talk about its work today because that will be the subject of a later debate. However, we are very much indebted to the
668
noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for introducing the debate, as we were last week to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for introducing a broadly similar debate. We shall have other debates on this very important subject.
In my nine and a half years as Speaker of the other place, I kept a careful list of Back-Bench speeches which, in my presence, had caused the Government to concede to an argument. People often say that speeches in the other place do not matter—they matter in your Lordships' House—but that is a myth; they certainly used to matter. I heard 18 examples of that in my first five years and 16 examples in my second five years, and those were only the speeches that I heard myself.
My prime example is Tony Benn speaking on the Zircon affair. I will not go too deeply into the subject, but his single speech totally swung the House of Commons on that issue. It is my best example of a single speech in the House of Commons totally changing the view of other Members.
I also kept a list of speeches which had pleased me. The one I shall refer to today was given by my old friend Frank Haynes, the Labour Member for Ashfield, who, in a debate on new technology, pronounced a great truth:
"Mr Speaker, sir, I am all in favour of progress as long as it does not mean change".
One change has occurred in the other place since my departure in 1992 which has passed, without much comment. I believe that it is a constitutional outrage to which I must draw attention because I hope that it will never ever be adopted in your Lordships' House. I refer to the fact that votes after 10 o'clock at night are now deferred to the following Wednesday afternoon. This shatters one of Parliament's fundamental principles—namely, that Divisions should follow debate—and introduces instead voting in absentia on business which Members of Parliament may not have heard or attended. The logical consequence of that is surely proxy voting.
I served in the Whips' Office in the other place for some 12 years, both in government and in opposition, and I well understand the difficulty that governments have in achieving their business and the frustrations involved. I understand, too, the desire of governments to streamline procedures in the interests of efficiency. But Parliament must be a free institution first and an efficient institution second. It is the prime duty of parliamentarians to hold the Government to account and to subject their policies to careful scrutiny. If that means sitting through outrageous arguments and long-winded speeches, that must be borne with fortitude. For at the heart of the parliamentary system is the right of an individual Member, and beyond him or her an individual citizen, to have a voice in Parliament.
We do not have adjournment debates in your Lordships' House but, when I was sitting in the Chair in the other place, I used to think how wonderful it was that the individual grievance of an individual citizen should be debated in the House of Commons. It was

669
always late at night, the last business of the day—with no one there except the poor old Speaker, a Whip on the Bench and the Member making his submissions—and it lasted for half an hour. It may not be very efficient, but it is surely one of the glories of our parliamentary system of government.
I have not previously expressed my views in your Lordships' House on the European Union. As the Member of Parliament for Croydon North East, in 1975 I asked my constituents if they wished to join the European Economic Community, not the European Union. I am increasingly alarmed by the way in which our constitution is today overridden by a flood of European directives and regulations which are seldom, if ever, debated in Parliament and yet are binding upon us.
Document FCO 30/1048 makes clear that the European Union is headed for economic and fiscal monetary union, with a common defence and foreign policy. This would constitute the greatest hand-over of national sovereignty in our history. Speakers of the House of Commons are traditionally the guardians of the rights and the privileges of Parliament achieved for us through the centuries by our forebears. No Speaker could or should see this overridden or put in jeopardy. No Speaker could envisage his or her successor becoming, in a European Union, about as important as, say, the chairman of the Greater London Council, whose former building across the river is now an up-market hotel.
This is not a frivolous point—I shall return to it on another occasion—but it should be mentioned in the context of today's debate, for which we are so indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, both for initiating the debate and for his admirable chairmanship of the Constitutional Committee, which is one of the most interesting bodies I have served upon in my life.
It is a very opportune debate. As the noble Lord and others have said, there has been a great torrent of constitutional change since 1997. It is the most radical action the Government have taken. There has been a major transformation from a relatively closed, over centralised, undemocratic constitution with no concept of citizenship to a more open system that enshrines the ideals of rights and pluralism and moves closer towards genuine popular sovereignty and a clearer civic vision. I praise the Government for this and, although I am not in the business of sycophancy, I praise my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose energy has driven through so much of the change.
Yet these tremendous changes are hardly ever discussed. Ministers are silent and the Prime Minister is particularly silent. It is not surprising that Larry Siedentop, in his book on a democratic Europe, says that the British are,
"constitutionally the least literate people in Europe".
670
One understands what he means.
I wish in the time available to focus on three broad points, alliteratively called "Coherence", "Contradictions" and "Confidentiality", all of which are problems thrown up by the process of the constitutional change to which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred.
Turning first to coherence, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, each of these transformations has been considered as a discreet, separate change. The inter-relationship between them has not been spelt out—for example, the relationship between devolution in Scotland and Wales and the reform of the Houses of Parliament. There has been mention of the territorial aspect that might be emphasised in a newly constituted House of Lords, but the relationship of that to the existing legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast has not been made clear. There used to be, until the last general election, a constitutional unit within the secretariat. That is now no more and therefore what the overriding vision is and who or what provides it seems unclear.
Many questions are opened up, particularly by devolution—notably in intergovernmental relations, which the report of our committee deals with. The asymmetry of devolution is historically inevitable but it presents many problems. Without being too specific, one of them is obvious and is in regard to Wales. The Welsh settlement is clearly unstable and that appears to be the view, as expressed this morning by the Electoral Commission, of the people of Wales as well. The most signal symbol of incoherence seems to me the great black hole in the settlement, which is England. England is not treated within the settlement. It is almost—as was once said of Italy—a geographical expression with no distinct legal, constitutional or statutory identity. We have not posed the English question, let alone answered it. Until we do so, the basic instability and incoherence of the constitutional settlement will remain a problem.
As to contradictions, practices have taken place and are taking place as if those changes have not occurred—as though it is still the same old system that we have had lumbering on since the age of the Tudors if not the age of the Norman conquest. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor eloquently stated, we are trying to entrench a culture of rights, yet so many developments erode our rights and go against a culture of human or civil rights. Indeed, it is much to the credit of this House that the erosion has not been more considerable.
We have considerable contradictions in the practice of devolution. Devolution presupposes divergence. The whole point of devolution is that things will be done or may be done differently in different parts of the country, yet in practice the emphasis has been not on devolution but on dirigisme. That has been very much the view of my own party, as we saw in the election of a mayor in London and of a First Minister in Wales. Devolution has evolved and is stable—but it has evolved in a way that reflects traditional, historic, antique practices. It is determined in effect by what happens in England. The finances of devolution are

671
dictated by the Treasury in Whitehall. The famous Barnett formula—I am sorry that the noble Lord is not with us—is determined by the Treasury and that seems again an example of the way in which developments have contradicted the original concept.
Parliament is moving, we trust, towards a more democratic system. The ending of the hereditaries will, I hope, speed that on its way—yet we do indeed have oligarchy. We have Lord Hailsham's concept of "elective dictatorship". The most dominant feature constitutionally recently has been the decline of Parliament—particularly the decline of the House of Commons. When I came to this distinguished House two and a half years ago, I had read Bagehot and believed that the House of Commons was the efficient part of the constitution and that the House of Lords was dignified. The reverse is true. The Commons is dignified. One might almost say that the Cabinet is dignified. This House is surprisingly efficient. I hope that will be borne in mind. That seems to be the fundamental point underlying the reform of the House of Lords.
Finally, confidentiality—or, perhaps a better word, informality. The British constitution has gloried in being unwritten and informal—a system of glorified muddle-through. We have had that obviously shown in devolution. It has occurred but it has occurred because the different branches of the Civil Service know each other and are interlocking. The Civil Service personnel know each other—we were told that in the precincts of this House when we studied the question. The effect of confidentiality and informality is actually to negate the principle of devolution. They actually work against it.
One of the institutions where that is clear is never discussed—the monarchy. I await protests. Republicanism is weak in this country. It is unlikely ever to achieve its objective in a lifetime that we can foresee. But the informality of our processes seem peculiarly damaging to the concept of constitutional monarchy. The effect is that discourse on the monarchy takes place through the media, not constitutionally—certainly not in a way that Bagehot or anyone else would call dignified. Hence we have the growth of a system by which the royal prerogative is expanded as a shield behind which governments hide. It is never identified and isolated. There is popular confusion, which the very informality of the constitution encourages, between the monarchy, Crown and individuals in the royal family. Time and again—in the butler trials and elsewhere—those are confused.
We do not, as Charter 88 argues, need a written constitution but Charter 88—I am a member of that body—does spell out wider weaknesses. We are moving closer towards a written constitution on Europe, human rights, devolution settlement and definition of political parties. We now need—the monarchy is a very good example—a set of more precisely and closely defined relationships. We have a good way to go before we achieve the vision of which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, spoke—the vision of what the constitution is for. At the moment, we hover between what Arthur Griffith, the first president of free Ireland, called "a dead past" and "a prophetic future".
4.16 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on initiating this debate. I agree with him that we are in danger of making separate changes without any clear idea of where we are going. My remarks will be more specific but with that theme very much in mind.
Having come so recently from the other place, I will spend a few minutes examining the relationship between Commons and Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, touched on that—as did my noble friend Lord Renton. That relationship is particularly important given the forthcoming debates on the future of this House, which will take place in the aftermath of the Joint Committee report. My central concern is that there is a gulf of misunderstanding on the role of this House today, let alone on the role that it might occupy in future.
It is about 175 paces from the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons to the Woolsack here. I hope that noble Lords will take my word for that—I paced it out. Frankly, at times the distance between them could as well be 175 miles. We live in different worlds that seldom come together. The knowledge of the average Member of Parliament about what goes on next door is little better than zero. This House, I regret to report, is seen as a rather quaint assembly in a distant land. When MPs refer to "the other place", it is usually to protest at the actions of the unelected or to mock our eccentricities in some way.
I readily admit that I am in no position to criticise. In my 31 years in the House of Commons, I seldom watched the proceedings here. I trooped in each year for the State Opening—and, as a Secretary of State, I would occasionally crouch on the steps of the Throne and scowl as this House took great bites out of my legislation. The Lords, I emphasise, do not simply defeat Labour Governments. I hope that point is understood. Such visits were rare. Like most Members of Parliament, I was bound up in my own world of Commons debate and constituency affairs.
However, when it comes to it, Members of Parliament will make the final decision on Lords reform. The danger is that in deciding the fate of the second chamber, the 650 Members of the first chamber will judge everything by their own standards. A popular view among MPs is that there is nothing wrong with the Lords that cannot be cured by elections. They say that reform is a very simple matter: the functions of the Lords will remain exactly the same, particularly its subservience to the Commons, and as many Members as possible of the second House—perhaps all—will be elected.
That is a comforting theory, but in my view it will not work. I say that for one good reason. As matters stand today, I am an appointed Peer and, as such, I broadly accept the conventions that limit the powers of the Lords. We do not destroy government Bills, we examine legislation which time after time requires such examination and correction, and occasionally on major issues of public debate we ask MPs to think again. Ultimately, however, the Commons will have its way.

673
As an appointed Peer, I accept that entirely. But if I were an elected Peer I would be much more militant in my demands. I would argue that I had just as much authority as a Member of Parliament and a duty to represent the views of my electors. I would not accept for a minute that I should be excluded from making decisions on most things financial, to give just one example. As night follows day, an elected House of Lords, or a substantially elected House, will lead to demands for more powers for this House. I believe that those who want an elected "senate" are, therefore, honour bound to say what exactly the powers of this new body should be; how they would impinge on the Commons, and how conflicts between the two Houses would be reconciled.
The trouble with the present debate is that it concentrates almost exclusively on election to a second chamber and the arguments that go with that; namely, whether the remaining hereditaries—I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan; I think that some of the hereditary Peers are the strongest performers in this House and are among the hardest workers—should be expelled, whether a retirement age should be introduced and so on.
What we should be debating first, as a necessary prelude, is what the country wants the second chamber to do. My guess is that, if the debate focused on functions and not merely on elections, the majority would be for the kind of revising chamber with limited powers that we now have. Indeed, that is what the Joint Committee has said. The much maligned Wakeham commission proposed ways in which the present balance could be preserved.
My guess is that the public would support a House which exhibits, as this House does, some experience and some expertise. I think that they find it reassuring that, when the country contemplates war, we can hear the voices of people who have travelled that way previously such as former Foreign Secretaries and service chiefs.
My guess is that the public support the idea that this House, as it is, is much less partisan and more independent than the elected Chamber. There is no question about that.
And my guess is that the public see the advantage of having a House that is able to devote time to scrutinising legislation. I refer not only to published Bills but to pre-legislative scrutiny. I would also argue in favour of post-legislative scrutiny. All too often, some of the mistakes that come through are the result of a lack of post-legislative scrutiny, which this House could do very well.
I believe that, if the public knew, they would also value the role of this House in holding Ministers to account. I have noted an intriguing contrast between the two Houses. Ministers in this place are often put under more pressure than they are in the other place. In the other place, Ministers can get away with simply bobbing up and sitting down very quickly—I speak entirely from experience. I observe that it does not work in this Chamber to anything like the same extent.
674
My fear and concern is that the other place will try to have it both ways. Members there will vote for a substantial elected element, and they will insist that the status quo as regards powers should remain. If that is what we end up with, just as certainly that will not remotely be the end of the story. It will simply set the scene for a bitter struggle between the two Houses, 175 paces apart, which can only end in a transfer of power away from the House of Commons. I cannot believe that is what Members of Parliament want, and even less do I believe that it is the kind of result that the public desire.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a fully paid-up member of the movement for constitutional reform. I was an original signatory to Charter 88 and I have been a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Limited for many years.
I warmly congratulate the noble—and scholarly—Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on initiating the debate and on the thrust of his argument in opening it. The constitutional scene has seen so many recent developments, and further ones are in train, that it is important to step back and reflect in order properly to survey what has been happening—and not before time. It is not, however, merely a matter of pausing to collect our thoughts on the subject, but of seeing what still needs to be done. Constitutional husbandry, like painting the Forth Bridge, should be a continuous activity; it should not be neglected, as it largely was for most of the previous century.
As my noble friend Lord Holme said, the Government deserve credit for what they have achieved since 1997, especially in the case of devolution and the attendant changes in the voting systems. They have also incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights and introduced, albeit in diluted form, the Freedom of Information Act. Now, they are proposing a system of devolution for the English regions. All of these measures are on the right lines.
The topic under debate is large, but time is short. I shall therefore focus on what I regard as possibly the major constitutional problem—one to which I have regularly referred previously—namely, the burgeoning of what I have termed the political demi-monde, where the executive government of this country now effectively resides. It operates largely informally, and almost untrammelled by any constitutional constraint. It is the extreme illustration of how flexible an unwritten constitution can be—and therein lies the source of the problem.
From one point of view, the motives for its emergence and continual, almost tropical, growth are well-intentioned. In its most simplified form, such motives are born out of a wish to cut through the bureaucracy and traditions of Whitehall in order to render government more efficient and effective and better fitted to cope with modern circumstances.
Recent governments of both colours have felt the need for a whole new repertoire of agencies and personnel to service them; and so we have seen an

675
explosion of hived-off executive agencies, quangos, task forces, partnerships, czars, freelance peripatetic plenipotentiaries, and spin doctors. They constitute the demi-monde. Life seemed so much simpler when all we had were Ministers, civil servants, lobbyists and management consultants!
A recent mutation in the demi-monde—quite an alarming one—has been its spread into almost every locality. It is no longer confined to London. There is now a rash of so-called local partnerships of epidemic proportions, promoting and overseeing a plethora of government initiatives. The partnerships are in effect mini-quangos or task forces. Their memberships are appointed from the centre; Nolan rules are not applied: and there is little real local consultation. They function, quite deliberately, to by-pass and short-circuit local government. In one metropolitan borough, there are over 90 such agencies operating within its boundaries. As the recent authoritative study, Britain under Blair, by the think tank Democratic Audit, reveals, that pattern is now common, especially in England. Devolution has to some extent prevented its spread in Scotland and Wales.
Created with the best of intentions, this new form of governance has got out of hand. Both the people and agencies concerned are literally running amok. They exist in a constitutional limbo which is all but impenetrable to outsiders. This has many implications for the health of political life. One, I venture to suggest, has been a contributing factor in the deterioration of the Fourth Estate. Quality investigative journalism gave up examining the quagmire that executive government has become because of its complexity, and the task has been ceded to the muck-raking, cheque-hook sensationalist journalism that now characterises so much of the press. That, in turn, has contributed hugely to the general dumbing-down of the media, which has fed the public's disillusionment with politics. These days, one seeks in vain any informed, sustained analysis of public affairs. Sleaze and sensationalism have replaced substance in what now pass for current affairs.
The climate created by that feeds back, particularly on the political demi-monde as it seeks to reassert its control over events and the policy agenda. There is now a vicious circle of an almost cannibalistic character. The Prime Minister and his inner circle feel increasingly besieged, which leads to ever-stronger doses of presidentialism. Without the counterweight provided by a formal separation of powers, the apparently untrammelled exercise of presidential-style power by the Prime Minister, working through the demi-monde, arouses accusations of control-freakery and cronyism that have become so familiar in the day-to-day commentaries on the Government.
The Government are unable to administer and monitor all that goes on in their name via the demi-monde. The recent innovations of a monthly Prime Ministerial public press conference or an appearance every six months before the Commons Liaison Committee are all very well, but they are hardly a sufficient accountability counterweight to the
676
tentacular operations of the demi-monde. In one sense, that would not matter so much if policy-making were much better than previously. But even if all policies had proved to be roaring successes, there would still be a need to render the activities of the demi-monde and its nomenklatura much more publicly accountable.
The systems of parliamentary, Cabinet arid local government are now largely confined to the "dignified" parts of the constitution. In so far as they still function, it is as a shadow of their former selves. Power and authority are now effectively vested in the demi-monde. It may well be that those traditional institutions of representative democracy have outlived their usefulness and need to be replaced by more flexible ones suited to contemporary conditions. That proposition needs to be thoroughly examined and recommendations made that could be properly codified.
More than a decade ago, the IPPR produced a written constitution against which I have never seen any cogent argument. If it was necessary a decade ago, it is even more so now. As many reformist groups, most notably Charter 88, have argued, Parliament should set aside time to look at the constitution as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, suggests, with a view to having a written one. The chances of that happening in the near future are slim. Meanwhile, we must make do with short, two-and-a-half-hour debates such as today's. They help a little, but much more consideration should be given to the subject of constitutional reform if democracy is to be regenerated in Britain.
4.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many others, I welcome the opportunity to debate the significance of the constitutional changes now being considered in these Houses, which was afforded by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I began my ministry in the county of Lincolnshire—down in Caistor, then at Grantham and out at Holland on the fens of Boston. It is good to have a Lincolnshire man lead this debate.
Taking the broad view, as I said in the Chamber on Monday, the expansion of the European Union is genuinely to be welcomed, not least because it creates a genuinely European union rather than an exclusive club for those in the western half. From the perspective of religious communities, that will create a broader canvas for many varieties of communities—Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christians and Muslims—to share in the prosperity that western Europe has enjoyed in recent years.
It is to be hoped that the expansion agreed in Copenhagen will be a force for change in the mound of bureaucratic regulation coming from Brussels. One can even see a future where that centre of political gravity will need to shift eastwards. Similar developments are discernible in Anglican-Lutheran relationships, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, as Archbishop of Canterbury, gave such impetus. The Porvoo Common Declaration of

677
1992, post-perestroika by three years, included the Baltic states with their Lutheran churches. Ten years on, the question is: should we include those 500 Lutheran congregations in Russia and Siberia who are of German origin but increasingly Russian character? We are wrestling with the same kind of issue.
From this perspective, however, the role of the United Kingdom is both on the outer limit, sharing many of the views and perspectives of our Scandinavian partners, and an important bridge with the English-speaking world, where the culture of business, commerce and education has its own distinct flavour.
At the same time as that shift is taking place, our own constitutional reform is taking us in different directions, with the development of devolved government to different levels in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the regions of England, the regional development agencies are beginning to make an impact, especially in those areas that perceive themselves to be distant from the centre of power and influence. In short, it would appear to the casual observer—and I believe there is some truth in this—that the current century, as compared with the previous one, will be seen as a time when political authority is dissipated throughout various locations, and where direct accountability of those who exercise government within those locations is less clear.
I now turn to the Joint Committee's proposals. First, I thank members for the clear and collaborative way in which they worked together to produce a range of options to move us beyond the stalemate reached after the present Government's initial stage of reform. The committee is right to identify the importance of independence and expertise in the role of this House in scrutinising legislation as it comes to and fro. It is right that the House should not be dominated by those of one political party or another. It will be up to these Houses to decide on the various proportions of elected and appointed members.
I wish to make some brief observations on an area not covered by the committee's report, which is yet to be looked into. I take the liberty to do so now, because I shall be shortly on study leave until March and, therefore, may miss the debate on the report. I refer to the question of the Lords spiritual, for whom these Benches have consistently taken the view that there is a vital place. We do so in the knowledge that there was a smattering of abbots, not just bishops, on these Benches in the Middle Ages. So the composition of these Benches has a past different from its present. We believe it has a future that has the potential to be different, too. We realise that, while shorthand expressions can be a necessary nuisance, religious representation does not quite express the broad thrust of the notion of Lords spiritual. We are clear that we are not here to cling to some mythical Anglican privilege, but that the reality and breadth of spiritual values continues to develop in a post 11th September 2001 world.
678
But what of the central issue; that is to say, where the focus of political authority lies in the United Kingdom? The dispersal of authority, which I described earlier, was supposedly intended both to bring political decisions closer to people in their own locality through the regional assemblies, and to link in with a broader European perspective through our membership of the Union. Frankly, I nowhere detect that the people of south-east Hampshire, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, with whom I have a self-evident relationship, have any greater sense of political involvement than they did, say, 20 or 30 years ago.
All the indications are that constitutional reform has made little dent in institutional decline and participation in the democratic experience. I am afraid that regional government has patchy heartlands of enthusiasm. If I may speak from professional conversations, such places as Durham, Liverpool and Exeter may speak with one voice, whereas Newcastle, Carlisle and Truro speak with a rather different one. That is not bishops falling out, because, of course, we never do; it is actually the people on the ground whom we are meeting all the time. That important point is continually neglected in the exercise. Regional government may be where we ought to be, but we must realise that we have a big hill to climb yet. I sometimes wonder whether the people in Gosport peninsula have a great deal of enthusiasm to cast votes in an election for an assembly sitting in Guildford, covering a region that starts in Canterbury and ends in Oxford. But, as in all things, I am convertible.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not passing judgment on those who exercise political authority; nor am I suggesting that reform was unnecessary, because it was clearly needed. I wish only that parliamentary reform were seen at both ends of this Corridor, and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, implied earlier, focused on who sits here. Rather, I want to draw attention to the fact that our constitution, such as it is, is now a diverse and very varied beast—a body made up of many parts that is beginning to look somewhat "Heath Robinson" in its composition. All the parts have a rationale to them, but the cohesion of the whole seems to be lacking. What this House needs in particular is the ability to scrutinise legislation, not only from the perspective of a party political interest but also from that of those with real expertise and a breadth of experience.
I believe that I am almost searching for the language of wisdom, which has a long and venerable history in the religious traditions of many faiths. Wisdom is primarily about the use and application of knowledge, rather than the knowledge itself. It is about the use and application of experience rather than experience for its own sake; it is about the use and experience of historical perspective, without giving into an historical determinism, which says that things can never change—or, alternatively, that things are inevitably leading in one particular direction, which, of course, is usually the way that one thinks at the time.
In looking for "wise men", I do not want to be accused of making a pun at the festive season, nor of sexism—because wisdom in biblical literature is feminine—nor of

679
being elitist, because I believe that we shall need rather more than three of them! But it is wisdom—whoever sits here, however they arrive here, and for whatever length of time they stay here—that I am after. I want to see it continue to be exercised in this Chamber, both now and in the future.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I submit that the core of the British Constitution is the right of the British people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws. That right has been hard won over the centuries, and defended with tremendous sacrifice in two world wars. But I also submit that our membership of the European Union has already largely removed that right, and that this theft of their sovereignty has taken place without the people's knowledge or consent.
To see how that has been done we need look no further than Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which took us into what was then the European Economic Community. Those clauses are so chilling, and so pertinent to this debate, that I fear it is worth placing their salient words on the Official Report in your Lordships' House, because it is some years since that has been done. Section 2(1)and (2) read:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties … are without further enactment to be given legal effect … and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.
"Subject to Schedule 2 of this Act, at any time after its passing Her Majesty may by Order in Council, and any designated Minister or department may by regulations, make provision … for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom".
Section 3 reads as follows:
"For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court)".
If any member state does not obey the European treaties, as interpreted by the Luxembourg Court, Articles 226–229 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (or the TEC) allow that court to impose unlimited fines.
I say that these clauses are "chilling", because they mean that once the executive, or our Government, have used the treaty-making power of the Royal prerogative and have agreed, or have been outvoted, on a new law in Brussels, the British Parliament must enact it, on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court. That is why no law agreed in Brussels has ever been overturned by Parliament, which has therefore become a rubber stamp.
I know that your Lordships' House and the other place spend a lot of time and energy scrutinising and debating European legislation. I feel sure that the views of your Lordships' Select Committees, particularly, have had a beneficial effect on the government of the day in their negotiations in Brussels. But once the House has debated a proposed new law, the so-called "scrutiny reserve" is lifted, and the executive is free to go ahead and sign up, whatever
680
the opinion of the House may have been. The scrutiny reserve is only a sort of gentleman's agreement in any case, and the Government are starting to show a certain disregard for its rules.
But the fundamental point is that these new laws, which now number many thousands and form the majority of all our new legislation, are not put to a vote in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House until they have been passed in Brussels, after which we would be in breach of our treaty obligations if Parliament were to vote them down. It is of course true that each new treaty that takes us further into the grip of the corrupt octopus in Brussels is put to a vote in Parliament, although Parliament cannot in practice amend a treaty; it has to take it all, or leave it.
There are some other irreparably unsatisfactory features about our subservience to the European treaties, which further erode what most people still believe to be our constitution. For instance, Articles 211 and 249–254 of the TEC mean that the corrupt, unelected, and unsackable EU bureaucracy, the Commission, has the monopoly of proposing new laws. What sort of democracy is that? Just about the only joke about the European Union that I have recently heard is that, if it applied to itself for membership, it would not stand a chance.
Articles 2, 3 and 6.4 of the Treaty on European Union (the TEU, or Maastricht Treaty) and Article 5 and Protocol 30 of the TEC decree that once a power has been passed to Brussels that power cannot be returned to national Parliaments. This is known in eurospeak as the "acquis communautaire", or, in plain English, the "ratchet". Article 5 and Protocol 30 of the TEC are particularly beautiful, because they confirm that the famous concept of "subsidiarity" is really the device by which the ratchet is to be enforced. Article 5, which introduced subsidiarity into the treaties, says that the member states can do their own thing only in areas that have not been ceded to Brussels. Protocol 30 rubs it in even more clearly. I shall spare your Lordships a verbatim quotation, but a filleted version goes as follows:
"subsidiarity … shall respect the … objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the `acquis communautaire' and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court … regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article 6.4 of the Treaty on European Union, according to which"—
this is a quote within a quote—
"'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'".
I trust that your Lordships will not miss the tidy elegance of Article 6.4, as mentioned in that quote from Protocol 30, which is often referred to as the "catch-all" clause, to be used just in case the corrupt octopus has overlooked some tasty morsel of our remaining sovereignty, to which it takes a fancy.
I say that these and other features of the European treaties are irreparable because the treaties do not contain an exit clause. Article 48 of the TEU means that they can only be amended by unanimity. I fear it is therefore deceptive to pretend that we can

681
renegotiate the treaties, unless we are prepared to leave the European Union if all the other member states do not agree the changes that we need—which, of course, they will not.
I know that the British people did vote in a referendum in 1975 to stay in what was then the European Economic Community, or Common Market. But the people were assured by the Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson, in a letter sent to every household in the land, that no loss of sovereignty would take place if they voted to stay in. The letter also contained another wonderful lie, which went as follows:
"There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed".
I am aware, too, of the propaganda that says that democracy in the European Union is achieved because the council of elected ministers takes the decisions, which indeed it does. But the UK has only 14 per cent. of the votes, and even that percentage will reduce if enlargement goes ahead. The constitutional point remains that Parliament itself is by-passed.
The EU already has its own Parliament, executive, supreme court, currency, flag and anthem. Through the convention under the chairmanship of M. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, it is near to having its own written constitution, foreign policy, army, police force, legal and tax systems. It will then be a fully fledged state, with its own legal personality, dominating all its member states, which will have become merely its regions.
That seems to me to be the greatest constitutional change since the Norman conquest. I repeat that the people are almost totally unaware of it. The question as to whether we should stay in the EEC, or EU, has scarcely featured in any general election campaign since 1983, and subsequent treaties have made it into a very different animal today.
I can but hope that national debate will break out when the Giscard convention reports next spring, despite the best endeavours of the BBC and all our main political parties to hide from the people what has happened and what is in store for them. I hope that the people will be angry; I hope that the Conservative Party will then listen to them and lead them away from the total subservience to an alien regime that otherwise awaits them.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to discuss the nature of the constitution of this state, the United Kingdom, and to consider its virtues and how it might evolve in the future.
There are many and fine definitions of the British constitution. For me, a behaviourist definition is appropriate: it is the way we do it, stupid; or, more politely, it is how we arrange to govern ourselves in this multinational state, the UK.
682
It is admirable that we do not have a codified, written constitution. Clearly, we have bits of constitution written down in various pieces of legislation, but we are at liberty to alter our arrangements as and when we wish. Change is, of course, dependent only on simple majorities in Parliament. I suspect that a written constitution becomes desirable when "we" do not trust the government on a consistent basis over the years. However, it is a sorry state for a country to get into when "we" do not trust the state.
Who are "we" in that context? The term can be defined as most people in the constituent parts. How should the declining popularity of voting in general elections be interpreted? Is it a confidence born of the fact that all major parties are broadly social democrats in character, and that that political stance is popularly desirable. Or, is it a rather ineffective register of complaint about government in general? I conclude that "we" are not certain about the ambitions of the state, which is a curious development in a parliamentary democracy. I suspect that mass abstention will continue to baffle parliamentarians.
My other point is about Scotland's position within the United Kingdom. The treaty of 1706 brought about an economic and political union, which was good politics for the time. The economic union was much prized: it would lead to the end of war; a guarantee of peace; free trade with England and its colonies. The political union was the downside. Three centuries later, Scotland is back on the map as a political entity, and aspirations for Scotland are now worth having.
While some would like to return Scotland to its historic place at the international table, others would seek a variety of options within the United Kingdom. Broadly, there is a small demand for a return to direct rule, as evidenced by the Scottish Parliament (Referendum) Bill, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, earlier this year. There are many who are content with devolution, and others, including those on these Benches, who would prefer a federal solution with limited sovereignty, which I choose to call home rule plus.
When I walk down the Corridor, I am reminded by the two pictures outside the Bishops' Bar of how this House defeated the Home Rule Bill in 1893. That was an example of the House trying to stop a momentum of constitutional change that was demanded by some of the British people—the Irish, in that case. We know the consequences of the actions of the House—a non-British solution to the Irish question.
I hope that the British constitution will have greater flexibility in the future when any development is proposed towards home rule plus—a federal solution for Scotland, if that is demanded by people of Scotland.
The constitution is an organic system that absorbs and adapts to change as it is needed. It is certainly right to draw attention to any legislation that would alter the constitution, but it would not be sound to oppose that legislation just because it might alter the constitution.

683
The British constitution can be seen as a good thing if it is in line with the aspirations of the people, or as a bad thing, if the way that things are done is out of synch with the people. The challenge is to keep the constitution evolving with the times, and with the aspirations of the constituent parts. Otherwise, we shall discover too late that some of the people want to secede.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend for a remarkable speech, which could form the basis of a very distinguished set of Reith lectures next year. It would be timely if he were to develop his speech in that way and if the BBC were to take up my suggestion.
I shall focus on Parliament, not on the House of Lords reform, as such, and shall refer briefly to three other countries, each of which varies considerably from us and from each other.
The first is the United States, which looked towards Europe and looked away again at the time of the founding fathers. The US planted on the virgin soil, on which the seeds of tyranny had never grown, the most remarkable political document ever, which is the American constitution. In the 250 years or so since it was adopted in 1789, there have been only 27 amendments, the most recent of which was 10 years ago. The economy of words in the American constitution is remarkable. My noble friend Lord Pearson referred to Maastricht. While the Maastricht Treaty fumbled with pages of incomprehensible script, the tenth amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights of 1791 had very few words. It states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people".
It is a remarkable constitution that is very different from ours, but it enshrines tremendous safeguards by the separation of the legislature from the executive.
The second country to which I wish to refer is France. I always feel that France has for centuries been an autocracy but has masqueraded recently as a democracy. After the French Revolution, France was run by exactly the same people as those who ran it before. Many books about the French Revolution show that clearly. France is now in its Fifth Republic; there have been five attempts to get a good constitution.
The most relevant thing in this debate is that France does not really have a Parliament. How is that manifested? It is manifested by the fact that when the French Government want to make an unpopular change and there are demonstrations against it, those demonstrations rapidly become mobs. In France, unlike England, the people support the mob because they see the mob as a surrogate for themselves next time round. They do not feel that they have a Parliament to protect them. In this country, we detest mobs. We support governments rather than mobs. In my hook, that applies every bit as much to the pro-hunting mob of last week as it did to Mr Scargill's flying pickets.
684
I refer very briefly to Russia, which we are delighted to welcome back into the democratic family. The Parliament there, however, is in an embryonic form, and it has been extremely well controlled, first by President Yeltsin and now by President Plain, by a simple expedient. In a country which is still poor and where the advantages of public office are rather limited, the members of the Dumas have been loaded with privileges and perks. Whenever they threaten to step out of line, a general election is dangled in front of them and they rapidly fall back again.
In Britain, as my noble friend said, we moved from monarchical government to constitutional representative government early in the 18th century, a process probably greatly assisted by the fact that the early Hanoverian monarchs did not speak English and therefore could not interfere too much. Parliament gained strength from that time, in a steep line of progression, for 250 years or so.
I agree with those who said that the main constitutional changes which this Government have introduced have failed to show joined-up government. In making one change, Ministers do not appear to have taken into account the effect on other parts of the constitution. What I really want to focus on, however, is Parliament, and what I want to criticise is the Government's attempt—I think almost conscious attempt—to disarm Parliament.
The disarmament is being carried out under the cloak of modernisation. I am always surprised that governments are never able, at least as individuals, to contemplate the time when they will move into opposition. In this disarmament, they are aided and abetted by civil servants who regard Parliament as an even bigger nuisance than they regard Ministers. All of that has been famously, accurately and without exaggeration documented in the "Yes Minister" series of many years ago. Recently, there were press disclosures of highly derogatory internal Civil Service briefings against "tiresome" MPs who persisted in asking awkward questions. That shows that the "Yes Minister" culture is alive and well.
We could give many examples. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, gave the very telling example of deferred votes, which take away the essence of parliamentary debates—that one listens, or at least sometimes listens, and decides as a result of what one has heard. My noble friend Lord Pearson has identified another problem, although not a problem of the Government, in relation to the power that must be taken—"must" because there is a limit of power—as a result of the growth of the European Union. Perhaps inevitably—possibly even beneficially in some respects, although I do not think that my noble friend would agree—parliamentary power has clearly been eroded by that growth.
I refer particularly to the increasing use of executive orders. The number of Orders in Council—things done under the famous Henry VIII clauses of Bills which give the right to secondary legislation—has grown enormously. In 1984, there were slightly more than 2,000; in 1999, there were 3,700; now, there are about 4,000. These are very seldom looked at by either

685
House of Parliament. It is a great shortcoming on which the Procedure Committee has reported, though little seems to have been done about that very good report, which I think was issued in March 2000. I hope that Parliament will consider greater use of proper scrutiny, partly through the Joint Committee, and perhaps partly by the pre-enactment scrutiny of delegated legislation.
Finally, I give the obvious example of the way in which ever more legislation is not considered at all in the other place. Guillotines are now almost automatic, and timetable Motions tabled even on Second Reading. However much may emerge as needing discussion, discussion is limited. I strongly criticise that aspect of the Government's policy. While I am here, I shall do my best to draw attention to it and to oppose it.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches greatly welcome this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is, I think, widely accepted as the foremost constitutional scholar in your Lordships' House. The Constitution Committee, of which he is the first and so far only chair, plays a very important role and has produced a number of valuable reports. He has now given us the opportunity of a wide-ranging debate about constitutional change.
The nature of the British constitution, of course, is to change. I would take some mild issue with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, when he suggested that recent changes were more extreme than anything since the 17th century. Certainly the constitution in 1930, for example, was utterly different from what it had been in 1830. During the intervening century, we moved from an oligarchy to a democracy. In the early years of the 20th century alone, we had the emasculation of the powers of your Lordships' House, suffrage for women and independence for the Republic of Ireland. Then, of course, the pace did slow down, although we had the Parliament Act 1949 and the Life Peerages Act 1958, whose consequences were perhaps more far-reaching than anyone realised at the time.
We then had the extremely important step of the European Communities Act 1972.1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about its constitutional importance. In the final years of the 20th century, we had devolution to Scotland and Wales. We also had the Human Rights Act. I echo the praise given to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for steering that legislation through Parliament. We also had the first stage of the reform of your Lordships' House. All these changes were welcome to me and my colleagues. They also had a profound effect on the British constitution.
The constitution is now very different from the days when I studied constitutional history and constitutional law at school and university some 50 years ago. In those days, the core of teaching about the constitution was still Dicey's view that there was only one principle of the British constitution—the absolute sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. Is that still true? I believe that it is
686
not. The European Communities Act, the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act all restrict the powers of Parliament to legislate. In theory, each of them could be repealed; in practice, I believe that each of them is entrenched. So the constitution today is perhaps a good deal more uncertain than it was in Dicey's day.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said that there was a dichotomy between positive constitutionalism, which he defined as ensuring the supremacy of the will of the people, and negative constitutionalism, which he defined as guarding against an arbitrary excess of power. I do not accept the thesis that one must adopt one of these forms to the exclusion of the other. It is, I believe, essential to get the right balance between the two.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said that the Liberal Democrats support only negative constitutionalism. That is not true. Our support for electoral reform, for example, is designed to ensure that the Government represent the will of the majority of the voters, not the minority. Our support for devolution is due to the belief that the Scots and the Welsh, who see themselves as members of historic nations, should have a parliament or an assembly which will enable the will of the people of those nations to be applied. But we also recognise that the tyranny of the majority is perhaps the most fundamental problem of democracies. Negative constitutionalism is needed. At times I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, verged on anti-judicialism. Ever since the USA adopted the Bill of Rights in 1789—that is, the first 10 amendments to its constitution—the importance of entrenched rights has been recognised.
I believe that in the early post-war years British judges were unduly passive, but they have rightly changed. Francis Bacon said in the early 17th century—he was a royalist—that the judges should be lions, but lions under the throne. I was a little worried at times that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, appeared to suggest that judges should be lions, but lions under the Speaker's Chair.
We need to look at how our constitution will develop. I believe that we shall see further reform of your Lordships' House. I believe that, inevitably, that will mean the departure of the remaining hereditary Members, at least as hereditaries. I also believe that your Lordships' House will have a substantial elected element which, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and others, I certainly welcome. However, that is a debate for another day.
We may well see disestablishment which, among other consequences, would mean that the Bishops would no longer have a place as of right in your Lordships' House. For myself—I am sorry to disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on this matter—I believe that in a multi-faith and secular society ex officio representation of the

687
Church of England, and in particular the hierarchy of the Church of England, in your Lordships' House is inappropriate.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I looked forward in my remarks to the possibility of a more comprehensive spiritual Bench. That is different from not having one at all. As I say, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, when we move to a greater separation of powers I believe that we shall see the removal of the judicial functions of your Lordships' House and the creation of a separate supreme court. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not like the idea but I do not believe that he can resist it any more than Canute could resist the waves. That is perhaps being unfair to Canute who, of course, knew that he could not turn back the tide. I believe that the noble and learned Lord will he no more successful.
At the heart of our constitution there is a larger and much more difficult problem—I agree with the remarks on this matter of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham—and that is the domination of the legislature by the executive, particularly when, as at present, the Government have a large majority. Is this an inevitable part of the constitutional system? Should we change it? Can we change it? There are some things that we could do.
Electoral reform would ensure that governments are more broadly based, as they are in Scotland arid in Wales, which undoubtedly shifts power from the executive to the legislature. We could strengthen departmental Select Committees in the House of Commons, turning them into something like the congressional or senatorial committees in the United States. That, again, would strengthen the powers of the legislature against the executive and would provide an alternative career path for MPs to the single career path, which most now seek, of ministerial office.
I turn to the role of your Lordships' House. A reformed House of Lords may play a greater role in holding the executive to account. I am not suggesting any change in the present conventions which govern the relationships between the two Houses or any attempt to challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. But your Lordships' House, even partly reformed, has played a valuable part in modifying legislation, for example, on the Anti-terrorism Bill. Bill after Bill reaches your Lordships' House in need of improvement, and gets it. Sometimes a Bill needs improvement because the Government are deliberately trying to extend powers beyond their proper limits—as I believe was the case with the Anti-terrorism Bill—sometimes because a Bill is drafted too quickly and without adequate preparation (a current example of that is the Licensing Bill), and sometimes for both reasons. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was an example of that.
Finally, a number of speakers referred to a written constitution. That, I believe, is some way off. But I personally see no particular merit in an unwritten
688
constitution. Last week I heard Mr Oliver Letwin in an interesting discussion float the possibility of a written constitution. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton referred to the IPPR draft of a written constitution. I am glad he did so as I contributed part of that. We are in fact still some way off a written constitution, but the building blocks are being made—the Scotland Act, the Government of Wales Act, the Human Rights Act. I believe that a time will come to put them together into a single constitutional document.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have spoken in thanking my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for initiating this important debate.
I do not wish to sound discourteous but If do not plan to follow one or two noble Lords who have spoken in addressing the future of this House as I know that we can anticipate at least two major debates on that subject early in the New Year. However, I much enjoyed the comments of my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Fowler. I very much believe that we are far better off with what we have than with another botched reform. I agree with my noble friends that we must all unite across the parties to stop Members of another place from forcing through an unworkable reform that will not give this House what it needs most of all; that is, strength, independence and authority.
My noble friend Lord Norton gives distinguished service to the House through his role on the Constitution Committee. We are lucky indeed to have a renowned expert on that subject as the committee's chairman, indeed, the establishment of the Constitution Committee in this House, and the extension of the role of the Economic Affairs Committee to cover the Finance Bill, seem to me to represent constitutional changes squarely in the best of British tradition. These changes were introduced with agreement after debate. They strengthen Parliament, improve scrutiny and control of the executive—an issue in constitutional politics stretching back to Magna Carta—and they are gradual, incremental, in the spirit of what went before, or organic, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth might put it. The historic strength of our constitution is that the ground rules are unwritten. They are able to evolve and to adapt in the light of experience and circumstance.
We learnt in the 17th century, from the brutal experience of revolution and civil war in every part of the kingdom and army dictatorship in England, lessons that others learnt from far more recent scars. The imposition of frameworks and examples that are right for them may not suit our own very different historical experience. Neither ideological theorising nor whole conventions of human rights lawyers outweigh tested experience or the flexibility in-built in our British constitution.
Too much that this Government have sought to do since 1997 has swept aside that experience. We have seen the ground rules of constitutional development

689
broken up. All those changes have been abrupt, prescriptive and ill thought through. The Government have arbitrarily cut across past practice and slavishly followed the passing fashions of the hour, with even the Deputy Prime Minister's bizarre fad for regional assemblies in place of counties dating back to the Saxon era. No wonder my noble friend Lord Norton says that we possibly have the makings of a constitutional crisis.
At times in the past few years, it has seemed as if anything was up for grabs except, of course, the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself. Given the distinction of the current holder of that office, whom we are honoured to have with us this afternoon, that may be understandable. None the less, it is striking.
Let us consider the extent of the change in the past five years, let alone the past 30. The union settlements have been set aside, and the common law of England has been undermined by a code of human rights that derives very little from national law. The usages of the House of Commons have been modernised, deeply entrenching the power of the executive, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, recognised. That was expressed even more strongly by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, to which I shall return in a moment.
Our own House has been purged more ruthlessly by a political hand than at any time since the 1650s. Powers that resided at Westminster have been transferred to Brussels with an almost missionary zeal. Noble Lords do not have to believe everything that my noble friend Lord Pearson says to believe that. Ministers have spun spiders' webs of regulation across the face of public life, so that no school, hospital or police officer may move without a rule book clumping behind them. We have seen a long and persistent march by the Home Office against some of our most precious personal liberties. On that last point, what price one's human rights, if a jury may be conditioned into thinking that one is a criminal before one's case is even heard?
That is only part of the Government's programme, but it is enough to indicate, as noble Lords have done in this debate, the scale of constitutional changes that have taken place in the past few years. At no stage have the Government stopped to ask the question raised by my noble friend Lord Norton, or to give an answer to the question, "What is the constitution for?". Has there been any coherence in the Government's actions, and what are their plans for the future? Indeed, even the word "plan" may be a misnomer, as so much seems to have been done by accident rather than design.
One needs only to consider the practice of devolution, which has become an expensive embarrassment to the people of Scotland. In a few minutes, in the forthcoming Statement, we shall witness the Government standing on their head and announcing a change to the number of MSPs and confirmation of a deal struck with the Liberal Democrats. The real test of devolution, however, will be during the next few years, as we see the development of different political complexions in the Scottish
690
Executive and at Westminster. All the stresses will not be seen for some years, but the problems that they bring will cast a long shadow.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, raised several important questions about the working of devolution. The decision-making powers of the new Parliaments and Assemblies are based in their own bodies, but the money to pay for them comes from the centre. That will inevitably lead to wastage of expenditure and the start of a begging bowl culture. None of those issues has been resolved.
Another point about devolution arose during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Am I right in believing that the new Parliaments and Assemblies legislate with powers borrowed from this Parliament? In other words, their legislation is not primary legislation in the accepted form of that word, but secondary legislation, ultimately subordinate to the power and authority of this Parliament, if that power were to be used. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot give an answer this afternoon, I should be delighted to receive it in written form.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned that old chestnut, electoral reform. I wonder whatever happened to that wheeze. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us.
This has been a good and important debate, but I conclude with one further thought. Why, in this maelstrom of change, is another place the one institution that has not been changed, except to muddle it further, although it is the one institution that surpasses all others in importance? During the past few years, we in this House have fought a rearguard action against the ambitions of the Government, as set out in 1997, to master and control your Lordships' independence. Time and again, that spark of independence has been useful; it has saved Ministers from disastrous overreaching of executive power on issues as diverse as the surveying of e-mails, the defence of jury trials, the rights of electors to election addresses and the freedom from arbitrary detention. Time and again, proposals such as those have passed through another place as if they were as controversial as cranberry sauce at Christmas.
Noble Lords have only to accept half of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, or the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, to know that there is something rotten in another place. My noble friend Lord Marlesford called it "disarming Parliament". That is a good phrase. We are all the weaker for what has happened in another place. It is no wonder that turnout at elections continues to fall.
Is it not essential that far-reaching and effective reform of another place is brought further to the top of the constitutional agenda? We on this side are ready to meet that challenge; we are ready to reduce the size of another place, to buttress the independence of Back-Benchers and Select Committees and rebuild some of the procedures for scrutinising legislation that have fallen into disuse. If we could expect some attention from the Government on that matter, an assurance

691
from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would make this important debate even more worthwhile than it has been.
5.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is to be congratulated on securing the debate. It has made for an interesting and scholarly rundown to the end of term.
The noble Lord has consistently criticised the Government for having, as he sees it, no coherent theory of the constitution and no intellectually consistent strategy for reforming it. He also implies that without the former—a proper theory of the constitution—we should not even have dared to embark on the latter—the reform of the constitution. I fear that if purism of that kind had informed our approach there would have been none of the progress since 1997 that has been approved by so many of your Lordships today.
The noble Lord knows that, in the area of constitutional change, I believe that we can proceed by way of pragmatism based on principle, without the need for an all-embracing theory. I accept that we do not have an all-embracing definition of the constitution. As I told your Lordships' Constitution Committee, which the noble Lord chairs so well, I considered its own definition,
"the set of laws, rules and practices that create the basic institutions of the state, and its component and related parts, and stipulate the powers of those institutions and the relationship between the different institutions and between those institutions and the individual".
as good as any I had read, but I do not endorse it as a government definition or as a personal definition. Nor does it address what the content of the constitution is, or any theory that may lie behind it.
The question whether any particular proposed measure should be regarded as constitutional is one on which a pragmatic view should be taken. The fact that a major part of our constitution is to be found in conventions illustrates that there is no all-embracing definition. Many important political developments have been effected since 1688 without any recourse to legal forms. The constitutional conventions describe and explain how our constitution works, lives and grows. Examples include the convention that the Sovereign acts only on the advice of her Ministers, the doctrine of collective responsibility, and that a government defeated on a Motion of confidence on the Floor of the other place should resign. Just as there is no all-embracing definition of the constitution, similarly there is no all-embracing definition of what is a "constitutional measure". Clearly, the Government have, since 1997, introduced a number of reforms that could be called "constitutional measures". An obvious such reform is the Scotland Act, with its ample devolution of legislative power to Scotland, which results in the Scottish Parliament passing primary legislation, not delegated legislation.
I do not myself see the absence of an all-embracing definition of "the constitution" as any problem at all. Our system of government and parliamentary supremacy
692
mean that there is no difference between our arrangements for the treatment of "constitutional" measures and any others.
Moreover, it is true that we have no written constitution—that is, written down in a single place—but we do not seem to have suffered as a result in comparison with other European countries. Our governance has been remarkably stable over the centuries and our institutions have been conspicuously durable.
It may disappoint the noble Lord but I am sure that it will not disappoint or surprise your Lordships to learn that we reject the argument that because we have no all-embracing definition of the constitution, we therefore should not introduce measures that beneficially change our constitutional arrangements.
The noble Lord criticised us because he claimed that the Government have no vision of what they want the constitution to be in 10 years' time, for example, and no consistent philosophy behind our reforms. Neither is true. All of our reforms were fundamentally informed by three principles. The first is that we should remain a parliamentary democracy with the Westminster Parliament supreme and within that the other place the dominant partner. Secondly—I say this with particular regard to the notable contribution of my noble friend Lord Sheldon—we should increase public engagement in democracy, developing a maturer democracy with different centres of power where individuals enjoy greater rights and where government is carried out closer to the people. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme: pluralism, yes, and decentralism, yes. Our third principle is that the correct road to reform was to devise a solution to each problem on its own terms. That was not carelessness or lack of consideration for possible linkages between different reforms; it was a recognition that that is the way that our constitution has always developed and should develop.
If, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, contends, there was insufficient attention to the linkages, I should have to plead guilty because my chairmanship of the Cabinet committees concerned with the constitutional change programme was intended to prevent that from happening. So I would not plead guilty, would I?
I turn to devolution. Some claimed that that would mean the break-up of the United Kingdom. Not so. The powers of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly have been devolved from the Westminster Parliament. They could, in principle, be recovered at any time, however improbable that obviously is. Regrettably, in the case of Northern Ireland, it has been necessary for the time being to do so. But I believe that the union between Scotland and England has been strengthened, not weakened, by devolution.
The sovereignty of Westminster is preserved but Scotland and Wales have government that is closer to the people, which can respond to their particular concerns and which (for Scotland) does not have to wait for legislative time in a Parliament dominated by English interests. Moreover, the arrangements

693
established over the past three and a half years provide a robust basis on which successful long-term relationships can be built between the Government and the devolved administrations.
The detailed arrangements in each case reflected the historic circumstances of those nations. Scotland, with its long history of a distinct legal system, Church and education system, and the continuing need for separate legislation in many areas of life, has a Parliament and Executive that reflect that historical legacy with their high level of autonomy over the legal system, economic development, industrial assistance, training, transport, the police and the penal system. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, trot out the mantra that the constitutional reform programme was abrupt, prescriptive and ill thought out. On the contrary, it was well heralded, well debated—not least in your Lordships' House—and well thought out. My advice to the Conservative Party in Scotland is that if it wants to rehabilitate itself as a political force in Scotland, it should stop living in the past and be active in the Scottish Parliament and be seen to be helping to make devolution to Scotland the success that it is.
Wales has been much more closely integrated with England for much longer and it has a system which reflects that closeness. Its Assembly has taken over the powers of the Secretary of State, but cannot make primary legislation, unlike Scotland. Devolution, however, provides a transparent framework for the government of Wales and a focus for national identity. The Northern Ireland settlement, similarly, reflects the particular circumstances of the Province's history and politics in, for example, the specific provision for power-sharing.
It has been said by some that our system of devolution is asymmetrical. It is, and it was intended to be, so as to reflect the different circumstances of the different parts of the United Kingdom.
We have given the people of London—one of the great capital cities in the world—the opportunity for city-wide government to secure its strategic interests and the voice that it deserves. I say to my noble friend Lord Morgan that we are addressing the English question. We are offering the regions of England the opportunity to establish directly elected regional assemblies. Elected assemblies will have important strategic powers over regional issues, such as economic development, planning, housing and transport, but no region of England will have regional government forced on it. Just as devolution and the Greater London Authority were introduced only after the proposals had secured majorities in referendums, the same will apply to any directly elected assemblies in the regions of England.
The consequences of devolution will be to allow the United Kingdom to draw strength from its diversity, which should be embraced as a source of strength and innovation. Under the new settlement, the United Kingdom will be far more than the sum of its parts. A new Britain is emerging with a revised conception of citizenship that recognises the mix of cultures and traditions that form our Union.
694
I turn to the Human Rights Act. This immensely important measure, which I was proud to pilot through your Lordships' House, where it began, had a clear starting point: a pragmatic view of our constitutional arrangements. That view is of an accommodation between the state and the individual and of a new and dynamic co-operative endeavour that is developing between the Executive, the judiciary and Parliament. It is one in which each works within its respective constitutional sphere to give ever-developing practical effect to the values embodied in the Act. The Human Rights Act respects the sovereignty of Parliament. It enables people to pursue their human rights in their own courts. It will, over time, lead to a new culture of rights and responsibilities. The prophets of doom over that Bill have been proved comprehensively wrong, just as they have been over devolution. The union was strengthened, not weakened, by the Scotland Act. The Human Rights Act has not seen the end of civilisation as we know it. There has been none of the predicted chaos in the courts. It has not seen the rule of judges taking over from the rule of politicians. Nor has it seen the politicisation of the judiciary. The overriding theme which emerges from the impact of the Act in practice so far is one of balance: balance between scrutiny and deference; between the individual and the community, and between radical interpretation of statutes and declarations of incompatibility. The Act should be celebrated by all those who believe in our tradition of freedom under the law—as important a part of our constitution as any institutional arrangements.
The Freedom of Information Act is gradually being brought into force—I recognise not as fast as the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Goodhart, would wish. But, from the beginning of this month, every government department is obliged to have a publication scheme, setting out the information it will routinely make freely available. On the immensely important subject of elections—fundamental to our democratic arrangements—we have established an independent Electoral Commission, answerable to the House of Commons, and not to government, to oversee the electoral system in this county.
Your Lordships were unlikely to have allowed a debate on the constitution to pass without reference to reform of this House, and your Lordships did not disappoint. We now have the report of the Joint Committee. I was amused, but not at all surprised, to hear that the chairman of that committee, my right honourable friend the Member for Copeland, had spoken frankly about the difficulty the committee had experienced in even identifying and commenting on seven options for the composition of your Lordships' House. No doubt your Lordships will be studying it carefully over the Christmas Recess, preparatory to our two-day debate on 21st and 22nd January. My noble friend Lady Scotland looks forward to opening that debate and I look forward to winding it up. The contribution of my noble friend Lord Sheldon to the debate gives a foretaste of how interesting that debate will be.

695
It may be that the executive's power over Parliament has grown excessively. But that is no justification for ill-advised reform of this House, under which instability between the two Houses might make the life of the executive of whatever political colour more difficult, but would be very damaging to the stability of Parliament. The noble Lord notes—I believe regrets—but accepts as inevitable that the other place no longer attracts the breadth of experience that it once did.. But I emphasise that this House, as an appointed House, does. So I agree with my noble friend Lord Morgan that for this House to be efficient it must add value to Parliament. That primarily must be through its composition—the kind of people that it attracts. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was, if I may say so, essential reading for our debate in January.
This has been an interesting debate. I conclude by saying that, despite the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, the Government believe that they will be remembered and approved by history for their record of constitutional reform. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was generous enough to agree, as did my noble friend Lord Morgan.
We believe that the way in which we have approached these reforms is consistent with the traditions of the development of our constitution—ever pragmatic, evolutionary where possible, but not fearing to make major step changes where needed, as was the reform of this House. Our nation, our democracy and our constitution will, I hope, over time be seen to have been regenerated by our efforts.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this has been a very good debate indeed. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. There have been some very thoughtful speeches from all parts of the House, with several noble and scholarly Lords participating.
Your Lordships' House is an ideal arena in which such an important debate can take place. I very much hope, as I said in opening, that this prompts further. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for responding so fully to the debate and for confirming my interpretation of the Government's position. The noble and learned Lord has been extremely open in his response and—perhaps I may say—in so doing has given me a great deal of ammunition for the future.
My Motion calls for Papers. When I have previously initiated debates in your Lordships' House, whether on the burden of bureaucracy on universities or on the case for parliamentary reform, I have made the point that the last thing that I want is more papers. Today is different. This is a subject on which I should like to see more papers. However, I shall abide by the conventions of the House. I shall do so for two reasons: first, to avoid apoplexy on the part of the Clerks: and, secondly, because conventions constitute an important component of the constitution of your Lordships' House—a constitution worth defending.
696
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Scottish Parliament
5.46 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the size of the Scottish Parliament. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the future size of the Scottish Parliament.
"In the White Paper, Scotland's Parliament, published in July 1997, the Government acknowledged that the special statutory provisions which stipulated a minimum number of Scottish seats in this House would no longer apply.
"The average Scottish constituency represented here comprises around 55,000 electors, while the average for English constituencies is around 70,000.
"One factor in this increased representation has been the need to recognise the additional requirement for Scottish MPs to scrutinise separate legislation unique to the Scottish system.
"The Scotland Act 1998 provides that any reduction in the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster will cause a reduction in the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.
"The Boundary Commission for Scotland published in March this year provisional recommendations that would lead to a reduction in the current number of Scottish Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59. The consequence for Holyrood would be a fall in the number of MSPs from 129 to around 104.
"During the passage of the Scotland Act the Government made clear that if Parliament took the view that its workings would be undermined by a reduction in numbers, then representations could be made to the government of the day to amend that section of the Act.
"My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right honourable Member for Hamilton North and Bellshill, reiterated that view in September 2000; I have made similar public Statements to this effect.
"Honouring this commitment, I launched last year a consultation to seek views on retaining or adjusting the current statutory link between Westminster and Holyrood parliamentary constituencies.
"The consultation paper, in particular, sought views on three issues: the consequence of the reduction required by the Scotland Act on the operation of the Scottish Parliament; the practical effect and issues which might arise between MPs, MSPs and councillors if boundaries were not

697
coterminous for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies; and, the implications of non-coterminous boundaries for electoral administrators and local authorities in relation to the registration of voters and the conduct of elections, and also for the structure and operation of political parties.
"Almost 800 copies of the consultation documents were issued, and the Scotland Office website page recorded 1,300 hits. More than 230 replies were received from civic bodies, individuals, electoral administrators and councils, the Scottish Executive, MPs, MSPs and political parties.
"The purpose of the consultation was to seek to proceed on the basis of the kind of consensus born out of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's scheme for the Scottish Parliament. That broad-based convention was made up of political parties including the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, as well as trade unions, local authorities, churches, the voluntary sector, business groups and civic Scotland. I made clear that, if the Government were ever to consider amending the Scotland Act, any proposal should seek the same kind of consensus as emerged through the convention.
"Two strands emerge from the consultation. First, the need for stability. Among the civic and representative bodies responding, the overwhelming view was that the Scottish Parliament should continue to operate with the present number of MSPs. The argument was put that it would cause difficulties, especially to the committee system, and that it would be unwise to de-stabilise the Parliament so early in its life by a reduction in its numbers.
"They stated that a reduction would adversely affect the Parliament's scrutiny of legislation and the Executive's capacity to conduct inquiries or initiate legislation. They claimed that any reduction in the numbers of list MSPs would reduce proportionality and that the current structure should be maintained to give a proper balance of representation.
"Secondly, it was acknowledged, not least from electoral administrators, that difficulties could arise if the boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood were not coterminous. Confusion could be caused to voters and there would be problems for political parties in relation to their organisation.
"A summary of these responses has been placed in the Library of both Houses.
"I have weighed up carefully all the responses, and, in view of the overwhelming body of opinion in favour of maintaining the current number of MSPs, in the interests of stability, I propose to seek to amend the Scotland Act accordingly. However, I also take very seriously the concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and for Holyrood. I propose therefore that an independent commission should be established to
698
examine and make recommendations on issues caused by having different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies.
"I expect that, subject to parliamentary approval, any order giving effect to revised Westminster boundaries should be in place for the next election, no later than June 2006. Consequently, this commission, which has the approval of the Scottish Executive and is referred to in its submission, would sit after the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Any changes it might propose for the Scotland Act would be a matter for this Parliament.
"Retaining the present number of 129 MSPs requires an amendment to the Scotland Act by way of primary legislation. It will also be necessary to provide for the routine review of Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries. I will be seeking agreement to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
"Let me make it clear that any change to the Scotland Act will be narrowly drawn. The Government believe the spirit of the constitutional convention must guide any changes to the legislation.
"This announcement acknowledges the fact that, as it approaches the end of its first term, the Scottish Parliament is a hard-working and effective institution, which is committed to serving the needs of the Scottish people; it underpins the stability and success of the constitutional settlement in Scotland, which has strengthened the United Kingdom.
"I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, for having repeated the Statement made earlier in another place. I gather that it is the first time that the noble Lord has made a Statement from the Dispatch Box, so I congratulate him on having done so. I must say, however, that he could have picked a better one. It is an extraordinary Statement.
Of course, I have sympathy for the noble Lord. After all, he was not in the House at the time of the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. Is he aware of the statements of Government policy made from the Dispatch Box at which he stands in July 1998? I quote:
"After thinking long and hard"—
long and hard, my Lords—
"the Government have concluded that the balance of advantage lies with maintaining the link between Westminster and Scottish parliament constituencies … believed that the integrity of the Union would be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish parliament and UK Parliament".
I quote again:
"different parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament with overlapping boundaries"
could lead to,
"confusion among the electorate".
I quote once more:

699
"I am confident that once the Scottish parliament is established and its working practices are in place, it could operate perfectly effectively with fewer MSPs".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1336]
Those were the words uttered at the Dispatch Box by the noble Lord's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. They were echoed by Mr Dewar, who said in anolher place:
"if there were a larger … number of Members, efficiency would be … sacrificed".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/98; col. 384]
The Secretary of State, Mrs Liddell, led her colleagues into the Lobby in another place to vote down an amendment to the effect that the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament should remain the same.
To call it a U-turn is to undersell; it is a backtrack. Will the noble Lord explain what has changed since 1998 that means that Mrs Liddell will tell him and others to vote for the policies that they voted against in 1998? Could it be something to do with the narrow political advantage of the Labour Party and their Liberal Democrat errand-boys in Holyrood? It is a ghastly, grubby political deal, and praying-in-aid the Labour-dominated Constitutional Convention simply proves that.
Can the noble Lord answer some specific questions? Given that, during the passage of the Scotland Act, Mr Henry McLeish said:
"we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/98; col. 223.],
what is the Government's reasoning for taking that sensible view at the time and what factors have led them to change their mind? Is the noble Lord aware that, under the management of the Government and, more lately, the Presiding Officer, the construction costs of the new parliament building have mushroomed to the degree that they are a major scandal for Scotland? What is the latest estimate of the cost of construction? What will be the annual revenue cost of continuing with the existing number of MSPs and their officers, rather than reducing it, as envisaged in 1998?
What will be the additional cost to local authorities of having to organise for elections based on non-coterminous boundaries? Will councils be reimbursed for that cost or will it fall, once again, to the local council tax payers? Will electors be confused by differing boundaries, as the Government previously believed? If not, why not? Did they not mean what they said then? Do they mean it now?
What hard evidence is there that the Scottish Parliament needs its current complement of MSPs, committees and Ministers to discharge its functions effectively? Why, for instance, are over 20 Ministers required to do the job that five did pre-devolution? Does the announcement mean that the number of Ministers will remain and that no cap will be placed on the mushrooming of ministerial aides?
Finally, will the noble Lord explain the timetable for the implementation of the new arrangements for Holyrood and Westminster? Can we expect to see new Westminster boundaries in place for a general election in 2005–06 and new Scottish parliamentary constituencies
700
for the 2007 Scottish Parliament poll? When will the new independent commission be set up? How will it be set up, and who will sit on it?
Our party, at least, has a consistent view: the country needs fewer politicians. That is true for this Parliament and for the Scottish Parliament. Even if we reduced the number of MSPs as planned in 1998, Scotland would have more politicians per elector than Quebec, Catalonia or Bavaria. If they can manage, why cannot we?
Everyone knows that this astonishing U-turn has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with short-term political advantage. Yet again, it is an act that defines the very nature of this Government.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for repeating the Statement and welcome him to the discussions on Scotland. In addition, I welcome the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, back to his place and back to our Scottish discussions. In view of my complaint during the debate that Scottish and British politics are probably fairly colourless because no one really disagrees, I welcome the apoplectic views of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to our Scottish discussions.
The Statement ends the anxiety. We now know the outcome. It was a battle of principle between the committee system and the slightly awkwardly described "coterminousity" of constituency boundaries. The committee system has won and the difficulties which "coterminousity" will bring about are to be ironed out by an independent commission. I suspect that administrators will have some difficulty with that. However, I do not believe that the public will.
On these Benches we have no problem with the principle of the reduction of Scottish Westminster MPs. However, we are anxious to ensure that the rural constituencies will not be too large. Perhaps the 6,000 elector format should be discarded in the remoter areas.
The 17 committees of the Scottish Parliament are vital and make up for the fact that there is no revising chamber. To have reduced them would have meant lack of scrutiny and, particularly, pre-legislative scrutiny. It would have created a greater legislative backlog; it would have created even more Sewel Motions; and it would have lost the number of constituency days that MSPs have. Proportionality would also have suffered. There would be less diversity in the Scottish Parliament. Fortunately, independents, greens and Scottish socialists add some colour to the generalist social democrat views of the main Scottish parties. Similarly, the rural and remote areas, which enjoy a slight over-representation, would have suffered, too. The Scottish Parliament could do without central belt domination.
Scotland is a resurgent political entity. In the 18th century the complaint was that when we had a parliament of our own we could "aye peeble" it. Now

701
we can throw stones at it again, but we want it to be an effective Parliament. Reducing the numbers would not achieve that.
I have five questions for the Minister. Will the Government guarantee to use ward boundaries as building blocks for constituencies? Exactly which elections will these changes be in place for? Have the Government given any consideration to using the single transferable vote and abandoning the additional Member system? When will the Bill amending the Scotland Act be introduced? Finally—and, no doubt, coming to the aid of the SNP which rather foolishly seems to have declined places in this House—will the amendment Bill deal with the Dorothy-Grace Elder situation? As predicted, a regional list MP from Glasgow—Dorothy-Grace Elder—has resigned from the SNP and now sits as an independent. The SNP would like her to resign the seat, but legislation does not require her to do so. What does the Minister think will happen in that situation and will it be mentioned in the future amendment Bill?
6.5 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for their welcome and their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, finished his remarks saying that we have a consistent view. The noble Lord certainly has. He has opposed devolution from the beginning and continues to oppose it. Any obstacle or point that can be made in an attempt to damage devolution is made by the noble Lord and his party.
It is simple to trade quotations. I could read two pages of Government Ministers' quotations about the need for flexibility. The noble Lord's shadow Minister, Liam Fox, said that the first thing that would be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly was stability. That is precisely the point my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made in her Statement.
What are the factors that have led to this? The first factor is consultation. We consulted the public on the size of the Scottish Parliament, seeking, in the light of the way the parliaments worked, their views on the number of MSPs. Word came back clearly from that consultation that the number of Members required remained 129. The reason for that is that there are 17 committees. They are effective committees and 129 MSPs are needed to ensure that the Scottish Parliament works effectively. All the evidence is that in these early days it is a highly effective Parliament. The crucial point is that, if it is to work, the Scottish Parliament must have what it requires. It is coming up—as are many other people—with compelling reasons for keeping 129 Members. Moreover, the construction of the Scottish Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows, is a devolved matter. It is not a matter that I can comment on.
The cost of any changes in the electoral boundaries will, of course, be met nationally, not locally.
702
As far as concerns the timetable for the consultation, the commission will be appointed by the UK Government in consultation with the First Minister. It will be a non-statutory body. It is too early to be precise about the scope of its remit but it is expected to cover any issues arising from the operation of the non-coterminous boundaries.
As the Secretary of State said in her Statement, the reason for establishing the commission is that concern has been expressed about moving away from coterminous boundaries. She is anxious that that should be looked at by an independent commission, given their importance of the issue.
I believe that I have answered all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked. If I have left anything out, I shall be more than happy to write to him.
I turn to the questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The point about rural constituencies and their size is a matter that I shall draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. When will the change happen? That will happen at the general election in 2006 at the latest. We do not expect the commission to be prevented from looking at wider election issues. The Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows and we expect it to be narrowly drawn. The noble Earl asked whether the Government will use ward boundaries. That is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the Boundary Commission.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend Lord Evans to the Front Bench. However, I am afraid that the welcome I give him to the hot house of Scottish politics is not matched by my welcome for the Statement. It is most unwelcome.
The figure of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament was a pragmatic one arrived at by compromise in the Scottish convention and elsewhere. It has now been elevated into the principle that the Scottish Parliament cannot possibly survive unless it has 129 Members. The Secretary of State for Scotland may say that the commission will look only at coterminous constituencies, but I do not believe that my noble friend realises the Pandora's Box which has been opened.
If there is to be a review of the operation of the Scottish Parliament—and I accept that it is different from the Westminster Parliament; I accept that perhaps 129 is the right number; I accept that it may be too many; and I accept that it may be too few—we should have a proper root and branch review. We should examine whether the committee system is working and whether we need the list MPs who have no constituency duties and who constantly interfere with constituency Members. The Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament would be able to report the number of occasions on which he has to criticise the list MPs for interfering in matters which were not of their concern.

703
The review must be a proper one and I do not see the reason for the rush. The change to the size of the Scottish Parliament will not happen before June next year. The Parliament can sit with the same number of Members. Does my noble friend understand and accept that a deal was done for the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons? That deal was signed freely by every single party representative in the Scottish Parliament. I believe that that deal should be honoured because the excuse put forward sounds very much like, "We're going to try to save our own jobs".
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside for his questions. He appears to be asking us to rewrite the Act, whereas the Statement deals with significant changes to it in the light of the successful first three years of the Parliament. The deal referred to was done not for Members of the Scottish Parliament but for Members of the Westminster Parliament. I am fully aware of that deal and it was very transparent.
We have gone out to consultation; we have been transparent in the way in which we have approached the matter; and I recognise that we have done something which has not pleased my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside. However, these are early days and the Parliament is working well. Give it a few more years before passing the kind of judgment that is being passed today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am completely astonished by the Statement. It is amazing. Had the noble Lord been here when the Act passed through this House, he would know that we spent many hours pointing out to the Government precisely what would happen if they linked the number of Members of the Scots Parliament to the Westminster and Euro constituencies. That is what the Act does: by implication, it ties the numbers in the Scots Parliament to those constituencies in Scotland.
We warned the Government that that would happen and my late noble friend, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was extremely amusing on the subject. He castigated the Government about what they were about to bring upon themselves and they have now done just that.
I do not believe that the Minister has been involved in fighting parliamentary elections, nor has the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who thought that it was quite all right to consider altering the coterminous boundaries. Does the Minister appreciate that it is most confusing to fight elections on the ground—I do it every time—when boundaries are changed by the Boundary Commission? When the boundaries are changed for the next Westminster elections—and at the next election we may have non-coterminous ones for the Scots Parliament—the situation will be even worse. The Government are bringing upon those who fight the elections a very big problem indeed. The general population may not appreciate that, but they will.
704
What are the Government allocating in cost for the commission, which will be doing what the Government should be doing themselves, if I may say so, and which they have known since 1998 would be necessary? How long will it take? There has been the most extraordinary collapse of business-like arrangements in the introduction of legislation.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for the questions she has asked. She appears to be saying that the Government should be chastised for accepting points made during the debate by Her Majesty's Opposition. I believe that this is an example of how pragmatic and flexible the Government are.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am chastising the Government for not accepting what we said—not for accepting it.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we do not yet know what the cost of the commission will be. It is a matter for discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, expressed concern about changes to the boundaries for the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments. That is why the Secretary of State said in her Statement:
"I take very seriously the concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and for Holyrood".
and that is one of the main reasons why the commission is being set up.
As regards the cost allocation for the new commission, as it is not due to be set up until 200'7 it is too early to say.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I have to say that I welcome it very much. I am particularly pleased to receive the assurance from the Government that they proceeded with the consultation on the future size of the Scottish Parliament in the spirit or the Scottish Constitutional Convention, seeking the kind of consensus which was achieved by that convention.
I speak as the last co-chair of that convention, along with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. So I welcome the further assurance that any changes to the Scotland Act will be guided by the spirit of the convention, which in some eight years of careful deliberation provided the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament. And I have to say that that was without the benefit of the participation of the Scottish Conservative Party, which perhaps explains the somewhat jaundiced view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he speaks of the convention. His party, which he boasted was always consistent at that time, was very much against the idea of a Scottish Parliament—so much so that it did not even participate in the convention. In the referendum campaign his party was part of the "No/No" campaign, which I have to say—and I hope I ant not being too unkind—was led by the noble and learned

705
Lord, Lord Fraser, whom I am very pleased to see in his place. I am sorry to have to say that it was a spectacularly unsuccessful campaign.
I am glad that the decision from the consultation is not to decrease the number of MSPs. As one of the three Front Bench spokespersons who took the Scotland Bill through its very, very long passage through this House, I know that we were always clear that if it emerged that the work of the Scottish Parliament would be adversely affected by a reduction in the number of MSPs then a change could be made. It is therefore absolutely right that after such a careful and broad consultation across Scotland, very much in the spirit of the convention—which I do not expect the Benches opposite to understand—the Government should take the necessary steps to bring about the desired change.
I also congratulate the Government on showing the foresight to announce now how they propose to deal with the consideration of any problems which may well arise from different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies, and which will appear more clearly after the Holyrood 2007 elections. I think today's Statement will be widely welcomed in Scotland, where the requirement for the efficient functioning of the Parliament will be paramount, and any administrative difficulties will have to be addressed and overcome. I would also like, in concluding, to say that I very much echo the praise for the Scottish Parliament with which the Statement concluded.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ramsay for her support. She was one of the most significant people involved in setting up the Scottish Parliament. The extremely positive way in which she endorses the Scottish Parliament and where it is in its development is significant. We should all acknowledge that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their stand. It is extraordinary that our Conservative friends cannot understand that the consultation over the whole country showing a clear lead needs to be taken into account. The numbers in the Scottish Parliament are important; you need 129 MSPs because they have no House of Lords. We do more than half the work in Parliament, because we do all the intricate work, and the committees have been working well. I hope that the Government will keep it up.
I have no quarrel with anything that the Minister said, except when he said that the Government had nothing to do with the cost of Holyrood. They had everything to do with it. I had great respect for the late Donald Dewar, but it was an impossible site. It was chosen and built on and the Scottish Parliament have had to put up with it. Will the Minister agree that the Government should supply the cash for the mess that they made to start with?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, makes an important point: the
706
Scottish Parliament is a unicameral Chamber, which is another justification for its number of Members. I was asked a direct question about the costs of the Assembly building and I said that it was a devolved matter. That is a perfectly reasonable answer to that question. However, I will take back to the Secretary of State the noble Lord's suggestion that Westminster should finance Holyrood. He should not hold his breath waiting for an answer.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the Minister be clear on dates? Why is there such urgency? Nothing can happen until May 2007. Why are the Government not waiting until the Boundary Commission reports, either in 2003 or 2004, on the Westminster constituencies and then see whether some will be coterminous? The Government are racing ahead of the all-important Boundary Commission. Will the Minister assure us that, if the Boundary Commission reports in 2003 or 2004, its recommendations will be in place for the next general election? We do not want to happen what happened in 1978, when the Boundary Commission presented its case to Parliament and the then Labour Government voted it down, which was a disgraceful scandal.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we cannot determine when the Boundary Commission will report. I argue with the noble Lord, Lord Monro, when he says that we are rushing ahead to set up a consultation in the year 2007, which is five years away. I fully anticipated the question of why we were not setting it up sooner. The reason for the timescale is that if we start the process now it will be a paper consultation. We must wait for elections to obtain facts and evidence so that the commission can deliberate and come up with pragmatic, sensible conclusions rather than academic conclusions based on theory.
Lord Elder: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to this rather fraught subject. I also greatly welcome the Statement. Perhaps he shares my surprise at the expressions coming from the Opposition when the Government are doing two things: first, accepting 129 MSPs, which was the number the Opposition argued for during the Bill's passage; and secondly, doing exactly what they said they would do in terms of listening to the Scottish Parliament once it was set up and therefore acting—as my noble friend Lord Sewel said they would—as a listening Government and responding to these thoughts from Holyrood.
Does the Minister agree that there is a case for taking a broader view with regard to the commission? There is a case relating to the good governance of Scotland for looking at the series of boundaries we now have: health boards; tourist boards; local authorities; Westminster; and Holyrood. It might be a sensible opportunity to extend slightly the commission's remit. We have an opportunity to give some thought to setting a structure for the better governance of Scotland.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we wonder who has made the U-turn. The Opposition have argued

707
that the Government have made a U-turn. Depending on which papers and ministerial Statements you have predating the setting-up of the Scottish Parliament it is easy to argue that a U-turn has been made by the other side.
I take my noble friend Lord Elder's important point about the commission's remit. This has not been set as it is early days, but I shall pass on to the Secretary of State his view that it should have a slightly broader perspective than that currently imagined.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood that the purpose of these occasions was to make speeches and not to ask questions of the Minister about the Statement.
When he concluded the repeated Statement the Minister said that the Scottish Parliament was an effective institution. In preparing for repeating the Statement, is the Minister aware that the Scottish Executive, on its own figures, has acknowledged that since it was set up poverty in Scotland has increased; homelessness has increased; waiting lists have lengthened; and Scottish education has been sadly debased? Are they to get these extra numbers from this Westminster Government as a reward for that incompetence, or is it just for the nine members of the Labour Back-Benches who have yet to enjoy ministerial office—to give them a last opportunity to achieve that?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for asking me a series of questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the Statement. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord missed the report of the Electoral Commission in today's Guardian which states:
"Nevertheless, the research says that Scots 'continue to attach relatively high importance to the parliament'. The study again indicates strong support for extra powers".
The noble and learned Lord referred to certain areas where he feels that progress has not been made. Coming from the cultural sector, I have knowledge of and can point to huge successes in the cultural matters that have developed in Scotland over the past three years. It is a tremendous tribute to the Scottish Parliament that the treatment it has given to cultural matters, which have been put centre stage, has been a huge success.

Iraq
6.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the contingency preparations for possible military action against Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and have set out the Government's approach to
708
Iraq on a number of occasions. The Government's approach has not changed in any way. We are committed to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime by ensuring its compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Our primary objective is to achieve this by peaceful means. Saddam Hussein is being given every opportunity to disarm voluntarily.
"We hope that he will take this opportunity to do so. But, given his previous record, it would be foolish to assume that he will comply unless he faces clear and overwhelming pressure. That is why we must continue to present a credible threat of force.
"When the House debated this issue on 25th November, and discussed it again at Defence Questions on 9th December, I made clear that we would continue with the prudent preparations and planning necessary for military action, should it be required. I said that we would continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces were ready and had the training, equipment and support that they needed. What we are doing is ensuring that we have a range of military options available should they be required.
"The House may find it helpful if I set out again the work which we have put in hand.
"As I told the House on 25th November, we have already taken action to provide additional capabilities that may potentially be needed, either by bringing forward programmes which were already planned or by making new procurements against short timescales. As the House will recall, these measures include bringing forward the purchase of further temporary deployable accommodation, upgrading the infrastructure available in deployed field hospitals, improving battlefield ambulances and enhancing the ability of our forces to handle and exploit secure communications. We are approaching the shipping market this week to charter vessels which might be needed to move equipment and personnel. We are also acting on the lessons learnt from Exercise Saif Sareea II, particularly in relation to the Challenger II tank, the AS 90 artillery system and desert clothing and boots. I can assure the House that we are working closely with industry to ensure that British forces will have the capabilities they need for the contingencies they may face.
"As I previously indicated to the House, we are also continuing to consider the number and mix of reservists who might be required in the event of military action and to ensure that the machinery and processes involved in mobilising reserves are ready to be used if and when the time comes. Relevant units and individual reservists will be informed of the possibility that they would be included in a call-out should that become necessary. We will take steps to identify individuals who may have genuine reasons for not being available in the months ahead. Information will also be made available to reservists for their employers.
"More generally, I have authorised a range of steps to improve readiness. This includes training, ensuring that the right quantities of equipment are

709
available to those who may need them, as well as the procurement of stocks and spares. For some units it will involve a reduction in their notice to move. This does not mean that they are about to be deployed, but it does mean that they will be ready to deploy at relatively short notice if required. I would emphasise that the involvement of any particular unit in these processes does not mean that it will necessarily take part in any military action that may be required. The purpose of these preparations is to provide the necessary range of options, not a specific plan.
"We have already announced the long-planned deployment of Naval Task Group 2003 in the new year, with scheduled visits and exercises in both the Gulf and the Asia-Pacific regions from February to August. This is a routine deployment which happens about every three years. But, like all maritime deployments, it remains available for a range of potential operations if required. The group will be led by HMS 'Ark Royal' and will include the Type 23 frigate HMS 'Marlborough', the Type 42 destroyer HMS 'Liverpool' and support from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels 'Fort Victoria' and `Orangelear. A nuclear-powered submarine will also be assigned to the group for part of its deployment. In addition, a Mine Countermeasures Group, comprising HMS 'Ramsey', HMS `Grimsby', HMS 'Shoreham', HMS `Ledbury' and R FA 'Sir Bedivere' will deploy ahead of the task group to undertake a series of exercises and port visits in the Gulf region.
"Further to these routine deployments, we are also considering the deployment of additional maritime forces early in the new year in order to ensure the readiness of a broad range of maritime capabilities should they be required.
"Finally, I want to emphasise once more that these are contingency preparations aimed at increasing the readiness of a range of options. This process does not lead inexorably to military action. The use of force is not inevitable. But as long as Saddam's compliance with UNSCR 1441 is in doubt, the threat of force must remain and must be real".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.38 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend. Late last night it was not on my radar, but it is a fast-moving situation. I remind the House that I have a direct interest as a serving officer in the TA.
We on these Benches and elsewhere are becoming increasingly frustrated that the media seem to be obtaining more detailed briefing than Parliament. For instance, during our recent debate I asked the Minister about the method of mobilising the TA and made some suggestions. I read the answer in yesterday's papers.
710
The Statement refers to a "credible threat of force". I am slightly worried that that smacks of a bare minimum. Will the Minister confirm that the intent is that the US and the UK combined could deploy an overwhelming military force?
Does the Minister agree that it may be necessary to deploy a coercive force in order to leave Saddam and/or his generals in absolutely no doubt that they must comply with UNSCR 1441 or face serious consequences? Does the Minister further agree that this is more likely to avoid war than any other course of action? On previous occasions I have raised issues of sustainability. Those issues will not go away but there is no need to repeat them this evening.
The Statement will disappoint many regular and volunteer members of the Armed Forces because they still have little idea when or if they will have to deploy—even if they make assumptions about Saddam's course of action. This could well be their last break at home for some time. I am sure that they would like to know the situation. It might not be a quick operation. It could be more than six months. In addition, Members of both Houses are concerned that the long-term future of Iraq will have to be dealt with. A political power vacuum would be bad enough but a military one would be even worse.
Ministers have made significant and welcome improvements to the policy for the operational welfare package. The principal facilities now on offer are telephones, internet facilities and two weeks' rest and recuperation mid-tour. Those arrangements are entirely appropriate for peacekeeping operations and overseas training exercises and postings. However, they may be impractical for reasons of electronic and general security and because of hostile terrain and rapid movement. Will the Minister ensure that soldiers' expectations on any deployment that may occur are realistic? I know from personal experience how painful it can be when conditions a long way from home are significantly worse than expected.
The Statement referred to exploiting secure communications. Does the Minister agree that does not mean Bowman? Even if he had a few thousand Bowman radios in stock, there is not the time to undertake the complex fitting or to train operators. The Statement referred also to improving battlefield ambulances. What consideration is being given to fitting satellite tracking so that the staff can know where an ambulance is when it is deployed? The Minister may want to reply in writing to that question.
Many Members of your Lordships' House and in another place have questioned the nature of the deployment. We know that the Minister will say nothing about that but whatever the size of the deployment, it will be necessary to mobilise TA medical formed units. Does the Minister agree that any such deployment will have a significant effect on elective surgery in the NHS? Does he envisage mobilising other TA logistic units as formed units?
I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wishing all members of the Armed Forces and their families a merry Christmas and every success in the new year.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords. I welcome the Statement that has been repeated in this House and emphasise the objective of resolving the situation peacefully. The Minister knows that we on these Benches have many reservations about war in Iraq. Having said that, if war were to come, it would be only prudent to make provision for that eventuality. I was interested by the sentence about Saif Sareea II. Many lessons have been learned, considering the shortcomings in artillery tanks, rifles and boots. I will not ask any questions about tanks because I realise that the Minister would not be able to answer them. However, I hope that the lessons from that exercise have been taken into account.
I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Our thoughts must be with the families of servicemen—especially those personnel who have been designated in the naval fleet that will be deployed straight after the new year. This will be a period of great distress for servicemen with families, considering the risks that they might face in the new year.
The Statement mentioned that HMS "Ark Royal" will be leading the task force. Can the Minister say whether HMS "Ocean" will be ready for deployment at some future point, if there were any difficulty with HMS "Ark Royal"? I share the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which we have raised a number of times in this House, about personnel availability for field hospitals. Can the Minister give any indication of the extent to which personnel are available for fitting out field hospitals? Is there still a gap in the availability of those personnel?
I hope that the Minister agrees that before action can be taken there must be a return to the Security Council for a further resolution. That seems only prudent. Will the House be recalled during the Christmas Recess for a debate if events move apace? I hope that the Minister agrees that military action will require a debate and vote in another place.
Finally, has all the information that can be provided by this country to the UN inspectors been provided? If further action is to be taken, so much will rest on a full and complete listing of information.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I warmly thank both noble Lords, particularly for their kind, well-meant comments about the British Armed Forces and their families. I am sure that their messages will get back to those families. This House recognises just how superb our Armed Forces are—including their families. We say that all the time but we mean it every time that we say it. As a united House, we pass on our best wishes to them all.
As to deploying an "overwhelming" and "coercive" force, the noble Earl will understand better than most that I cannot possibly comment. I can say this and emphasise it. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, began his contribution by mentioning this aspect. No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. Military action is neither inevitable nor imminent but it is very important that a credible threat
712
of force is shown to Saddam Hussein. To ensure that credible threat of force, we have been undertaking prudent planning and preparation in close consultation with the United States. That preparation forms an incremental process to that end. It involves developing a state of readiness for a range of options, depending on what may happen in the future. Some of those preparations were set out in the Statement.
The noble Earl referred to the operational welfare package—which, as he knows, is specifically designed to ensure that our Armed Forces personnel have free access to the internet, telephones and letters to allow them to keep in touch with their families as far as is possible. I think that was the point that the noble Earl was making. He knows that the package has been used successfully on recent deployments to the Balkans, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. We hope to build on those successes for future operations, if there are any.
I will not comment on Bowman but I will say that personal role radios—which are separate from the rest of Bowman—have been introduced into service this year. They have been used successfully in Afghanistan. Some 24,000 of them are now in service and are an important new form of communication for our Armed Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, kindly asked a question about HMS "Ocean". When he asked me about HMS "Ocean" yesterday, he mentioned that his information was that the ship would not be available in the foreseeable future because of a refit. I thought yesterday that that was not right, but with a sense of discretion I did not comment on it. I have checked it out in the 24 hours or so since. I can tell the noble Lord that it was decided in early October this year to advance by two weeks the refit of "Ocean", the Royal Navy's helicopter landing platform. This was a prudent contingency measure to broaden the range of options available to the UK and it improves the fleet's readiness. She is now out of refit, but I shall, of course, not speculate on what part she might or might not play in anything that may or may not arise.
So far as concerns hospitals, there will be no gap in terms of personnel if people are needed. I believe I have answered the questions posed by the noble Lord.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, are the Government aware that they cannot go to war by stealth? Going to go to war requires evidence, sanctions and legality. Are my noble friend and the Government aware that many people in this country feel that, unless there is a second Security Council resolution specifically authorising the use of force, the Government will not be on the right track?
I know that my noble friend is responsible for moving soldiers—he is not a Minister at the Foreign Office, but he does represent the Government. One can at least say this to him, in the hope that the Government will listen. Will he take back to his colleagues the fact that the Government must reject the extraordinary proposition raised in the Security Council—of which I found an echo in the Statement by

713
the Secretary of State for Defence—that a country or countries are entitled to use force in order to enforce a Security Council resolution even in circumstances where the Security Council itself does not wish that resolution to be enforced? It is a staggering proposition. I hope that on behalf of the Government my noble friend will reject it.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there will be no war by stealth. The noble Lord, who speaks with great experience on these matters and is greatly respected by all in this House, knows that very well. What I have mentioned today are, I repeat, prudent preparations: first, to put up a credible threat of force against Saddam Hussein, but also in case war is necessary—which is something that is neither imminent nor inevitable. I know from previous debates the noble Lord's strong feelings about a second resolution of the Security Council before any further steps are taken. It would be the Government's preference that there should be a second resolution, if that is necessary, before any force was used. But I have to tell the noble Lord that any decision on further action by the Security Council will be taken in the light of the circumstances at the time and that all options are open. Let Saddam Hussein be in no doubt that full compliance is the only option that will avoid serious consequences for Iraq.
It is important to state that it is up the Security Council to uphold its authority and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure full compliance. Kofi Annan, no less, has said that the Security Council must be prepared to face up to its responsibilities. Historical parallels can be dangerous, but it is perhaps worth noting that the Kosovo campaign was not one that was supported by the Security Council. I think that very few Members of this House would say that that was not a campaign that deserved to succeed or that it was not in the interests of humanity.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no prospect whatever of successful inspection activity unless it is backed up by the credible use of force? As to any suggestion that sanctions can do the job after 11 years of failed sanctions, I should have thought that that was a lesson that we had now well and truly learnt. But if there is to be success based on the credible use of force, it is important that the language on both sides of the Atlantic does not suggest that war is inevitable—or there will be no pressure on Saddam Hussein; there will be no benefit in terms of the compliance that he is willing to give when hoping to avoid military intervention.
If we are to have United Nations resolutions, there must be some real belief that the members of the United Nations are prepared to support them and make sure that they are carried out. The most depressing aspect of the present situation—which will impact to an extent on the morale of our own Armed Forces, a very important factor to which a number of speakers have referred—is the feeling that there is
714
genuine international support. The depressing point at the moment—as against the situation at the time of the Gulf War, when 28 countries contributed a large number of their specialist skills such as check detachments for chemical warfare defence units and other valuable skills—is that at present this looks very much like a two-party activity. At the moment, it appears that only ourselves and the United States are prepared to stand behind the United Nations resolution.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions and comments. He has vast experience of these matters. I entirely agree with him concerning sanctions. It is abundantly clear that we should not be in this position had sanctions worked over the course of the past 11 years. I agree that war is not inevitable. It is the British Government's view that war is neither imminent nor inevitable. The noble Lord is quite right: to suggest that it is inevitable in some ways takes the heat off Saddam Hussein himself. It is the credible threat of force that is so critical.
I want to make it clear that the Government's policy is to give Saddam Hussein every opportunity to comply with the obligation placed upon him in the United Nations resolution. However, as the Prime Minister has made clear, if he does not disarm, he will be disarmed.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on these Benches as well there are those of us who are very glad that a message is going out to our Armed Services as to how much we feel for them and their families at this juncture? It must be a time of great anxiety and stress. We are fortunate to have the calibre of people that we do have in our services.
Does my noble friend agree that among those of us who look for specific authorisation for any military action by the Security Council, should it become necessary, there is nevertheless an understanding that in the present context if the threat of military action, if need be, is to be credible, the kind of action that has been spelt out today is essential and well appreciated? In that context, will my noble friend assure the House that the Security Council and the Secretary-General are fully appraised of what we are doing; and that what we are doing is being done in co-ordination with other members of the Security Council and indeed with other member nations of the UN? Or is it being done by ourselves alone, or simply with the United States?
Can my noble friend reassure the House on one point which troubles me greatly? We are putting all this effort into ensuring that the military threat is credible. Are we putting as much effort into ensuring that the UN inspection has all the resources, personnel and back-up that are necessary to ensure that it is a success and does not prove to be an inadequate operation?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for our argument that it is essential, if there is to be a credible threat of force, to behave in the way that we have. What we are doing in

715
terms of the Statement that I have read out is something that we, of course, have decided to do. But the Government are well aware of their obligations to the United Nations. My noble friend can rest assured on that point. I want to emphasise that the British Government have full faith in, and give full support to, Dr Blix and his colleague, Dr El Baradei, in their very difficult task. We want to give them every support that we can. We want them to succeed.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is reassuring to hear that equipment and supply lessons from recent deployments are being learned. There is no shortage of them. However, can we have the simple undertaking that whatever formations or units are warned for operations they will not be denied the equipment that they may need, and in ample quantity, on grounds of expense alone?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble and learned Lord the assurance that he seeks today.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that both Saddam Hussein and the British people will be made aware that it would be better to send out our forces now so that, in the event of Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with the international position, our troops could take action well before the very hot weather? Such weather would place them in uncomfortable, if not intolerable, conditions, were Saddam Hussein to achieve his aim of delaying matters for as long as possible.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I must answer my noble friend in this way: nobody can predict whether, or when, military action might become necessary. It is pointless to speculate. We are engaged in what I described as sensible planning and preparations at a pace that we judge to be right. As for the concept of a window of opportunity that some commentators mentioned, Saddam Hussein would be very ill-advised to work on the assumption that he need only make a show of co-operation for the next few months. The requirement to disarm will not go away; nor will the threat of military action.
Those who say that military operations during the Iraqi summer would be impossible—I know that that is not what my noble friend says—are perhaps those who said that military operations during the Afghan winter would be impossible. It is common sense that extreme environmental conditions present particular challenges, but those challenges apply to the Iraqis as well as to us.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, regardless of the international politics of going to war, does the Minister accept that many of us believe it would be unacceptable to commit our forces in action in the Gulf if the armoured vehicles were to be fitted with the unreliable and insecure Clansman radio system? That would make the forces vulnerable to an extent that would make their commitment unjustifiable. I do not know whether the Minister shares my opinion.
716
As my noble friend Lord King said, it appears that only the British are standing with the Americans on this military operation. Must we pay the entire cost of our military commitment, or are we discussing with our allies in NATO and the EU, who are not prepared physically to commit forces, the possibility that they will at least contribute to the cost?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that it is much too early to answer the final part of the noble Lord's question accurately. We have the matter in mind. I hope that that will satisfy him for the moment at least.
I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks about Clansman. It has been in service for a long time. We believe that it is still capable of meeting the requirements against which it was delivered. Of course technology has moved on, and we look forward to the introduction of Bowman, when that happens. He can rest assured that we will ensure as best we can, if it comes to it, that those in Army vehicles are well protected.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I remain of the view that there will not be a war, that the threat of farce will work, and that Saddam Hussein will respond. However, in the event that limited action were to take place, can my noble friend assure me that the Government will consider seriously the military occupation of the Basra enclave and the declaration of a free Iraq in the south, with an expanding border to the north? Some of us have advocated that case in the other place over the past five years.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend's view that there will not be war is right. I have said that, and I know that the House hopes so, too. In response to the second part of my noble friend's question, I know the keen interest that he has taken in a new Iraq, as it were, over many years. But I think that he will understand that I am unable to answer his question today.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It cannot be right that someone who was not present to hear the Statement should then come into the Chamber and ask a question during the very short period available; namely, 20 minutes.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have apologised. I have one point, so in the method of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I shall be wrong. Can the noble Lord give us an undertaking about Clansman? I am reliably informed that there are no spare parts for them and that spare parts are no longer manufactured. When I was in Oman for Exercise Saif Sareea, the Clansman system did not work properly; so the armoured and infantry regiments have no secure security system. That must be solved before the regiments are committed to battle. It is more important than being polite to the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord's preparation. He is correct. We

717
have learned, I hope, that if we are to call out reservists, we should do so without asking for volunteers. That would put them in a very difficult position with their families and employers. It should also be borne in mind that all members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are volunteers in the first instance and are prepared to go at short notice.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall bear very much in mind the noble Lord's point. I know that the Front Bench spokesman for the Conservatives feels very strongly about the matter. It is too early to say any more about reservists than we have said over the past few weeks.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend said in the Statement that a nuclear submarine was among the vessels going to the Gulf. Does it have missiles equipped with nuclear warheads? In what circumstances might they be used?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord whether it would. Even if I could, I would not answer the question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, over the past few days, or even the past couple of weeks, has the threat from Iraq grown? If not, why are we making these deployments now? The Minister said that it was to show Saddam that there was a credible show of force. But the United States has an armada of ships, 350,000 ground troops and overwhelming air power in the area. What else does he need to show him that there is force in the area, and that if he fails to comply with the United Nations resolutions he will be taken over? What is it that has persuaded the British Government at this time that they need to deploy extra force, when there is already overwhelming force in the area? Will the noble Lord please answer directly the question of whether the matter must go back to the United Nations under Resolution 1441 before any military action is taken? Will a further resolution be needed? Some believe that that should be so, and that jaw-jaw is still better than war-war.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we all believe that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. However, for the past 11 years Saddam Hussein has taken no notice at all of the sanctions that have been imposed upon his regime by the United Nations. It is time for him to disarm. There is no doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction; indeed, our dossier of 24th September, among other documents, has shown that to be the case. It is now up to Saddam Hussein whether or not he chooses to disarm. In Resolution 1441, the United Nations has made that absolutely clear. The policy that we are adopting is absolutely in line with United Nations Resolution 1441.
718
I believe that I have already answered the question about whether a second resolution will be necessary. I just repeat: it will be the preference of the British Government that there should be such a second resolution, if it is necessary.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point with the Minister in order to help his noble friend. I believe that it is a nuclear-powered submarine that is going to the Gulf, and that there is no question of nuclear weapons being involved.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. However, I chose not to answer the question because, as is traditional, that kind of question is never answered either in the other place or in this Chamber.

Olympic Games 2012
7.11 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan rose to call attention to the decision by the British Olympic Association to support London's aspirations to host the 2012 Olympic Games; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am privileged to have secured this debate today to put a case for London's bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, in view of the British Olympic Association's decision to support such a bid. I could not be more grateful to noble Lords for their offer to contribute. There is talent, knowledge and experience far beyond mine to follow this speech. I particularly thank the Minister for being in her place. I fervently believe that the time is right to launch a bid to bring the world's greatest sporting event back to this country for the first time since 1948. There is already a heartening consensus of support building up for a London Olympics, which would be principally sited in the Thames Gateway area of east London.
There have already been strong expressions of backing from a wide range of quarters—from within the press, from the business community, across the political spectrum; and, it goes without saying, from within the sporting community. Across the political spectrum there has been backing from the Conservatives, from the Liberal Democrats, from the Ulster Unionists, and from the Mayor of London. But the key player in all of this is the Government, without whose support a bid cannot seriously be contemplated. The Government have yet to make a decision, and time is becoming critical.
It was hoped that the Government would take the decision on whether to support a bid by the end of this year, but it is my understanding that a decision will now be reached by the end of January. I hope that the Minister can confirm this, and that she will give an assurance that this key decision will not slip further down the Government's agenda. I am keen for today's debate to add to the compelling case being built for the London Olympics bid, which I hope that the Government will take into account when making their decision.
I wish the decision pivoted on sport and sport alone. If that were the case, there would be no need for a debate. Our course of action would be clear. There are simply no arguments against the sporting benefits an Olympic bid would bring to Britain. It would mean new money injected into elite sport to deliver home country, success. It would require new money into the grass roots of participation to begin the process of delivering our leading young athletes to medal status in 10 years' time. It would also provide us with an opportunity to address the messy, ineffective and overlapping bureaucracy, which, all too often, inefficiently governs sport in Britain, and a new start towards adequate funding to back excellence and participation.
Hosting the Olympic Games gives the Government and the country alike an opportunity to launch a new sports policy and, despite the benefits of the Lottery, to bin the current unworkable, inefficient, and under-funded structure. An Olympic bid would mean the opportunity for our athletes to compete, with all the advantages that the status of the host country confers. It would mean a state-of-the-art sporting infrastructure to benefit future generations.
The power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games as an engine to drive sporting achievement is enormous. UK Sport has said that securing the games would he one of the most significant factors in helping it to achieve its overall goal of making the UK one of the world's top five sporting nations by 2012.
With the Olympics in our sights in the UK, elite sport would benefit from a new £167 million plus/ 10-year programme. This investment would act as a catalyst for development of other Olympic sports in which the UK has not traditionally fielded teams. Investment would be used to provide a legacy through the development of participation programmes, coaching structures and sports infrastructure. Moreover, an Olympic Games would require up to 100 training venues. These training centres would sow the seeds of excellence for generations to come. Refurbished school facilities, leisure centres, and community facilities across the country would directly benefit from this, both in the lead-up to 2012 and for years beyond.
But sport and the benefit to sport is only one of a number of key factors in the decision to host the Olympic Games. Today, sadly, sport alone is not high enough up the political agenda to guarantee a bid. A number of other issues will determine the decision. If the London bid does go forward, it will be because it is a vehicle not just for the benefit of sport, but for wider benefits to society. That is why a bid must attract cross-party support and have a top, not half-hearted, political priority.
The BOA and key stakeholders in the process commissioned Arup to undertake a study to asses the cost and benefit implications of bidding for and staging the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. I wish the entire report were publicly available; but the summary is, and I recommend it to your Lordships. The brief required the analysis to
720
include an assessment of the physical development requirements of the games, including sports facilities, infrastructure, the wider economic and other impacts, legacy issues, an assessment of the bidding process, and the implications of not bidding for 2012 but delaying until a later date. The report concluded:
"If all levels of government and other agencies are committed to a common proposal, the potential advantages of a 2012 Games centred on the Lower Lee Valley can be developed into a world-beating Olympic bid".
That is what I, and many others, believe London can deliver—an historic world-beating Olympic bid, and an Olympic Games to match.
There are those who say that London's transport infrastructure is not up to the job, that the capital is already overcrowded, and that its overburdened public transport system simply does not need this kind of extra strain. Travel in London is bad enough already, they say: its airports, road system, and public transport would not be able to cope with the influx of competitors, officials and spectators. I reply by saying that the Olympics must be seen as the catalyst to address and resolve the critical challenges faced by the inadequacy of London's transport infrastructure. Only losers, resigned to a gridlocked "can't do" mentality, hide behind London's crumbling transport system as an excuse for why we are not capable of hosting the Olympic Games.
On the positive side, the Arup report considers that with the addition of Heathrow's Terminal 5 and the present expansion of Stansted, London's airports will easily have sufficient capacity, and concludes that,
"the projected flows could be managed without delays and unacceptable disruption to normal travel in London".
There would need to he an Olympic transport agency, with powers to manage the transport network for the duration of the games—but that is the case for any host city.
An Olympic bid based in Stratford and in the Lower Lee Valley would have implications for the DLR extension, for the development of Stratford as a major terminal for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and for the completion of Crossrail. In the case of Crossrail, let us remember that we are talking about a decade away. Yet still, the timetable is tight, but it is possible. As it is, this vital east-west link is presently scheduled for completion by 2012.
It has been reported that the Transport Secretary does not want to be "bounced" into completing transport projects for London with an Olympic starting pistol to his head. But we are not talking about new transport projects, which would not be contemplated but for an Olympic bid; we are talking about a desperately-needed rail link to help the regeneration of the inner-Thames Gateway, one of the most deprived areas not just of Britain but of Europe. This is a link that has been planned, but not realised, for many years. If it takes the vision, the inspiration, and even the pressure of an Olympic deadline to concentrate minds across government to deliver much-needed improvements to London's transport infrastructure, that can only be a force for good. Therefore, I call on the Minister to ensure that the

721
Government introduce primary legislation to overcome planning issues connected to the Olympic Games as part of their commitment to the bidding process.
It is possible to look back over recent years to a record that is neither confident nor inspiring. The Government's reputation is tarnished, as they have admitted, by the long-running and costly saga over the development of the new Wembley stadium, the political wrangling and funding issues, the withdrawal of the Picketts Lock bid for the 2005 World Athletic Championships and, of course, by the Millennium Dome fiasco. No one wants another expensive, high profile sporting disaster or a white elephant, least of all one connected to the Olympic Games. The responsibility of bidding for and staging the Olympic Games is unquestionably huge and not to be undertaken lightly.
In our favour, we have the success of this year's Commonwealth Games in Manchester and the prospect of the Channel Tunnel rail link through Stratford as an inspiration that projects can be finished on time and on budget. I believe that it is time to put the disasters and embarrassments of the past behind us, to wipe the slate clean, and to allow the UK's international sporting reputation to recover through a well-organised, intelligent and exceptional Olympic bid.
There are concerns that, as the Government will have to underwrite the bill, the taxpayer could be left footing a massive bill if British contractors are not capable of building on an olympic scale on time and within budget. We allow those concerns to cast a shadow on our credentials at our peril. It is time to learn the lessons surrounding the fiasco of the World Athletics championships and all the associated problems of the Wembley redevelopment. We should move on. It is time for the nation to have a "can-do" approach, instead of a "can't do" one. It would be a massive boost to national and civic pride. Let us not uniquely shun this opportunity and turn our backs on this prize because we fear failure, disappointment and ignominy.
The chance to host the Olympics is not just about balance sheet costs, however important those are. Clearly it is vital that staging the Olympic Games does not become a black hole for public money; on costing, the Arup report has demonstrated that there is no reason why it should do so. There would be other benefits and legacies that are not so easily quantifiable, but which have far more value to the nation and to our society than whether the Olympic Games can make a direct surplus.
The BOA has identified no less than 10 benefits, not only for London, but for Britain as a whole. Some are financially quantifiable, such as the expected increase in tourism and jobs, while others are financially unquantifiable, such as the boost to regeneration, cultural and sporting benefits and the benefits to technology and the environment. We can look to examples of other Olympic cities. The investment in infrastructure, urban renewal and tourism have left a
722
lasting, positive economic and cultural legacy in Barcelona, which was a city reborn after the 1992 Olympics. A successful British bid could do the same for London.
The unquantifiable benefits and legacies are enormous and would have a significant impact. How does one put a price on national prestige, on the long-term future use of the Olympic facilities, on the regeneration of a whole area of London, and on an Olympic village transformed into affordable housing? How does one put a price on inspiring future generations through Olympic sporting success, on the major commitment that hosting the games would make to the development of sport and society in the UK? How does one put a price on leveraging new investment, on strengthening community ties and social inclusion, and on the accompanying cultural and educational benefits for the local east London community and the nation as a whole?
As a former MP, having had the privilege to represent the people of Lewisham, East in inner London for 10 years, I can attest to the fact that this is a stunning opportunity to transform east London and to regenerate the inner Thames gateway, which is one of the poorest areas in the UK. We could leave behind a legacy of both housing and sporting facilities.
Not only London would gain. Other British venues would gain through the preparation of training camps for overseas teams, and through the staging of the football and sailing competitions that would be held outside London. The Team GB camp was set up on the Gold Coast of Australia in the run-up to the games in Sydney. That contributed more than £1 million to the local community over a 12-month period. Given that there were 199 international NOCs, there is considerable scope for our towns and cities to attract this lucrative pre-games business.
If there is any reluctance on the Government's part, the bid will fail. Our chance to host the Olympics will have vanished before we have started if the Government do not grant their wholehearted and unreserved support to the process.
Let us say to the sceptics, give London a chance to stage this event that will provide so many benefits in so many ways. It is a golden opportunity and one that I and many others would be sorry to see pass us by. I beg to move for Papers.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, it is fitting that today's important and timely debate should be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who was an Olympic winner at the Moscow games. I defied the Thatcher boycott and went to the games because I argued then, as I would now, that I went when the Olympic flag went up and left before it came down. In other words, I went to Olympia, not to Moscow.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, knows all about the courage, dedication, hard work and commitment that it takes to be an Olympic winner. Those are the same qualities that the Government must demonstrate

723
if they are to launch a successful bid to stage the Olympic Games. I sincerely hope that they do. Indeed, they have a duty to do so.
In 1997, I was the Labour Party spokesman for sport and tourism. In our policy document, Labour's Sporting Nation, and in our manifesto, we made the following commitment:
"A Labour Government would provide wholehearted support to efforts to bring major international events, such as the Olympic Games, to this country".
It is now time for the Government to come forward with that wholehearted support. The opportunity to host an Olympic Games comes only once in a generation, and it would be a real shame if we were to pass up that chance.
There is a very common phrase in the sports world, especially among those who have the responsibility for teaching young people sport, which is, "if you don't take part, you can't win". A similar phrase can be applied when considering bidding for the Olympic Games. Of course, to reach the very top, one has to be blessed with natural strength and skills. But these are all amplified by the dedication of preparation, practice and commitment.
I believe that we in this country have the natural skills, resources and infrastructure for a successful bid. We love sport and sporting heroes. We have the infrastructure and reputation for hosting many major events. London is one of the world's greatest cities—the greatest, in my view. There is much to be done, especially in transport. But let us not forget that there is much to build upon.
In this country we often talk down our sporting ability. In our sports governing bodies, we have some of the finest event organisers and marketeers. Let us consider the success and profile of events such as the London Marathon, Wimbledon, the Grand National, the Six Nations and the Great North Run. Overall we have a good track record on major events, including successful European football championships in 1996, a rugby World Cup in 1999, a cricket World Cup in the same year, and those marvellous Commonwealth Games last summer in Manchester.
There are not many countries in the world that can match that record of expertise. Some will ask why should we host the Olympic Games? I believe that we should do so not only because sport matters in itself, but because of the contribution that it makes to the health of the nation and the regeneration that it can bring to communities.
I declare an interest. Many in this House will know that I am the chairman of the Football Foundation. Funded by the Government, the FA Premier League, Football Association and Sport England, we now distribute millions of pounds to projects that develop sport and football in communities across the country.
It gives me so much pleasure to see the difference that we can make by introducing young people to sport and, in many cases, by bringing a focus and opportunity to their lives. I know that the Government are committed to improving young people's opportunities to engage in sport. Recently, the
724
Secretary of State said that a possible bid for the Olympics would not be made at the expense of the grassroots of sport. It is a vitally important commitment, which I welcome.
We have on stream some very good sports development projects which will invest in our coaching and school facilities. Like other noble Lords, I should like to see more such projects. However, I warmly welcome the progress that has been made. We are lucky to have a Government who place sport high on the political agenda. We at the foundation are in the vanguard of reinvigorating school sports. with a £30 million ring-fenced fund to breathe new life into school football facilities. With the New Opportunities Fund investing £750 million into school sports and the arts, the future of school sports looks increasingly bright.
By 2006, the Government intend to have in place 400 specialised sports colleges, 3,200 school sports co-ordinators and 18,000 primary link teachers. That will make a real difference to our sporting landscape and the opportunities available to young people. What could be more motivating for these young people than the knowledge that the Olympic Games are coming to this country, a showcase for their talents? There is no doubt that major sporting events inspire people to become more involved in sport. One has only to think back to the summer, when the Commonwealth Gaines motivated and encouraged millions of people to take part in sport.
The benefits of an Olympic bid would run much wider than sport and physical activity. The proposed site for the Olympic stadium and village is located in an area suffering extreme deprivation. The unemployment rate in the borough of Newham is three times that of the Greater London average. The recent Arup report—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—into the feasibility of hosting the Olympics shows that a successful bid would deliver real benefit in this area. Hosting the games could create about 9,000 full-time jobs, 3,000 jobs in the East End economy alone. It has also been conservatively estimated that the games could generate additional tourism income of about £610 million, delivering a major boost for the economy. With the cross-London rail link, a London Olympic bid has the potential to revitalise one of London's most disadvantaged areas, providing East London with a high-speed transport link to London and beyond. CrossRail will do wonders for the regeneration of the area.
My time is up. I simply ask the Minister to recognise that the Labour Party, and therefore the Labour Government, are committed to ensuring a successful bid. I urge the Government not to shy away from this challenge and to give this hid their full backing and the opportunity it deserves.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for achieving it. I hope that it will stimulate the Government into giving maximum support to the British Olympic

725
Association—and to Craig Reedie, Simon Clegg, Sport England and Sport UK, and indeed to the nation's aspirations. I declare an interest, as many of us have, as a member of the BOA. I have attended many Olympics, winter and summer, and the Commonwealth Games. Indeed, I was giving lunch to the British team at Munich in 1972 when the terrorist attack occurred. I have been to the Paralympics as well. I feel quite inadequate speaking tonight in this House surrounded by so many medallists in a variety of disciplines.
The application was strongly recommended by the BOA and received great support from the press. We should not underestimate the effort that the press has made in recent weeks. It seems to be firmly on side. The country is willing the Government to support the bid. I hope that the government committee accepts the enthusiasm of the nation.
Events of the past week in respect of the Scotland/ Ireland bid to UEFA are important. The proceedings highlighted that, however good one's case, one cannot count on success. Internal politics—who knows whom, which country supports another—seems more important than the quality of the bid. The bookies, who usually get things right, had Scotland as second favourite to win the bid. However, we ended up in fifth place, which shows what can be done in the voting committee rooms. Let us bear in mind, when it comes to the Olympics, that we have to compete against Paris, Madrid, New York, Toronto and perhaps Rio. It will he a massive political victory to win in very tough going.
The lesson is that votes seem more important than the details. It is similar in the USA, where I have some contact with the committee dealing with the American bid. They were down to four cities—San Francisco, Houston, Baltimore/Washington and New York—with San Francisco the hot favourite. Yet, New York came out on top. I do not think that it was an entirely emotional decision based on 9/11. We have had our failures with world athletics and World Cups, but let that not deter us, and let us use our experience to do better this time.
The BOA bid detailed the financial aspects of this complicated issue, supported with the skill of Arup's investigation. If it is true, I am sorry that the Government have been trying to push up the cost. It is a complicated subject and not really for me to question the details; I just have to accept that it is going to cost money. The money will, however, provide very many benefits. This is also perhaps our only foreseeable opportunity. It will be money well spent, both in the development of youth sport and the regeneration of a very rundown area.
If I were an Olympic voter, which I never will be, I would query a couple of issues on which I hope we can improve even more. The first, already mentioned, is transport. As the GLA and the transport authorities do not have a good track record, how can we reassure the IOC that we can provide the required facilities? Can we start soon so that we have something to show in 2004 and 2005 when the Olympic Committee will begin examining the bid in detail? Can we give a real
726
promise that everything will be in place by, say, 2010, so that there is a little time for slippage should the authorities fall behind schedule? We need to have a benevolent dictator, like Peter Ueberroth in Los Angeles, to oversee matters such as fast-track planning and supervision of transport routes, rather than government by committee.
I would also question the stadium, although I am sure that my worries could be allayed. I was, as the Minister knows, somewhat critical of the Wembley proceedings and the £20 million from Sport England for athletics. I was concerned about the impossibility of putting an eight-lane running track and a long-jump track round a reasonably sized football field and about how all that was to be resolved. I was not the least impressed with the idea of moveable platforms and so on. How will we address the issue at the Olympic stadium, which needs to hold about 70,000 to 80,000? A football club such as West Ham or Spurs would probably say that such a stadium is far too large. Furthermore, if these clubs are interested and they need new grounds now, can they wait so long? How do we reduce an 80,000-seat stadium to something which a football club can later operate economically? However, Manchester and Munich have shown that it can be done. Let us therefore hope that we can achieve a satisfactory solution.
Finally, I put it to the IOC—it will not listen to me but I hope that it will listen to others—that we should keep the events that we want in the Olympics. I should like to cut out lawn tennis, rugby sevens, synchronised swimming and volleyball. I should not like to see golf included, as is proposed, as it already has perfectly adequate championships all over the world. Why should we lose equestrian sports such as the three-day event and an event such as the modern pentathlon, both of which we are good at? Shooting also appears to be under threat. Let us try to encourage the IOC to stick with the sports that have a tremendous following in this country. I refer to our recent great achievements in athletics.
However, we must be prepared to accept change when necessary. In 1980 when I was the Minister for Sport Chris Brasher said that he was desperately keen for the marathon to finish in the Mall. I asked the authorities whether that was possible. They threw up their hands in horror. They said that one could not possibly use the Mall on a Sunday as a running track as it gave access to the Royal Parks. However, now it is accepted as a wonderful finishing venue for the marathon. We must move with the times.
A bid for the games will cost the taxpayer money. However, as an example to the youth of this country and in the interests of revitalising a poor area, it is a challenge that we must accept. We can hold our heads high at this rare opportunity to put Britain first and to seize an opportunity that may not recur for years. I hope that the ministerial committee has the courage and enthusiasm to go ahead. We must show a united front in our desire to provide a wonderful games in 2012.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for initiating the debate. I also apologise in advance for the fact that I shall agree with virtually everything that has been said so far.
There is no real argument about the matter. We are talking about the possibility of one of the greatest cities in the world hosting the greatest sporting event in the world. We are one of the most prosperous nations in the world. If London hosts the 2012 Olympic Gaines, it will be at least a regional, and probably a national, event for Britain. That is absolutely clear. If the number of athletes involved in the Olympic Games come to Britain, it will benefit the whole of the country.
The economic benefits of hosting the games are potentially massive. Prior to the debate I was reminded that certain Olympic Games have not been successful in financial terms. However, most have of late. If we tackle successfully the investment aspect of this media feeding frenzy, we cannot but fail to gain economic benefits from that, let alone gain a kick start to the economy. My noble friend will undoubtedly cover that in considerably more detail.
One of the major advantages of the Olympic Games is the fact that they are games. There is something special about games as opposed to a championship. I have a slight disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Monro, as regards which sports should or should not be included. However, the Olympic Gaines comprise a diversity of sport. There is something there for everyone. The games constitute a community of sport which attracts people from minority groups. Sometimes it appears that sport in this country constitutes a monoculture. However, an event such as the Olympic Games demonstrates that there is probably a sport out there for everyone. If the projections regarding the amount of new equipment and new infrastructure that will be provided for the Olympics are only half right, the general public will have infinitely greater opportunities to participate in sport. When one sees a sport performed well, one has a greater incentive to participate in that sport.
I turn to the social aspect. The Manchester Commonwealth Games probably showed us more clearly than anything else the social benefits that can be derived from such games. I refer to the 10,000 people who volunteered to help run the games. I believe that about 7,000 volunteers were turned away. That kind of community involvement is almost unheard of. Such involvement constitutes an asset to sporting and civil communities for generations to come. As we increasingly find ourselves, by accident and by design, in a situation where sport is taken out of educational establishments and placed within the wider context of the community, that kind of support and involvement is almost priceless.
The Government talk of health problems and of the genuine difficulty of trying to fit sport into the national curriculum. However, if we combine the social benefits with the other benefits that I have mentioned, the Olympic Games constitute an attractive proposition. I refer to long-term savings to the health service gained
728
from an increasing participation in sport on the part of people who gain greater enthusiasm for sport having watched the Olympics.
However, I put my rather romantic vision to one side and try to discuss what will actually happen. The Government's willingness to support aggressively any bid will probably be the deciding factor. Unless the Government are prepared to state that they will back such a bid, and will make available what is required, a bid will not be successful. If the Government are not prepared to do that, I hope that they will say so quickly as it would be appallingly disappointing if a bid fizzled out or received only half-hearted support. I hope that the Government will give us a firm indication of their intentions in this regard. If they could give a strong hint of what is to happen, everyone would be much happier. I know that such indications have been given, but we want to hear them in Parliament and see them in Hansard.
Hosting the world's biggest sporting festival confers benefits above and beyond those on any financial balance sheet. But even in purely financial terms, the Olympic Games must be worth trying for.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on securing the debate and on the extremely thorough way in which he introduced the various issues and the reasons why a London Olympics hid makes sense.
I should make clear that I come to the debate not as a former Olympic athlete or, indeed, as a sportsman of any kind. I was expelled from my school's games department at the age of 12 due to lack of commitment. The consequences are visible for all to see. However, I am leader of the Labour Group at the London Assembly and am chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority which will, of course, have a major responsibility in terms of security issues, should the games come to London.
I believe passionately that now is the time for London to make its bid for the Olympics. I believe passionately that it is right not only for London but right for the nation as a whole for the bid to be made. There may well be some—although it has not been suggested so far in the debate—who ask why the games should come to London. Manchester and Birmingham have both had their chances. As has been pointed out, in the next contest to host the Olympics, if this country submits a bid, the bidding city will compete against probably New York, Paris, Madrid or Moscow. Only London, frankly, can submit a credible bid. Those are the signals that have come from the IOC; that is, that London should make a bid and that London is the city it wishes to see bidding from this nation.
Can it be done? The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred extensively to the Ove Arup report. That makes clear that the potential is there and that a bid is feasible. Ove Arup is clear that it can he achieved. It has looked at every element and looked in detail at the sort of structures that would need to he created to deliver in the various areas.

729
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to transport. Clearly, good transport for people to get to and from the games and to move the athletes around is an important element. However, I would caution against saying that CrossRail should be in place as an essential precondition for proceeding with a bid for the Olympic Games. CrossRail is essential for London's long-term future; it should and, I believe, will happen. However, I do not believe that it is essential for the Olympic Games—and Ove Arup confirmed this—although it would clearly be desirable. I would like to decouple the two issues. If a decision is made to bid for the Olympic Games and we are successful in such a bid, there will be every incentive to deliver CrossRail on time and to add to the transport resources available. I do not believe that it is a necessary requirement before we proceed, however.
Noble Lords have remarked on how accommodation would be delivered and how there might be a new Olympic village. We should remember that a legacy would be provided by such a village in terms of much-needed housing accommodation, which could be used for key public sector workers and which is very much at a premium in London. That, too, would be an advantage, even if it did not become available until after an Olympic Games in 2012. It is feasible and desirable in the long term.
I mentioned in passing the responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police Service for security. That is an area in which London can offer something unique. The experience of the Metropolitan Police Service in delivering security is recognised to be unparalleled in the world. There is enormous experience there, which was drawn on in preparation for the Olympic Games in Athens. Again, that is a positive point, on which London can provide some of the best opportunities.
We should focus on the benefits for London and the nation as a whole. It is not for me to talk about sporting benefits; clearly, all the sporting organisations that have written to me and to other noble Lords in the past few days believe in those benefits passionately. They clearly see that this is a major opportunity to improve the quality of sport and give people new opportunities. But there are obvious and immediate benefits for tourism, which is a major part of the London and national economy. It needs the revitalisation and the momentum that the Olympic Games would give. Ove Arup has studied the details—the hotel rooms and accommodation generally available—and some of the spin-off benefits to the rest of the country. It is clearly achievable, and it is there.
There is also the issue of jobs. I refer not only to short-term employment, in preparation for the games themselves and the building of new stadiums and other facilities, but to the long-term employment created as part of a continuing regeneration legacy. Let us be clear: proposals for games based essentially in east London would focus resources into some of the most deprived areas in the country. They would have a long-term major revitalising impact on the economy in that area, and provide hope and economic futures for thousands, if not millions, of people.
730
The games would not benefit only London or east London, however. The wider benefits should be emphasised. One has only to consider the lessons learned from the games in Sydney or Barcelona to see what is possible. In Barcelona, the whole city benefited; no part of the city felt that it had not got something positive from the games or from what was put in place for the games. That represents a marvellous opportunity, behind which London could unite. We can learn lessons from Sydney about community participation, involving the public and providing a new sense of civic involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the same thing happening in Manchester with the Commonwealth Games. That prize is worth aiming for in order to build civic involvement and community responsibility.
The games would have a wide impact and economic benefits, not only because of the flow of people coming into the country, since London is the gateway to the rest of the country, or because of the economic benefits that would flow perhaps initially to London then out to the rest of the country, but directly. Some elements of the games would take place in cities around London and around the country, but there would also be holding camps, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. The camps would bring direct benefits to the areas in which they were located, and would have lasting benefits.
For many noble Lords, what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at the last Labour Party conference is of limited interest, but he urged the Labour Party to dare to be bold. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that this is precisely the moment for the British Government and the nation to be bold, in terms of making a bid. I do not want us to go through the sort of processes that we have gone through too often in the past. I would not want support from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to be conditional on yet another report being written by someone else on particular aspects, and for various hurdles to be created over which we must go. Economic assessments have been done. If we believe those assessments, now is the time for the Government and for all of us to be bold. Let us make that bid and win the bid for London and for the nation.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I must admit that for most of my life I have been an observer of sport and very rarely, unlike some noble Lords here this evening, a participant. I hope that that does not completely rule me out as a speaker this evening.
I speak in favour of a bid by London for two reasons. First, because it is good economics and, secondly, because I was born in the East End, as noble Lords can tell from my accent. For that reason, I believe in the bid with my heart and with real passion.
Bidding for and hosting the games, if well used, could be used to reinforce London's position as a world city. It would thereby provide tangible benefits to the whole of the UK, just as London provides currently as one of the UK's lead economic brands. In

731
fact, the city is probably the lead economic brand in the UK. Well marketed, hosting the games would bring opportunities for tourism, as we have heard, and for building on inward investment.
As noble Lords have said, proposals for the games focus on east London. Sustainable long-term generation in the Thames Gateway area is an economic and political priority. As other noble Lords have said, it is an area of great deprivation, it is completely unacceptable, in an area of great prosperity, for there to be such low standards in inner-city areas. We hear a lot about brownfield sites; there are certainly plenty of those sites in that area, where traditional industries have failed. There is room for housing and other developments.
The games would provide a focus for regeneration and a catalyst for provision of desperately needed infrastructure. Most businessmen in London have stopped being frustrated by the lack of infrastructure and are now angry about it, so any reason for getting on with it, rather than simply talking and doing studies, is a good thing. I agree that there is no direct one-to-one link with CrossRail, for example, but any excuse will do for getting on and doing something about our horrific transport situation.
Bidding and getting on with the establishment of facilities for these games would help some private and public sector investments that have already taken place in the area, including Excel, the Channel Tunnel rail link, the Docklands Light Railway, the Jubilee line and, yes, even the Dome. The games would provide a deadline for delivery of those infrastructure requirements and give an infrastructure requirement date for the three river crossings, for example, which we have discussed and which have been politically agreed oil by everyone, but which nobody has yet done anything about. I refer also to extensions to the East London line, which to my knowledge have been discussed for 20 years or more, and to CrossRail, which other noble Lords have mentioned.
I hope that the legacy of a development in the Thames Gateway area would not be a stadium alone. I am a West Ham supporter—although perhaps I should not admit that, given the club's position in the league. The club could certainly do with something, but it might be better off with new players. Help would include a new stadium, swimming facilities, the triggering of transport facilities and affordable housing—the use of villages has been mentioned. Skill enhancement for the local labour force would also be involved. We are still in a position in east London in which there are not people with adequate basic skills to fill some of the jobs there. We can give people practical experience through direct jobs or volunteerism.
I could continue discussing London for as long as noble Lords would like, but I should refer to these games as the UK games. As has been said, football, sailing, shooting and some other events will take place outside London. Training camps, which have been mentioned, will provide sports facilities and accommodation around Britain.
732
The timing of all this is right for London. London is winning and a leader in the world. As we all know—particularly those of us involved in business—when one thinks that one is winning and a world leader, that is the time when one starts failing. London must be pushed—we must press on and take every action in the corning years if we are to succeed. The Olympics is a great reason for determining that we will take action. That would concentrate minds across all government departments. It would provide deadlines for infrastructure that London so desperately needs, even if that is not "one-to-one" with the Olympics.
The Government's wholehearted commitment to the bid is essential. Just in case there is a change of government, we had better have all-party support. We have seen the lack of political will in Wembley. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—I should much prefer not to have more studies but for someone to start doing something.
London desperately needs another aspect that is missing. We need national, London and borough governments to work together effectively as a team. The Olympic bid is a great excuse for getting that to happen. It will not succeed unless they work together. We have already seen the effect that the lack of joined-up government—forget whose fault it is—is having on the Tube and on London's roads. One sees that when one walks outside this place.
The business community is keen to play its part: to help win the bid and make the games happen because, as I have said, it is good business. Recently the London Business Board, which is made up of London First— of which I am president—London CBI and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry wrote to the Prime Minister asking for strong political leadership on the bid and its implementation. To gain the full and active support of business, business must be wholly engaged from the beginning. It is no good coming along and saying, "By the way, can you give us a few tens of millions of pounds'?". We need to he deeply involved from the beginning. The London Business Board stands ready to have discussions with the British Olympic Association, the Government and anyone else who wants to talk to us about what we mean by getting business deeply involved and putting our money where our mouth is.
London is a great city. Collectively we have the skills and resources to make this bid happen and to make 2012 an exciting year in the history of Britain. My view is that London could win this hid. We should proceed with enthusiasm and be determined to win.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is entirely appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, should lead this debate tonight. He has a very distinguished sporting record and I congratulate him particularly on his sense of timing. This is a good moment for us to be debating this issue.
As we have heard this evening, this issue crosses party divisions in this House and outside. There cannot he many matters on which the Mayor of

733
London, Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, the editors of The Times, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard, and the London Business Bureau are all agreed, but this is one of them.
I am happy to admit that I changed my mind on whether we should bid for the Olympics. When we debated the future of athletics precisely one year ago to the day, on a Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I spoke immediately after the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coe, who I am delighted to see here this evening. He is, I believe, one of four Olympic athletes speaking from the Benches opposite. I congratulate them on fielding their full team for this debate. I said in that debate a year ago that we should look at ways in which we could improve assistance to individual athletes and increase sports provision generally, rather than spend all of our resources on big and unrealistic projects. In mitigation, I remind noble Lords that that debate occurred while the Wembley Stadium saga was continuing, and the Picketts Lock fiasco and the humiliation of the 2006 football World Cup bid were painful recent memories. Many people then doubted whether we would ever again be able to mount a serious challenge for a major world sporting event.
I was wrong. I have listened carefully to the case made by the BOA, particularly at the excellent presentation it made to interested Members of this House on 3rd December. I have read most of the reports that have appeared in the press over recent weeks and I have also studied the summary of the Arup report.
I am now convinced that we should bid for 2012, provided that three conditions are met. First—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made this point—the Government must come out wholeheartedly and unequivocally in favour of it. Secondly, work must begin at once on preparing for the games, if we decide to bid, particularly in respect of assembling the ingredients of the site in east London; smoothing the way on planning issues for the Olympic village and the stadium construction; and approving the necessary transport infrastructure investments—especially the CrossRail east-west London line, to which many noble Lords have referred. I was pleased to receive briefing from the Mayor's office to the effect that the London Development Agency seems to be well up to speed on site assembly issues; it rightly takes the view that the sites are crucial for the regeneration of the area, whether we bid or not. Thirdly, a worthwhile legacy must be left after the games have been staged.
On the need for government support, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the revealing interview given by the president of the International Olympic Committee and published in the Evening Standard on 9th December. Mr Jacques Rogge is quoted as saying:
"I would be very happy to have a well prepared, well-organised London bid. Definitely London would be a front runner, given a good technical file. There is no doubt about that.
"But Government backing is a vital determining factor. If there is any feeling of reluctance on behalf of the Government, then the bid would fail. It is as simple as that".
734
Mr Rogge also offered some interesting comments about transport. He said:
"Transport is always a challenge for big cities and I don't think the challenge would be bigger for London than it would be for other big cities bidding. We are facing the same problems in Athens in 2004. Sydney had to refurbish its airport. It had to build a freeway".
Interestingly, Mr Rogge attached most importance to what is left behind after the games have finished and the athletes have gone home. He said:
"The issue is the legacy you leave for the city. That has been clearly proven by Barcelona in 1992 and Sydney".
He defined the legacy as,
"an acceleration in a short period of spending that the city would have to do anyhow".
He continued:
"This acceleration has a price tag. But ultimately citizens must realise that they are getting sooner what they would need in the long term. That is the good thing about the Games. It is not an extravagance. It is a bonus. It leaves a legacy to a city and a country".
It is indeed that aspect that has caused me to change my mind about a bid. In addition to delivering permanent public transport improvements, which would be good for London and for everyone who works here or visits as a tourist, staging the games in east London would also provide the opportunity to convert an Olympic village for 16,000 athletes, coaches and officials into affordable social housing for thousands of families.
In Athens, where they are constructing 2,300 units for the athletes, the decision has already been taken to release them for housing, the ownership of which will be settled by a public lottery. Unsurprisingly, they have already had 10,000 applications.
Then there is the issue of the stadium, which must be built from scratch and cater for audiences of up to 80,000. It is crucial that agreement is reached early on its long-term use. There are too many examples from previous games where the stadium has become a "white elephant".
The Commonwealth Games stadium in Manchester provides a model, as that will be Manchester City's home ground from next season.
The Minister for Sport, Mr Caborn, was quoted in the Evening Standard, on Monday as saying:
"It has become absolutely clear to me that where you can get an anchor tenant for facilities, it is far, far better. That could well be a football club or a rugby club or a combination of those because dual use of facilities is something sport has to look at, including football clubs because football is going through difficult financial times.
If the decision is made to bid, in my view, we have got to take certain steps pretty quickly and that would be to say: 'Are there any clubs who would want to come and join us?".
I might be able to help the Minister a little in answer to that question. At the weekend I was speaking to Terence Brown, the chairman of West Ham United Football Club. He authorised me to say to your Lordships in this debate today that his club would certainly be interested. Mr Brown regards Stratford as a "fantastic site" for a stadium. He regards the regeneration of east London as very important and the club enthusiastically backs the bid.

735
On the question of cost, the Arup report demonstrates a cash deficit of £385 million, or £494 million after some fairly gloomy risk assessments. But it has also carried out a cost-benefit analysis which takes account of the net increase in tourists and the economic effects of the games. At worst that reduces the deficit to £145 million, and at best produces a surplus of £82 million.
The report describes these forecasts as "conservative", compared with other recent Olympic Games. The Spanish Government, by contrast, calculate that the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 were worth £7 billion to the country.
If the Government are looking for ways of raising money for the Olympic Games and of involving and generating the public's enthusiasm, and reviving at the same time a failing national institution, I suggest that they look seriously at the suggestion that a special Olympic lottery—possibly under different management from the present National Lottery—is launched specifically for that purpose.
Finally, we should remember that the staging of the games acts as a catalyst in improving a nation's sporting success. The BOA tells us how many more medals a nation wins if one of its cities is chosen as host—South Korea and Australia being two particularly good recent examples.
I conclude with a quote from the editorial in The Times last Thursday. It said:
"The greatest argument … is simply that hosting the Olympic Games would show some real determination and optimism, fill sportsmen and spectators with enthusiasm and boost participation in sports. It would also be great fun. It would be sad if this country lacked the self-confidence even to compete".
I agree.
8.12 p.m
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for bringing this debate. It is good to be back in your Lordships' House once again debating sport with Olympian colleagues and others. I am also delighted to be following the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in the debate. Although we sit on opposite sides of the House, we have spent many hours discussing sport—on one occasion for about six hours while we were trying to drive back from the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. We have found ourselves, surprisingly mostly in agreement.
I shall not keep your Lordships for long because at this stage in the debate I can really only repeat the highlights of what other noble Lords have said. But there are certain principles that I should like to bring forward from some bullet points that I have.
First, the Minister has, apparently, an easy job tonight. The whole House is united in support of a London hid for the 2012 Olympics. However, as we all know, there will be plenty of knockers and plenty of antis. There will be people who will say that we cannot do it, that it will bung up the traffic in London and that it will make people's lives more uncomfortable than they are already. I say—well, I had better not use unparliamentary language, so I will not say it. Most of your Lordships will understand my feelings about the knockers.
736
I will be serious for a moment. Modern Olympic Games need not be loss-makers, It has been demonstrated by several noble Lords tonight that previous Olympic Games have been run profitably, in cash and investment terms, and, most importantly, have been run profitably for the people of the host nation. Nations do not run a budget for a year; we look at our future for many years to come and at the legacies that we leave to our children, grandchildren and others. An Olympic Games bid is certainly about that. It goes down in the history books, and the investment made should help our children and grandchildren for many years to come and should be extremely beneficial to the country.
Another point that has been made is that the bid for the Olympic Games must be government-led. The Olympic Games are still the biggest spectator event in the world. The competition to host the event is the toughest such competition in the world. It happens only every four years, and the games probably come to a nation only once in a generation or perhaps only once in two generations, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said. So, I am convinced that we should make an Olympic bid and that it must be government-led. I am not speaking from the Front Bench, but my noble friend will do so shortly, and I am sure that my party will join the Government in an all-party bid for a London Olympics.
Although I said that the bid must be nationally led by the Government and that the whole kingdom must be behind it, it is evident to me, from other events en a larger or smaller scale with which I have been involved, that that does not mean that it must be managed by the government of the day. That would he fatal. If we go for the event, we must make sure that we have on board the most professional people that we can empower—British or not. They must understand about managing events on such a scale and about the organisation and delivery of projects on such a scale.
As an aside, I must say that the Dome was referred to in a rather derogatory way. I do not think that I need to declare my interest in that at this stage. The actual facility was delivered on budget and on time; it was only the content and the visitor numbers that fell apart. The content and the visitor numbers are not in doubt with an Olympic Games. If we are lucky enough to win an Olympic bid for London, we will fill the event stadiums everywhere without any trouble. We have the technology, the expertise and the management skills to deliver whatever structures are required for hosting an Olympic Games.
Another point that has already been made is that, nowadays, although an Olympic bid will be headed by London—by a city—the games are not a city event. The bid will be a truly national bid, particularly in a nation the size of ours. If we succeed in the bid, no corner of this kingdom—except, perhaps, the farthest Hebridean corners will miss out on the benefits, with all the pre-camps and pre-training centres and the events that will take place outside the stadiums—and some, such as football, inside the stadiums. By necessity, travelling is part and parcel of participating in a modern Olympiad. Even in the winter games in my days, when we competed in Grenoble, my event was

737
over an hour's drive from Grenoble. We can go a long way in this country in an hour, sometimes. Sometimes, as we know, we cannot get to Trafalgar Square from Westminster.
I am certain that, in the event of a successful Olympic bid, the nation will come behind us. I use the word "us" advisedly; I hope that all parties and the whole nation will be together. It would be a tragedy if the Government admitted that they did not have sufficient faith in the management, industry, expertise or finances of the nation to allow them to put together a real, meaningful, we-are-jolly-well-going-to-win bid.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt whatever that securing the Olympic Games for London would guarantee a stunning and wonderful event. They would be wonderful as a demonstration of our national pride, and of our commitment to sport as a force for good and well-being in our society. They should dispel the notion that other countries less economically strong, without our proven record of organisational success, have somehow leapfrogged over us, leaving us forlorn spectators. The Olympic Games could give a wonderful old city a huge uplift and show a generation of young people a can do/will do example of leadership, optimism, determination and competence. They would undoubtedly put London centre stage, with a spotlight creating a unique opportunity for displaying our talents—architecturally, socially, financially and politically.
But I am a realist. Not everyone shares that view. Today's debate gives the opportunity to analyse the project and weigh up the pros and cons: in short, to make the case for the London bid. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is to be thanked for giving us this opportunity.
Perhaps we may start with the venue. Put bluntly, nowhere else in the United Kingdom has the attraction of the capital city. On that fact alone there appears to be a consensus, based not on some southerner's prejudice, but on the assessment of other likely candidates in the frame. If we are talking Paris, New York and Milan as competitors, we must give ourselves the best possible chance of success. London provides an inspirational backdrop and a nostalgic venue for the games, which we supported when others turned away.
I am particularly drawn to the legacy for London in staging the games. They would give a huge opportunity to regenerate an area of London significantly in need of redevelopment. As one in the business of regeneration myself, I see an unparalleled opportunity for the East End of London—a part of the city which has a noble and historic tradition of sport within its own community.
However, surely the benefits need not solely be London-based? Could some of the Olympic jewels be spread around the country? The value of that would be to multiply the positive impact right across the UK.
738
The effect on the tourism industry alone would be dynamic. There would be financial gain, both short and long term, and there would be the creation of a network of new employment. The shop window and the catwalk would be rolled into one. Various communities would have the opportunity of doing what sport does best; namely, drawing in a whole army of volunteers, eager and capable, wanting to put back into sport just a morsel of what sport has given them.
All that said and done, there is still a hard-nosed debate to be had. My most significant anxiety is, of course, finance. How much will staging the Olympic Games cost? How will they be paid for? What legacy will remain when the games are over? There seems to be a plethora of financial appraisals flying about. Already, different sums have been quoted in the Chamber tonight. In brief, there seems to be a consensus that the minimum sporting costs for stadiums and swimming pools would be in the region of £2 billion. The associated investment for essential infrastructure improvements could cost a further £10 billion.
At the other end of the speculative costing scale, there is a view that that is woefully low: a more realistic estimate would be £4 billion rather than £2 billion, and £18 billion rather than £10 billion, and rising.
With the Dome and Wembley costs still fresh in our minds, I believe that I can safely guarantee that our Chancellor—wonderful though he is—is unlikely to sign up to a blank cheque of this magnitude. Christmas it may be, but prudence is still around.
How do we move forward? Clearly, partnerships must be formed. There could be a public/private partnership—so despised by the Mayor of London in other areas, but which looks now to be his only option. I look forward to hearing his views on this. It has also been suggested by the Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, that in order to avoid draining government funds, with the agreement of the Cabinet it could be sought to make lottery funding available. A sum of £100 million of lottery funds every year up to the games has been suggested by him. I will return to that proposal later.
On the plus side of the balance sheet, we can assume huge commercial and media revenue directly attributable to the games. Add to this a host of related boosts to the national and local economy in the form of increased tourism, related merchandising and jobs generated by the project. In addition, we have the possibility of European funding, for that part of London enjoys—if that is the right word—objective 2 status. It would be reasonable to expect, therefore, significant grants from the EU with the example of Athens to be used. Adding up that side, we begin to see a more realistic financial profile emerging. In addition, we have a legacy of state-of-the-art sporting facilities in a country which is woefully under-provided.
I return to the basic funding issue. Would it be right to take funds from the lottery? At what cost would it be to the good causes and to grass-roots sport for which that money was originally promised? Why, I continue to ask, do we differ so radically from our

739
European neighbours in our reluctance to pay for major sporting facilities from government funding? Why do France, Germany, Holland and Sweden all see this as a valid national responsibility? Why have successive governments of all complexions turned their backs on what I see as proper expenditure? Do we really believe that sport plays a key role in our society? Do we believe that health and social inclusion are priceless assets, and quantifiable perhaps in the short term but absolutely crucial in the long term? And should we deprive a whole generation of young people of access to a sporting landmark? Do sporting heroes make us better, giving inspiration to lead a more dedicated life? Well, I challenge the number crunchers to come up with an analysis that takes all that into account.
The questions I have posed today will have to be answered around a Cabinet table in January. I personally hope that the outcome will lift our hearts and that 2012 will see the Olympic torch arriving in Britain as the herald of a most wonderful games.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak during such an important debate today and to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for highlighting the exciting opportunity not only for London but for the whole of the UK. My sporting career never reached Olympic level, but I love sport and I love London. I admire great sportsmen such as the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Coe.
I must declare an interest as a member of the board of the London Development Agency. The LDA is the regional development agency for London, responsible for economic development. We believe that bidding for the Olympics would be of huge benefit to London as well as to the UK as a whole, and that is why we were proud to co-fund with the Government the Arup cost-benefit analysis of bringing the games to London.
This was not just a feasibility study on whether hosting the games was possible; this was a study on whether east London could deliver the games effectively and whether a games could deliver benefits which would not otherwise occur. I believe that this is an instructive document that realistically spells out the issues involved in bidding, as well as helping to put an Olympic bid firmly on the agenda.
Just this morning, my fellow LDA board colleagues voted unanimously to support a London bid and I know that the whole agency relishes the challenge of playing a pivotal partnership role in bringing the games to London.
I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Mayor of London. He is deeply committed to London's future and is doing a tremendous job. From day one, Ken Livingstone has thrown his weight behind the hid and continues to work with the Government and all other stakeholders to put forward a convincing case for hosting the Olympics. His mind will of course be on other matters at present while he
740
settles into his important new role as a father. I know that noble Lords will join me in sending him and his new family their best wishes.
Noble Lords have highlighted the important role the games could play in raising the profile of sport in this country. We have heard about the important health benefits brought about by increased participation and enthusiasm for sport and the provision of world-class facilities. I would like to focus on and reiterate the massive regeneration and economic benefits that the Olympics could bring about.
The proposed site of the games is Stratford and the Lower Lee Valley in East London. This is one of the most deprived areas in the country, with high unemployment and deprivation. The Government have highlighted it as a priority for regeneration and development and the LDA is already investing in the area. Most of the sites are already accessible and much can be achieved with relatively modest investment.
Opportunities such as bidding for the Olympics come only once in a generation. We must seize this chance to deliver a huge boost to East London. The immediate benefits are clear. An estimated 9,000 jobs would be created, with 3,000 going straight into the East London economy. The bid would also facilitate comprehensive redevelopment, rather than the piecemeal development that has hampered the area in the past.
A house-building programme for around 80,000 new homes is planned in the Thames Gateway over the next 15 years. That is ambitious, but we believe it is achievable. Staging the Olympics could play a major part in the programme, with the Olympic village alone estimated to provide up to 4,000 affordable units.
The positive legacy of an Olympic bid will go far wider than sport. To transform derelict brownfield land into an area that will have endless benefits for years to come must be regarded as one of the exciting opportunities presented by this bid.
Environmental and landscaping improvements" a technology centre, flagship sports facilities, the Olympic stadium and a cultural and tourism boost would be just some of the long-term benefits resulting from staging this world-class, awe-inspiring event.
Arup concluded that the transport capacity is dealt with. Improvements to East London's transport infrastructure have already been highlighted and set in train for regeneration purposes. The report did not suggest that major new infrastructure projects will need to be undertaken for the sole purpose of servicing the games.
London is a world city—the most multicultural city in the world—that can compete on a world stage. There is a clear commitment and masses of enthusiasm from all the major stakeholders in this project. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity not only to develop a derelict area of London but also to spark a sense of excitement in everyone in the United Kingdom. We have a site which has been independently assessed as being viable and we know from the tremendous job

741
done by Manchester in hosting the Commonwealth Games this year that the United Kingdom can stage world-class events.
I urge the Government strongly to support this bid so that we can move forward to work on the most compelling case that does London, and the United Kingdom, justice.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Coe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his timely contribution in getting the debate up and running. As many noble Lords have made clear, time is of the essence.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have presented the arguments for a compelling and powerful series of causes, and they are right to do so. I do not intend to trudge through the same economic and sporting landscape today. Suffice it to say that the economic impact of a London Olympics on jobs, on urban renewal and on sporting legacy is hard to refute, as my noble friend Lord Sheppard rightly pointed out.
At the risk of not heeding my own words, I shall present one further piece of evidence to the arguments made today. During the Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000, I met the chief economist of the West Pac Bank. "You could trace the uplift in consumer confidence", he told me, "from the very day that Sydney was awarded the games back in 1993". Michael Knight, the Olympic Minister, told me that he and his Government saw sport and tourism as inextricably linked policy areas. In Sydney alone, more than £2 billion in inward tourism was attributed to the games.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, sport does not come alive on the balance sheet or in the board room or even in the Red Book; it comes alive on the track, in the pool and on the pitch. Its effects on the country are profound, both in hard-pressed inner city areas and in facility-starved rural areas. The odysseys that the Olympic Games throw up are not only the stuff of re-runs at Christmas or glossy coffee-table books; they change lives.
On the last day of the spectacular Manchester Commonwealth Games—games which saved our country's sporting reputation—I got into a car driven by one of the many thousands of volunteers in that city who both distinguished and dignified those games. "She's something else, isn't she, that Paula Radcliffe?", the driver turned to me and said. I smiled and I said, "Yes, she is", expecting him to come out with a litany of statistical times and laps and splits. He said, "No, no, that is not what I am interested in. Over the past three years my daughter has hardly left the sofa in front of the television set, and two nights ago she went down to Sale Harriers Athletic Club"—a well-known athletic club in Manchester—"and she joined up".
London has been there before in 1948. It was arguably those games that saved the Olympic movement. It would have been very difficult for the Olympic movement to have survived from 1936 through to 1952 without an ability to stage and house an Olympic Games. If they were saved in 1948, they
742
were rescued again in 1984 in Los Angeles by Peter Ueberroth, who, as my noble friend Lord Monro pointed out, was the brains and the inspiration behind the 1984 Olympic Games. And on what did he model his Olympic Games? He modelled them on London. He modelled them on the use of volunteers and the refurbishment of existing facilities.
It is time for the Prime Minister to be brave and for his Chancellor to see the big economic picture and to look at these figures properly. There are no insurmountable barriers—certainly no greater barriers than in Paris, Madrid, New York or even Rio. Only our ability to doubt our ability can hold us back.
The games are worth our collective efforts. We are the fourth largest economy in the world and we have a site earmarked which is only a stone's throw from the largest financial centre in the world. I simply do not believe that the nation is any less able or willing to support a London games in 2012 than it was in 1948.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for introducing this debate. It is fitting that he should do so. The debate has inevitably been somewhat repetitious and I regret that I will repeat some of the repetition. For once, that is appropriate because it emphasises the unanimity in the House on this subject—particularly given the rather daunting background of so many speakers in sport and economic regeneration. I hope that the Minister will join our supporters club.
Happily, Hansard will not record that I am so obviously not a sportswoman. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I was not thrown out. The comments were more along the lines of "Are you having difficulty seeing the ball, dear?" That will not deter me tonight.
I declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly and want to talk particularly about London as a host city. I am also a Mancunian by birth. As great as Manchester is, I see this as London or nothing. As my noble friend Lord Addington said, the smoke signals are quite clear. London and Manchester are both great cities and this is a great country, but we have a national tendency to suck our teeth and list reasons for not doing something. I am not suggesting that the project should be approached irresponsibly. There is debate, particularly about the associated costs to which the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, referred—but the British Olympic Association hotly disputes some of the high-end costs.
Being realistic does not preclude a can-do attitude. We on these Benches think can-do and that we can and should do it in London. The prospect of hosting the 2012 Olympics gives the opportunity to harness the enthusiasm of the British public. One has to admit that in this building there is far more interest in sport than in politics. I am sure that we shall see a lot of polls on the subject. I am not always prepared to take polls at their face value—it depends on the question—but I was struck by a poll by YouGov about the enthusiasm of young people for holding the Olympics in this country. Public enthusiasm is important. The

743
Commonwealth Games made great use of local people. Volunteering—contributing to the success of a project and sharing in the buzz of the event—gives one a feeling of ownership and involvement.
I have no idea how flexible is the balance of events in an Olympics but, given the mass following for football in this country, anything that can boost and increase accessibility to that sport—which my noble friend reminds me is not in the happiest of states at the moment—would be welcome. Supporting London does not preclude supporting other cities hosting training camps and providing venues for football matches. I am not sure where I first saw the comment "Think legacy first", but the prospective legacy is much in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, dealt extensively with that point. The legacy of sports venues would include training venues, which will be used afterwards by those who enjoy sport at every level.
For training swimmers for the Olympics, we would need 32 50-metre lanes. Currently, London has one 50-metre pool and two others are being considered. Paris, Rome and Berlin each have 20 pools. We have a lot of catching up to do. This is the opportunity. It is quite easy to provide pools because essentially they are tanks. One can drop in a pool and a warm-up pool next to it, then remove one if the facilities are more than those needed. I knew that we would hear a great deal about sport and the legacy of the venues would be immense.
There is a great deal of sceptism about the ability of London's transport system to cope. I shall be quite clear. I want to see CrossRail, and this seems to me to be a good way to encourage the Government to get on with it. The Arup view is that it is not necessary to the games but it is clearly desirable. The timetable is tight. Currently, it is hoped that if it goes ahead it will be operational early in 2012. The Strategic Rail Authority says that its coffers would be bare. I hope that the Minister can give news of the progress in this area. I part company slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who talked about legislation to overcome the planning obstacles. Some procedures are quite important and I would ask him to go easy in terms of planning.
The third factor is housing. London needs to build more than 26,000 homes a year, and the Olympic village must contribute to London's needs and offer suitable homes for Londoners.
Housing and transport are aspects of regeneration. We have heard about the benefits to East London, especially the lower Lee Valley, which would be substantial. Boosting London's capacity to do well is a boost for the whole country. The capital contributes some £20 billion to the national economy. The noble Lords, Lord Sheppard and Lord Paul, spoke with considerable authority on the point.
I suppose that one must ask whether the Olympics would make a difference to regeneration. Yes, I believe that they would. Conversely, would they be a disincentive to inward investment because of the disruption that would be caused for a short period? To my mind they would not be, provided that the transport was there. There would be some disruption
744
during the 17 or so days while the games were taking place. But I heard that people in Sydney changed their working habits over the period, and that roads that were normally clogged were not clogged during the games. It could be the case that people stayed at home to watch or attended the games, but it worked.
There are security concerns too—about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is well placed to speak—both within and around the Olympic zone. The Met is represented on the stakeholders' group. The cost must not fall on Londoners' pockets. It is a national responsibility; and a continuing thread in budgetary discussions about the cost of policing London is how much of that is undertaking national responsibilities.
Mention has been made of lottery funding. I share the view that the Olympics should not take away from existing sports funding. Is there scope to promote a special lottery? The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, made a valid point about the Government's role in applying funding critieria.
My final question is: what do athletes want? The athletes in this Chamber have not addressed that point directly. I was interested to see that, among others, the British Paralympic Association supports the hid because of the accessible facilities that would he provided. That, too, has a legacy element for those who are able to use the facilities afterwards. An opportunity would be offered for paralympic sports to gain "stability"—the term used by the association—and to demonstrate the diversity and to spread understanding of disability and of the sports. Integration with the rest of the games, as we saw recently in Manchester, is very significant.
We know of the fiascos of Wembley and Picketts Lock. But that does not mean that we must always fail. Politicians will recognise the disease "candiclatitis"—confidence built on almost no evidence of likely success. In this case, I believe that we can be realistic, but at the same time say that we "can do".
8.49 p.m
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Moynihan on being fortunate in the ballot, and on his speech in support of the Motion. This has been a fascinating debate and one worthy of this House. The speakers have not simply been sports enthusiasts. Our approach has been a team effort between the sports enthusiasts on the one hand, and those involved in local government or London on the other—namely, the noble Lords, Lord Harris, Lord Sheppard and Lord Paul, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I declare an interest as patron of Herne Hill Harriers and a member of the Achilles Club. That said, it might be felt that my qualifications to speak in this debate are either obsolescent or obsolete, because it is well over half a century since, as a member of the British athletics team, I marched around the stadium at Wembley in the 1948 Olympics. We have had many Olympiads since then. In the event, I did not compete because only four of the five people selected for the

745
relay ran. I had to wait another four years before competing in Helsinki. That was the last of the small Olympics.
The Olympics have now grown to an enormous scale, which we must consider in debating the Motion. They have grown larger and larger. We have had a distinguished debate, with little discussion of the actual events. I find it difficult to believe that football is an appropriate event, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, would disagree. We need to retain certain events, particularly the modern pentathlon.
Several speakers realistically recognised some of the handicaps with regard to the Wembley Stadium saga, the Picketts Lock affair and even the Dome. I take my noble friend Lord Glentoran's point that the problem with the Dome was what was inside it. As he rightly said, nobody could doubt that, if the Olympics were staged in London, there would be enormous support from the public and more broadly. The success of Manchester shows how such an event can be handled. I hope that we will learn the lesson of retaining an athletics track in whatever stadium is built. Manchester did not manage to solve that problem. Generally, the Manchester experience is heartening. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, said that we need to lift up our hearts.
Some noble Lords mentioned transport, which is a problem. Perhaps those involved in London affairs might stress to the Mayor that, in supporting the idea of the Olympics coming to London, we must do something about transport. I spoke last night to my daughter, who aspires to be on the dressage team in 2012. She said that dressage and other events might take place at the Royal Veterinary College, which has 500 acres at Potters Bar. It took her nearly three hours to travel from London to Potters Bar. We must be determined to beat the transport problem. I am sure that London can respond in that way. It is estimated that 150,000 people will travel to the stadium on the same morning, with 125,000 coming from, or through, London. We must solve that problem at an early stage.
Inevitably, there are risks, particularly in the heats and semi-finals. We must get through at an early stage. We must invest money in the bid before we know whether we have won. It is all very well to say that the important part of the Olympic Games is, "not the winning but the taking part". It is better to take that view after the event rather than before. I have the support of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. If we enter the contest, we must bid with a determination to reach the final. That requires government commitment, as was rightly pointed out.
In the analysis that has been put before us, it is interesting to note the suggestion that, even if one bids and fails, there are still very real advantages to be derived. Therefore, it should not deter us in any way from bidding if we believe that the odds are perhaps stacked against us. My noble friend Lord Monro, who, as a former Minister for Sport, has experience of this, pointed out that the bidding process in the past has not always been as transparent as it might be. Indeed, it will require a considerable degree of diplomacy, as well
746
as determination. However, we need to make a fast start with our application, because, as has been said, time is running short.
I turn to the other important points that were made in the debate. In particular, although there are financial risks involved, we need to remember that there are also potential profits to be made. Over the years, the experience of different Olympic cities has been varied. But I believe that the analysis gives us reason to suppose that the kind of costs that are likely to be incurred are not disproportionate to the sort of benefits that should accrue, not least as regards infrastructure, social housing, the various sports facilities, and so on.
Moreover, when a city has the privilege of holding an Olympic Games, that special feeling seems to permeate through to the younger members of the community in a quite remarkable way. Indeed, mention has been made of the extraordinary way in which countries that are about to stage an Olympics suddenly seem to do better as far as concerns medals than they do on later occasions. So there is a huge uplift in morale, for want of a better word, as regards the ability and the enthusiasm of people both in school, and later. They are inspired by the performance of so-called "elite competitors", which was not an expression used in my day.
In addition, there is the whole regeneration of the Lower Lee Valley to consider. A number of speakers have stressed this particular point. Clearly, we shall face a number of competitors in the early stages of the bidding—from Paris, New York, Moscow, Rio, and so on. However, if the privilege goes to a European city in 2012, it will be a very long time indeed before London has another opportunity to bid because of the normal basis of rotation from one continent to another that the Olympic Committee seems to have developed as an approach to the problem. Therefore, it is particularly important that we put in a bid for the 2012 Olympics rather than leaving it to 2016, or whatever may be the case.
We have had an important debate this evening—one that gives cause for enthusiasm. We look forward with great interest to the Minister's response. The other place has already debated the subject. My honourable friend Mr Greenway, the shadow Minister for Sport, has very clearly said:
"A well-organised, viable London bid for the 2012 Olympics will naturally enjoy the support of the Conservative Party. We believe that, organised properly, it would lead to massive social, economic and other benefits for the whole of the UK".
My noble friend Lord Coe asked me before the debate how long noble Lords are allowed to speak during the gap. I referred the matter to the Clerk, and the answer was four minutes. Not surprisingly, my noble friend managed to complete the distance in slightly less time. However, he made an important point about the 1948 Olympic Games in London. It was a time of appalling austerity; the rationing system was still in operation. I remember receiving an extra pint of milk to help me in my training. Yet London wanted to continue the Olympic tradition when much of the rest of Europe, and countries elsewhere, were

747
devastated. We really managed to respond to the challenge facing us at that time. I am quite sure that London is capable of responding to the challenge of a new Olympic bid. I hope that it will have the enthusiastic support of the Government and all parties that it rightly deserves.
9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on securing today's debate. A possible London bid for the 2012 summer Olympic Games is rightly a subject of enormous topical interest. The noble Lord set out many of the key issues that need to be addressed, and I shall try to respond to all of them.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. We have had an interesting and high quality debate, if a unanimous one. I take away a clear message and I shall pass it on to the my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport. Although I am not the Minister for Sport, I am interested in sport and have always participated in sport—at a very low level of course.
The Olympic Games, particularly over the past 20 years, have experienced unparalleled growth and universal popularity. It is the largest and the most successful sporting event in the world. More than 10,000 athletes now take part in the games from 200 countries in 28 sports.
To participate in the Olympic Games and Paralympics is the highest aspiration of most athletes, and winning a medal at the games would undoubtedly be the pinnacle of their careers. That was probably the experience, too, of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who was part of the relay team in the Olympic Games last held in London in 1948 and in Helsinki in 1952. It was probably the experience of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan. Lord Glentoran and Lord Coe. It is a great privilege for me to speak in a debate with four former members of our Olympic team, as well as two former Ministers for Sport.
We have also recently seen the wonderful success of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, as mentioned by a number of speakers, especially the noble Lord, Lord Coe. They were quite rightly recognised as a tremendous achievement for the city and an indication that the UK can organise major multi-sport events.
The Olympic Games attract millions of spectators to the host city and billions of television viewers world wide. They have a huge impact outside the sporting world. In fact, the global impact of the games is massive when it is considered that the cumulative TV audience doubled for the Sydney 2000 games to more than 20 billion viewers from 220 countries since the games were held in Seoul in 1988. I mention those statistics because I do not think that they have been referred to in this debate and they should be taken into account.
Britain regards itself as one of the major sporting nations in the world and it is only right that we should be seriously interested in staging major sporting events
748
such as the Olympic Games. However, hosting that event in its current format is a substantial challenge for the host nation. The organisation of the many different events and hosting an Olympic family of up to 40,000, plus all the spectators, is a huge undertaking. It has serious financial implications, which were clearly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Therefore, in assessing whether London should hid to host the games in 10 years—in 2012—we need to consider carefully the implications of holding the games and what will be their legacy long after the Olympic circus has left town.
This assessment started last year when a report by Arup on the cost and benefits of bidding for and staging the 2012 Olympic Games in London was jointly commissioned by my department, the GLA, the BOA and UK Sport.
The summary of the report was published in early November so that the issues involved could be in the public domain and therefore available for public discussion. The only reason that the whole report was not made available is that some of the information it contains is commercially sensitive and would, I think, give advantage to our potential competitors. The report covers in some detail issues and some of the projected costs of regeneration, transport, venues and facilities, accommodation and other matters. It also clearly recommends that the location of the games should be in east London, where there is enough available land for development of the games village and possibilities to enhance transport links.
The Government are currently involved in a careful analysis of the report and the possible impact of an Olympic Games in London. We have learnt from previous projects that such a full assessment and a full consultation with the major stakeholders is essential before any decision is made. Our decision will be guided by four principal considerations: affordability, deliverability, winnability and legacy. I should like to talk about them all.
From the lessons of other Olympic cities and also our experience with the Commonwealth Games, we know that it is extremely difficult to predict the final costs of staging such a major event. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm. and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we are not trying to push up the predicted costs. What we are trying to do is ensure that we have truly realistic assessments. It is in no one's interest to have unrealistic assessments, as we could end up bidding and then not having enough money to do it properly.
Based on Arup's work, and allowing for inflation at 2.5 per cent, we estimate the overall cost of bidding for and staging the Olympic Games at nearly £3.6 billion, with associated revenues of £2.4 billion. In addition, the Government expect that there could be further costs for spectator and traffic management, security, improvements to the look of London, land acquisition and venues. Arup has now told my officials that it accepts that additional costs may well arise in these spheres. In particular, given the history of the games

749
and the troubled times in which we live, noble Lords will not expect the Government to take any chances with security.
The Government must also consider possible areas of risk in the report. For example, we should allow for a realistic contingency on the staging costs; increased costs if the price comparison is with Australia, where prices are 80 per cent of those in the UK; and the risk that anticipated revenue streams might not materialise. Our preliminary, cautious view is that public subsidy of the games, even after the staging revenues received from the IOC from the sale of broadcasting rights and sponsorship might well exceed £2 billion. That is what we need to consider in our future public expenditure plans. No one would expect us to do that other than carefully.
Any subsidy, whether it is the Arup figure of just over £1 billion or our rather cautious view that it may be double that, needs to be justified to the taxpayer by the benefits that it brings. We are examining the possible gains to the public benefit and the wider economy. Some Olympic spending would be used to regenerate brownfield sites in the lower Lee Valley and the Stratford area of East London into sporting venues for athletics and swimming and the Olympic village.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, talked about east London. He is absolutely right in saying that there is considerable deprivation in east London and that the regeneration resulting from the games could bring a great boost to the area. My noble friend Lord Paul mentioned that the games could create 9,000 badly needed jobs for local residents in east London. Our assessment includes an evaluation of the employment benefits attributable to the games. For the Olympic Games to be of real value in the creation of employment for residents in that area, we must be sure that the jobs created are sustainable and long term and not just for a temporary period.
The Olympic Games have been and can be used for regeneration purposes, as at Barcelona, for example. But a regeneration strategy purely based on staging the Olympic Games will struggle to deliver what is required in the long term.
Our current regeneration strategy for east London is directed through the Thames Gateway. It is delivering benefits to an area which desperately requires development and an Olympic Games would need to be incorporated into this strategy rather than just driving it. We must not hinder or blight the regeneration that is already beginning.
I turn to transport. As well as a well-located site, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was absolutely right to recognise that an efficient transport infrastructure is essential for an Olympic Games to succeed. Our bid will be judged in part on that, so there is no point in glossing it over.
An opportunity to host the Olympic Games is seen by some as an opportunity to cut through bureaucracy and deliver a better transport system for London. However, they should also consider that the Government's initiatives for transport have allocated substantial sums
750
already to improve transport in London. Under this plan national rail, the Underground, buses and other forms of transport will all be improved. I am confident about that.
My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to CrossRail. CrossRail could also deliver further benefits provided a satisfactory business case is demonstrated and the powers secured, but it is unlikely to be completed by 2012. We are considering how well transport would operate for the Games without CrossRail in place. It is important that if we host the Olympic Games it does not lead our transport strategy or our regeneration strategy. The Olympics may be an opportunity but we cannot rely on London winning the bid to achieve what is needed for London's infrastructure.
Although regeneration and transport are, of course, important aspects of hosting the Games, the Government consider the impact on sport as equally, if not more, significant and are therefore looking at the impact of the Games on their current and future sporting policy. One of the reasons for bidding for the Olympic Games in the past has been that they improve a nation's sporting success, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester mentioned. Evidence certainly shows that Olympic host countries increase their chances of winning medals. However, that is also a result of the increased investment in elite sport that is usually made by the host country in the lead up to the Games.
Since our performance at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, significant lottery investment has been made in our elite athletes through the World Class Performance Programme. That investment led to our best ever medal haul, in terms of gold medals won, at the Sydney Olympics, since the Antwerp Games in 1920. We are committed to supporting our very best athletes and to maintaining the level of funding which was provided in the build up to the Sydney Games to help our elite athletes' preparations for the Athens Olympics, whether or not we decide to bid for the 2012 Games.
This Government are also committed to ensuring that there is increased participation in sport generally. We know that sport can have an important impact on some of the problems associated with lack of exercise such as obesity and heart disease which, sadly, are beginning to affect even our children. Increasing participation requires a long-term strategy which we are developing through the Government's initiatives for school sports and club links. Major sporting events may help but are only one of the factors that encourage sporting participation. We need to ensure that our strategy in this area is developed and progressed irrespective of whether or not we win a possible bid. We should not let the Olympics divert us from that terribly important aim. There are also clear policies from some of the major national governing bodies for sport on the development of facilities. It is important that those should be taken into consideration in the assessment.
There are important legacy issues, as several noble Lords have mentioned, but we must take care that we do not over-invest in facilities that have no long-term

751
use. Even successful games, such as Sydney in 2000 and Barcelona in 1992, have found the legacy to be costly. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport recently visited Moscow and Munich, which were responsible for staging games in 1980 and 1972 respectively. In terms of legacy, Munich is regarded as providing the most successful facilities for the future use of its citizens. Those games were staged around a beautifully landscaped artificial lake, with the Olympic stadium in the park. Even those facilities, however, which are located with good access, cost the local authority between £4 million and £6 million a year to maintain. Stadium costs are also a problem to the local government in Moscow; it owns 50 per cent of the stadium, which still runs at a loss.
In the UK, we have learned from our experience of Wembley and Picketts Lock that our decisions should he based on long-term strategies and careful investment, not on short-term solutions. That is why we are carefully reviewing the facilities that Arup believes are required for a successful games. We are reviewing not only their use during the games but considering the plan for their use after the games. That is simply sensible long-term planning. We do not want what happened in Montreal, after the games in 1976, to happen here. That city constructed an unsustainable stadium, for which its citizens will still be paying until 2006.
Our assessment of all those aspects is important because, if we decide to bid, the IOC will evaluate our submissions based on some of the issues to which I and other noble Lords referred earlier. Our assessment also involves determining London's chances of winning the hid. It is not the bid that will go down in history, but winning it. London is one of the great cities in the world; it attracts millions of tourists every year, but that does not give us the right to assume that any bid would automatically be successful.
There are strong candidates in the field, as the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, rightly pointed out. New York has already announced its bid, with further bids likely from other major candidates such as Moscow, Budapest, Madrid or Seville, Paris, Toronto, a German city and Rio de Janeiro. It is therefore essential that we ensure that, if we decide to bid, our bid can be a winning one.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Pendry and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said: any bid must be totally committed and absolutely whole hearted. I give my pledge this evening that if we do decide to bid., the bid will be whole hearted. A poor bid would mean not only the loss of any chance of hosting the games in 2012 but would harm our status as a sporting nation and make it difficult for Britain to win the rights to stage any future sporting event, such as football's World Cup or the World Athletics Championship. We should neither be complacent about the bid nor write a blank cheque. We will need to demonstrate that we can deliver what we offer.
The IOC will invite national Olympic committees to submit the name of their applicant city in May 2003. Therefore, we will have to decide whether to support
752
the bid by the end of January 2003. I confirm to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, that we will make a decision by then.
Our analysis of the feasibilty of delivering the games will be thorough, but it will not be determined only by assessing the Arup report. The views of the public are essential to the project. The games will have an impact not only on London but throughout the country. so it is only right that the public have an opportunity to comment. We will carry out an opinion poll in the early new year to gauge the views of the public. We shall meet regularly with all non-government stakeholders to ensure that their views are represented in coming to a decision. We welcome the views of Members of this House, including those given this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, bidding for the Olympic Games is not to be taken lightly. It requires a clear and thorough assessment of all the issues involved in such a decision. That is why our decision on the hid will be based on a full assessment of what is best for sport. best for London and best for the country.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I could not be more grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate. At the outset, I say that inadvertently I may have failed to declare my interests in sport inter alia as president of the British Biathlon Union and president of the Welsh Amateur Rowing Association. If I did, I apologise.
It would be invidious, with other noble Lords about to start another debate, for me to speak for more than 30 seconds, so I shall thank one or two noble Lords. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, whose conviction and commitment to the interests of sport—sportsmen and women—is second to none. I also thank my noble friend Lord Monro. who is a former Minister responsible for sport. I have never spoken with him in a debate on sport from the Front Bench or the Back Benches in nearly 20 years in both Houses, when he has not spoken wisely and with genuine emotion and insight. Collectively, I refer to my noble friends Lord Higgins, Lord Coe and Lord Glentoran for their sporting and political prowess, and to the Minister, who is always persuaded by logic and clear reason. The transport challenges will in part be alleviated by the fact that the games are likely to be held in the school summer holidays. It is important to consider the games in the context of the transport challenges. I leave that thought with noble Lords.
It is wise to conclude that the message going out from this House tonight is clear and unambiguous. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have spoken clearly and with one voice. Let us back the London bid. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Mental Health
9.22 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to introducing legislation to protect people with mental incapacity.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this debate is to complain about the inadequacy of rights for people with mental incapacity; to urge that they get all the information, resources and advocacy that they need for adequate rights; and to protest to the Government at their remarkable delay in bringing forward comprehensive legislation on this topic.
The fight for disabled people has a long and chequered history, as noble Lords are well aware. Although much remains to be done, a great deal has already been achieved in terms of legislation and changing public perceptions. The Government deserve enormous credit for those crucial advances.
However, that applies primarily to physical disability. The problems of mentally incapacitated people have been neglected. They have not been given the same kind of attention. As a consequence, there has been drift and delay from the Government on this issue, which has resulted in confusion and lack of clarity.
I do not believe that the Government will argue much with my statements because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, no less, said:
"The law as it stands is confusing and fragmented".
He also said that the,
"law fails to offer adequate protection".
Those are two very strong statements. They were made as far back as 1997. It beats me why all of this delay has occurred on a matter that is crucial to vast numbers of mentally incapacitated people, who are desperately in need of progressive legislation. I know that my noble friend the Minister is anxious to do what she can, but she and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor must carry the Government with them and ensure that this legislation is brought forward.
It is thanks to the various voluntary organisations that the issues are being discussed today. I am particularly grateful to MIND, and Rowena Daw especially, for help in putting this subject before the House.
Many people with mental incapacity are denied the vital protection of the law. Yet these are the very people who need that protection most. There are many of them. The figures are staggering. They include such vulnerable people as the 145,000 with profound learning difficulties, the over 700,000 with Alzheimer's Disease, 135,000 incapacitated by accidents, some 100,000 seriously disabled by a stroke and several hundred thousand people with severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia or manic depression. This group at some point in their lives lose capacity to care for themselves and to make their own decisions. What we need, and what I urge on the Minister tonight, is legislation to give clear authority and
754
guidance to a person's family, friends, their doctor and their solicitor, as to how to act on their behalf when they are unable to act for themselves.
That is not much to ask. It is in a sense extending the neighbourhood scheme through the family, friends and professionals such as doctors and solicitors. I cannot understand why such legislation was not enacted many years ago. This neglect is really inexcusable.
No one knows when these people should be allowed to make their own decisions instead of others deciding for them. We simply do not know. Nor do we know who can make decisions for them or over what issues they can make decisions. We do not know who has the authority when they lack capacity. I think the law is an absolute shambles. Successive governments have failed to grasp this nettle and to deal with these problems.
There are specific provisions, I acknowledge, for allowing someone to be appointed with an enduring power of attorney over financial affairs, but the procedures are cumbersome and in some cases unworkable. And there is no provision for powers to be granted for welfare or healthcare. That story is unbelievable, but it is true.
The inadequacy of the situation is, as I say, a standing rebuke to successive governments—not just this one but the one that was in power for so long before—and a cause of distress among the mentally incapacitated. The situation has gone on for far too long. I therefore welcome the Government's announcement that a draft Bill on mental incapacity will be forthcoming, but I note that there is already a draft Bill within the Lord Chancellor's Department. I wonder how long the matter will take. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can enlighten the House on that when she responds.
The draft Bill dealing with mental health is a tiny step forward for people with mental incapacity. It gives people with long-term incapacity some safeguards, but it is no answer for the majority of mentally incapacitated people because it does not define "incapacity" and applies only to those admitted to hospital. It does not even cover residential care. So there is absolutely no magic there.
So the first thing that we need is legislation that clearly defines mental incapacity, best interests and a general authority to act reasonably. Although these are now part of the common law, the exact scope and definitions are unclear. In view of the uncertainty about where the authority lies, people are hampered from acting. They are afraid to act. They are terrified of going beyond the law. As a consequence, mentally incapacitated people suffer. By defining incapacity the Government will be protecting people who are wrongly assumed to be capable of deciding for themselves. They will also be helping these people to make their own decisions for as long as they are able, without unwanted interference from others. The current government guidance would be more meaningful if it were made legally binding. I hope that the Government will consider that point. We must

755
replace the system of enduring powers of attorney that cover only financial affairs with a new continuing power of attorney that gives the appointed person power to make personal welfare and health decisions, as well as financial ones.
By adopting such policies, the Government would give people a greater chance to plan for a future occasion when they may become incapacitated. They would simplify the job of carers and assist them in dealing with day-to-day healthcare and other problems. They would also ensure that decisions made on a person's behalf reflected what that person really wanted, rather than what someone presumed that they wanted. That is a profoundly important point. The Government would provide safeguards for professionals, such as doctors, nurses and social workers, who work with people with mental incapacity. The Government can get rid of the uncertainty that unfairly plagues such professionals.
A new, modern Court of Protection is required to replace the existing one. It is needed to resolve disputes about whether a person has capacity, about the definition of best interests and a general authority to act reasonably. It is also needed to make decisions about finances, healthcare and welfare issues.
The legislation should also provide for independent advocates to be available to speak on behalf of a person without capacity, so that families, friends, doctors and solicitors would have guidance on how to act on someone's behalf. The Government should either implement the legislation that deals, in some measure, with those points or provide for new legislation, which I would prefer. I hope to receive a positive and constructive response from the Government.
Again, I pay warm tribute to the Government for what they have done on disability. They have a proud record, despite my many attacks on them for the shortcomings and the failure to bring Shangri-La to Britain overnight. However, these are real and important issues, covering many thousands of people. They would be a major step forward for some vulnerable people who have been neglected. If good government means anything, it means helping such people. I have great optimism that I will get a positive response from my noble friend.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I start, as usual, by declaring my interest as the father of a 22 year-old Down's syndrome daughter and as; the honorary president of RESCARE, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care. I shall divide my contribution into two parts: remarks about legislation to protect children with mental incapacity and remarks about legislation to protect mentally handicapped or incapacitated adults.
First., I shall speak about children. Last year's Special Educational Needs and Disability Act is not working as the Government hoped and promised. Your Lordships will recall that the Act gave parents who wanted their mentally incapacitated children to
756
go to a mainstream school the right to send them there. When the Bill was going through your Lordships' House in January and February 2001, I and others predicted that it would result in greater difficulty for parents who wanted their mentally incapacitated children to go to a special school. We tried to amend the Bill accordingly, and the amendments can be found in the Official Report for 23rd January 2001 at columns CWH 43 to 47 and 57 to 58 and for 29th January at columns CWH 80 to 84.
Of course, the Government did their best to assure us that our fears were unfounded. In fact, the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—was quite specific:
"The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was particularly concerned about the claim that has been made by some people that the Bill will make it harder for parents to get a special school place for their child. That is not true. We want an inclusive education service to offer excellence and choice and we recognise that some children need the support that special schools provide. We see no reason why the Bill should result in any diminution of that choice or any reduction in the number of special schools.
I categorically assure noble Lords that the existing right of a parent whose child has a statement to make a positive choice and express a preference for a special school place will be fully maintained. It is important that LEAs listen to what parents want and where a parent wants a special school place and an LEA refuses it, parents can appeal to the SEN tribunal".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. CWH 46.]
I trust that your Lordships will agree that that was a pretty firm commitment from the Government that parents of mentally incapacitated children who want those children to go to special schools would not be disadvantaged by the Act.
However, there is now ample evidence that the Government's promises have not been fulfilled, just as some of us predicted. There is even evidence that the tribunals have been influenced against special schools. Indeed, I wrote to the Minister for Education recently with a particularly tragic case, to receive the reply that there is no appeal against a tribunal's decision.
The failure of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act to protect mentally incapacitated children was amply reported in the Daily Telegraph last Thursday 12th December in a substantial article by that newspaper's respected education correspondent, Liz Lightfoot, and entitled "Parents reveal torment of special needs pupils". I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, who is to reply to this debate is not an education Minister, but I ask her to do her best to make sure that her colleagues in education do read that article, and also the letters to the editor of the Daily Telegraph which followed on 14th December.
The article reveals that children with learning difficulties are threatening to take their lives rather than go through the school gates in the morning. It says that others lock themselves into their bedrooms or run away in order to avoid the hurly-burly of comprehensive schools. It then points out that despite a 40 per cent increase over the past 10 years in the number of children identified as having special needs—from 178,000 to 248,982—the number of schools dedicated to catering for them has gone down from 1,352 to 1,162, and around 100 more are facing closure under plans published by local authorities in England.

757
The article quotes Mr Peter Clark, the leader of Gloucestershire County Council. It reads:
"We are following Government policy on inclusion, an Act which was passed by Parliament".
It seems that parents have become so desperate with this situation that they have set up a special schools protection league. The article ends with a quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, the education Minister who has responsibility for special needs. She says that the Government have,
"underlined that there remains a continuing and vital role for special schools. The right of parents—where their children have a statement—to make a positive choice and express a preference for a special school place is being fully maintained".
Noble Lords will note the resonance in those words, and the quote that I gave earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on 23rd January 2001.
If the Government find any article printed in the Daily Telegraph unconvincing, perhaps I could quote from the letter published by that organ from Mr Mic Carolan, head of the excellent Hurst Special School in St Helens, last Saturday, 14th December. It reads:
"I write as a socialist, and as a special educationalist, with experience as the head of three special schools and an inspector of special schools over three decades … Racial and religious differences are legally recognised. Faith schools have a legal right to exist. The talented and gifted are recognised. We have the ridiculous pattern where specialist schools for art, drama, technology and business are encouraged, and yet special schools for very special children are seen as being unacceptable".
Mr Carolan then makes another very telling point:
"The growth in SEN tribunals is in the area of parents insisting on a place in a special school, rather than insisting on places in mainstream schools. I am working with children who never communicate with adults, who hit, bite, spit, who do not believe in themselves. We are tired of the 'specialist' who never teaches a class, making value judgements about our effectiveness, and I am tired of picking up the pieces for professionals who wait while the child experiences six years of frustration and damaging self-concept, and who then decide that maybe a special school has something to offer".
Not my words, but from a leading SEN practitioner, confirming what as a parent I have been saying to your Lordships for several years.
Before I leave children and move on to adults, I should just say that I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, is in good faith, as no doubt was the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, before her.
The problem is that what the Government want is quite simply not being carried out at local level.
It is the same problem with adults. The Government have recognised that many adults with mental incapacity, especially those with the more extreme disabilities which are often accompanied by severe health problems, can only with great difficulty and at disproportionate expense be properly looked after under their policy of care in the community. The Government have also recognised that many of the families of such people who cannot make choices for themselves want a place in a village community for their relative.
758
In this, the Government are also attempting to meet their commitment to choice, but here again they are being frustrated at local level. A very informative debate about what is happening in one such instance at St Ebba's, Epsom, took place in your Lordships' House on 12th June this year in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton. I would like to record my sincere thanks and those of the St Ebba's families, to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and to his colleague, Miss Jacqui Smith, for their tenacity in trying to see that the families' wishes are met in this case. But it is not easy when the local authority, Surrey County Council, brazenly denies that there is any demand for a village community in the face of massive and unequivocal evidence that there is. So here again, with mentally handicapped adults generally, we have the problem that the Government's, parents' and families' wishes are being blocked at local level. We very much hope that the Government will stick to their guns.
I conclude by repeating that RESCARE is not against inclusion; indeed, we support it when it enriches the life of a person with mental incapacity. But that cannot always be the case, especially with the more handicapped people like my daughter. Nearly all of the professionals who take the decisions which affect the lives of people with mental incapacity have no experience of it in their families or immediate circle of friends. So perhaps I may offer them some quiet advice, born of long and uncomfortable experience. That is that you cannot make a mentally incapacitated person normal by making him or her live what you regard as a normal life. You may satisfy your innate fear of mental handicap, but you may not help them. Indeed, you may make them extremely unhappy and bewildered. I am sure that none of us wants to do that.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke for introducing this debate. I have listened attentively to what he said and to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said about the existing provision for those persons with a mental health incapacity and of the need for clear legislation.
Because I would want to support any legislation on this matter, I should like to express my fear that any legislation which does not take on board the black communities' culture and special needs would not facilitate the black communities in using those services. So I use today to speak out on their behalf.
I am prompted by a recent report commissioned by the Sainsbury Centre called Breaking the Circles of Fear. The report has been a review of the relationship between mental health services and the African and Caribbean communities. I will confine myself very briefly to a précis of the findings of that report. There are circles of fear that stop black people from engaging the services. The report restates that young black men in particular are heavily over-represented in the most destructive parts of the mental health service, more

759
especially in secure services, and that black people generally have an overwhelming negative experience of the present mental health services.
Those communities are least likely to access the primary care/mental health promotion or the specialist community services which might prevent or lessen the mental health problems. They believe that they are getting the mental health service they do not want, not the one they feel would do them much good.
The report states that black people fear and mistrust the services. Staff in those services rarely reflect their culture nor are they even taught anything in their training about dealing with the cultural norms of that group. Instead it is a widely held view that staff are wary o f the black community, fearing criticism and not knowing how to respond, especially to black men.
The cycle is also fuelled by the prejudices professionals in the field endure when they are working in the organisations that deliver the services. It is sometimes uncomfortable to listen to the tales of how professionals go to great lengths to undermine the work of psychiatrists who are black. Other health professionals often receive the same treatment. Before anyone tries to deny this by saying that they have a chip on their shoulder, I would say that they do not have a chip but perhaps a whole tree, which is put there by the unconscious racism that often prevails when they try to show that their culture may be different and the treatment may be more useful another way.
The report is thorough and I would like to share its key findings. Circles of fear stop black people from engaging with the services. Black service users are not treated with respect and their voices are not heard. Black people come to the services too late, mostly when they are in crisis. Primary care involvement is limited and community-based care is lacking. Acute care is perceived negatively and does not aid recovery. Different models and descriptions are used and other people's philosophies are not understood. Family and carer involvement is almost always absent. Conflict occurs regularly. Black-led organisations are not valued. The stigma helps to ostracise the patient, and that is never taken into account or given any consideration. Those are the research's findings.
There are 15 recommendations in the report, which I trust the Government will want to consider should they be considering legislation. I recommend the report to anyone who is interested or who has doubts. I want to ask the Government to consider in any future legislation their commitment to diversity, noting the huge gap that often exists between government legislation and the delivery of services.
Black British citizens must share the good effects of any legislation. As a people we are all too aware of the gap between management and leadership. Too often leadership styles have been a brand by which delivery of the laws of the country has discriminated against the opinions and values of the black British citizen—not, of course, in this House. I urge the House to consult the black community as a matter of right in whatever legislation it proposes to protect persons with a mental incapacity.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords. I must first declare my long-standing interest in the world of learning disability as president of Mencap, as the father of a severely learning-disabled daughter and as a grandfather of a learning-disabled grandson.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke— I wish that I could call him my noble friend for he is indeed a noble friend to people with disabilities—for securing the debate and for his admirable speech. I thank him for giving us yet another opportunity to raise this important issue, which is close to my heart. Perhaps I may add a footnote to it.
I remind your Lordships briefly of the history which many of us have not only read but lived. Well into the 1960s, many people with a learning disability had no voice in the decisions of others to place them in large institutions, and then no say in what was done for them and to them in those institutions. Until the 1970s, they had no voice in what happened to them during school age; they were excluded as being unable to learn as well as unable to decide. Having gained the right to go to school, it was another decade or more before some choice of school became a reality—and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that the problem still exists.
Then at the beginning of this millennium there was yet another beginning for people with a learning disability, the Valuing People white Paper, which enshrines choice, rights, independence and inclusion, all of which could be summed up in the term "decision making". Alas this most basic decision of all is denied the majority of adults with a learning disability, who cannot even decide if and when they wish to leave home as beyond the family unit there is nowhere else for them to go.
If we are to secure the principles of choice, rights, independence and inclusion—and, indeed, to live up to the Human Rights Act—we need legislation, while to deliver these principles we need to work on recognising and supporting communication, decision making and the extension of advocacy.
Regrettably, there is such a long history of people with a learning disability being excluded from decision making, having decisions made for them and having their decisions overridden for no good reason that, without a conscious effort, legislation—while essential—will not on its own set aside centuries of ignorance, fear, prejudice, exclusion and—dare I say it?—brutality
All of us in your Lordships' House are extremely lucky to be in a position where most of our opinions are taken into account—well, sometimes. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the majority of people with a learning disability who may have difficulties communicating their wishes and are often ignored because assumptions are made about their capacity. Learning disability and communication impairment tend to go together, butt it is an assumption not a reality that automatically links learning disability and impaired decision making.
It follows, therefore, that any interpretation of a person's mental capacity and ability to make decisions needs to include consideration of his or her

761
communication skills. It is all too easily accepted that some people with social or communication difficulties may appear to be incapable of making choices. They may, however, be fully able to make such choices given the means to express themselves. If we give them a communication passport; if we learn to recognise what they are saying by building trusting relationships which are sensitive to an individual's needs and circumstances; and if we use communications systems and equipment—all available nowadays—which are tailored to their individual needs, anything is possible. With such support and that of independent and informed advocacy, many a person with a learning disability can understand their choices and express their decisions effectively.
However, helping people with communication impairments to understand their choices and to make decisions requires an investment of time, money and skills—from government and carers alike. Above all, though, is the need for legislation in this area, which is long overdue. New legislation on mental capacity would also ensure a more functional approach to decision making. This recognises that a person's ability to make decisions may vary over time and depend on the level of difficulty of particular decisions—such as choosing where to live or how to manage money. It means that individuals would not be prevented from making certain decisions just because they had a medical diagnosis of a disability or illness.
The current law is not just unfair to people with a learning disability but it is also confusing to carers—who at times have to make or help to make decisions for those for whom they care. Currently, it is distressingly unclear who has the legal right to take day-to-day welfare, healthcare or financial decisions. What is clear, however, is that the law needs to clarify what carers can and cannot do. Clarifying who can make decisions will also improve the position of those who have to step in, often at the last minute, to take decisions for someone else.
I am aware that the Government agree with the need for legislation. Ministers in both Houses have expressed their support for such a Bill. I therefore look forward to their proposals. Indeed, consultations and deliberations in this area have been debated over a number of years—about 15 to be exact. There was an announcement last Monday that work will start on legislation in consultation with interested groups. Legislation has been promised by successive Ministers ever since the Government came to power in 1997 but still no legislation has been forthcoming. Still we are promised a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows—which could mean this year, next year, sometime, never.
People with a learning disability and their carers have found themselves in this cloud cuckoo land far too long. Just across the border, the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 is already in place. The option to continue doing nothing in the rest of the United Kingdom is really not an option. It would mean the betrayal of too many expectations and the denial of choice, rights, independence and inclusion to
762
those who are relying—a little wearily after so much waiting—on the fulfilment of Government promises. We must not fail them.
9.57 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for securing this debate. I have been very moved as well as interested to hear the eloquent speeches—particularly because they were based on so much personal experience as well as expertise.
If we are to have a just society as well as a compassionate one, we must address the needs of some of the most vulnerable people among—us I will concentrate on older people because I have spent so much of my life working in that field—how we view and treat them; and whether we give them adequate respect and understand their views—because they remain adults, however frail they may have become.
I demonstrated my feelings about the importance of those issues when I secured a dinner break debate last May on the future of the Public Guardianship Office, about which there was much concern. Those issues are of growing importance, partly because of our ageing population, about which we are hearing so much these days, in other aspects of life. Most people who have mental incapacities and problems are older people.
We all realise that the sort of incapacity from which such people suffer is often a slow process of decline. The issues are complex, resulting from very difficult and different conditions such as the dementias. The capacity of people as those awful conditions progress is difficult to grasp. Decision-making capacity can fluctuate. People can make adequate decisions sometimes, then not be able to do so, then be able to do so again.
Without a legal framework, it is extremely difficult to take these situations on board, assess people adequately and arrive at decisions. I agree with the priorities that have been expressed. Mental incapacity is a very important issue. We are all extremely disappointed that no legislation has yet been published on the subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned, it seems odd that the Scottish Parliament, within a year of its being established, managed to legislate on this matter: the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act was passed in the year 2000.
The 1999 White Paper was entitled Making Decisions. That is what we want Her Majesty's Government to do. A Green Paper had been published in 1997 entitled Who Decides? But at present we are not very sure about who makes the decisions, because the law is so cloudy and out of date. For everyone who works with people with impaired mental incapacity, and for the people themselves, we need a legal definition of "capacity"; otherwise our system will not have the capacity itself to work in the best interests of those whom it is designed to protect. We must have clarity.
I want to concentrate on the day-to-day small-scale activities of someone who has mental incapacity to show why the law must be updated soon. The parliamentary timetable still means that such

763
legislation cannot be implemented for some years—no earlier than 2004 or 2005. As I said, the majority of people affected by these conditions are very elderly; they cannot wait that long.
This is not merely about the big headline issues of advance directives or substitute decision-making; it is about the day-to-day financial and welfare issues, where people have very few rights—demanding action on appointeeship, power of attorney, the role of the Public Guardianship Office and so on. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that it is somewhat medieval that the priority is still that such an attorney call act over issues of finance but not over issues such as health or welfare. That is appalling. It must be dealt with quickly.
I accept that consent in health and social care is a difficult and vexed area in which to legislate. But that is no excuse for inaction. These matters must be dealt with in a reasonable and sensible way which leaves room for a court to intervene when there are differences of view in families or among carers and where other people close to the person concerned disagree fundamentally. These are difficult matters. However, it seems to me that the Law Commission's proposals are sensible, and I believe that the Government feel the same way.
I conclude my remarks with a reference to the impending reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. In an ideal world we should have an incapacity Bill giving us clear definitions, limits and so on, followed by a redraft of the mental health reform Bill. Indications are that it will be the other way round. But it is vital to define capacity and mental health issues soon.
If the parliamentary timetable is to blame because of the shortage of legislative slots, perhaps the suggestion that I made last month during the debate on the gracious Speech could be reconsidered; namely, consideration could be given to combining the two Bills into one Bill with two distinct parts. Both deal with different aspects of the condition of the human mind, and we see many examples of legislation crossing departmental boundaries. An example is the nationality Bill, which contains educational elements. Sometimes, Bills cover quite separate issues within one department's remit, as some of the health Bills have done. If joined-up government and cross-departmental collaboration are high priorities for the Government, would not a bit of joint working between the departments concerned—the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Health—be a good thing? Indeed, would it not serve the best interests of some of the most frail and vulnerable people? Perhaps we could then make recognition of their needs a reality—recognised in our legal system.
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for instigating this important debate about protecting people with mental incapacity. I wish to address the importance of mental incapacity from the standpoint of the clinical need to protect vulnerable people when
764
they are patients in receipt of care. I declare an interest as a clinician who looks after terminally ill patients, and as having two children with severe learning difficulties in my extended family.
In all I say, it must be borne in mind that I fully recognise everything the noble Lord. Lord Pearson, said. When people are physically ill, those with learning difficulties are especially vulnerable because of the environment in which they find themselves. Clinically, the problem is that capacity and incapacity are not absolutes. They vary with time. They may progress or improve. Plasticity of the brain means that, following an insult such as a stroke, people may recover quite a lot of function with time. The other difficulty is that capacity can fluctuate rapidly. For example, with an infection, someone with moderately impaired decision-making can rapidly find it extremely difficult to cope with new information.
A person's capacity depends on the size of decision to be taken. To give a simple example, take an elderly lady who has a small degree of renal failure but who functions well in her own home. She develops a urinary tract infection and has dysuria; that is to say, pain on passing water. She also becomes confused. She can understand the decision to take antibiotics and can quite safely be treated. But, if she develops a renal abscess, she may not be able to fully understand all the implications of having surgery on that kidney, of having that kidney removed and potentially going on to dialysis. She can understand a set of risks at one level but cannot understand all the implications of a larger, more complex decision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, the ability to communicate is crucial to the concept of capacity. The clearest example in recent times is that of Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of Elle magazine, who had a massive stroke and locked-in syndrome. It was assumed that he was unaware of what was happening around him because he was completely unable to communicate, until a speech therapist noticed that he had one eye movement. With that single eye movement, he was able to communicate and to dictate a whole book, The Diving Bell & the Butterfly, Which I have asked to be compulsory reading for all our medical students. It is an astounding book, which gives insight into the problems of someone who is completely locked in, unable to communicate but aware of everything that is happening.
In my own clinical practice, I have had patients with neurological conditions who were assumed to be incompetent to take a decision because they could not communicate it. But, when I have spent time with them, sometimes an hour or more, it has become evident that they fully understood; they just could not communicate. Their refusal of treatment was a very competent decision.
The concept of global incompetence, however, is very dangerous because it cannot be proven and may only truly coexist if someone is effectively brain-dead. Put at its simplest, the concept of capacity refers to the patient's ability to understand the nature and purpose of the recommended treatment, including the

765
consequences of having or not having it, and the ability to reason using that information. As I said, the difficulty is that competence may be impaired; for example, by drugs. Midazolam is a drug that is commonly used clinically because it calms down anxious people; but on the streets it is the date-rape drug. The person sounds completely compos mentis, but after the drug has worn off he will have no recall of what he said, what has happened, or, of the decision that he might have taken; and, indeed, might have appeared to communicate properly.
Another common clinical condition is depression, which alters the patient's perception. The person may have a very black and pessimistic view of his future. He may feel that any treatment for him is completely pointless and that his life is worthless, until he is treated. It must be remembered that 20 per cent of medically-ill patients have a treatable depression. Sadly, not that number actually get their depression either recognised or treated. Indeed, one in four of the population has had a mental disorder at some time, many of which have been depression.
So where is that important? If one considers an advance statement, or an advance refusal of treatment, it becomes crucial. When you are depressed you have a different view of the world. Your circumstances and priorities change. Therefore, any advance statement must be renegotiated at the time when a new decision is to be taken so as to ensure that it is still valid. The other problem is that an advance statement made at one time when a person was deemed to be competent that is now looked at when he is deemed to be incompetent may have become time expired; it may not apply to the clinical situation that now has to be faced. Moreover, there may be a new directive revoking the old one that is not known, or which is actively withheld from the clinician.
How many of us have had a member of our family to whom we felt obliged to be kind, because it was probably his last Christmas—yet many years later that relative is still alive and going strong? But what if that person has a fixed-term life insurance policy, has previously written a statement to the effect that he does not wish any treatment in the event of deterioration and then develops a treatable, incidental complication—such as a urinary tract infection—that makes him confused? The doctors looking after that person may not know of an advance statement, or, if one is presented, they may not know whether it has been superseded by another statement. They know that the condition is treatable, but they may not know about the life insurance policy. They may feel that relatives who place pressure upon them, and claim to be acting in the person's best interests, are not acting in his best interests.
I should like to illustrate that situation with a short example from my own clinical practice. At present, any document presented is an expression of the person's wishes and must be renegotiated and subject to the "best interest" principle. The latter adopts the patient's perspective. I know that clinicians come in for a lot of criticism, but the one good point is that they
766
are impartial: they do not stand to gain materially, unlike the relative who may inherit when the patient dies.
It is important to remember that the autonomy of one person cannot override the autonomy of another. But autonomy can exist only if it is respected. Any legislation must ensure that every effort is repeatedly made to ascertain a person's wishes and that material is presented in the most understandable way. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said, it must be done in an environment in which the person is comfortable. It must also be free from any possible coercion by anyone who may have a vested interest. A person with a vested interest will be someone who stands to gain materially in any way.
As I said, I had such a situation in my clinical practice. A lady aged 59 was very ill. Her family appeared to be very concerned about her pain and constantly asked for her diamorphine to be increased. However, we remained unconvinced that her pain was really that severe. In fact, the patient declined increasing doses of diamorphine. Her 60th birthday arrived and was passed with minimal celebration. after which the family visited very little. She became depressed and spoke to one of the night nurses, explaining that the problem was that on her 60th birthday, her fixed-term life insurance policy expired. The family would not now inherit what they thought they would if she had died, and if her drugs been duly increased.
That is a sad story, but I am afraid it is human nature. It is important not to use mental incapacity or concepts of advance statements as a convenient, back-door way of allowing the introduction of euthanasia in any form. Legislation must presume in favour of competence, and such presumption must be overturned before someone can be deemed truly incompetent to take such decisions.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is to be congratulated on raising, not for the first time, extremely important issues on the subject of incapacity. He has had universal support from those who have spoken—certainly from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Finlay. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, spoke on slightly different, although related, issues, I have no reason to doubt that they would entirely endorse what the noble Lord said.
We on these Benches entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. We believe that the law relating to incapacity is in urgent need of reform. The Law Commission report of seven years ago, in 1995, made many sensible suggestions for reform. The Government published a discussion paper in December 1997, but we are now five years on from that time and still nothing has been done. We greatly regret that the Queen's Speech contained no proposal for a new mental health Act in this Session, covering the reform of the law of capacity, although we had been led to understand until quite shortly before the Queen's Speech that such a Bill would be included.

767
We want a radical shake-up of legislation and the institutions involved in dealing with those adults for whom others assume legal responsibility on the ground of mental incapacity. It is one of the most sensitive and contentious areas of social policy, involving fundamental personal rights, issues of personal welfare, and sometimes even life and death decisions. It concerns the duty of government to protect and enshrine in law the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The Government have failed to follow through their early promises on law reform in this area. Many aspects of the current law are no longer compatible with the Human Rights Act. The Law Commission report concluded:
"the law as it now stands is unsystematic and full of glaring gaps. It does not rest on clear or modern foundations of principle. It has failed to keep up with social and demographic changes. It has also failed to keep up with developments in our understanding of rights and needs of those with mental disability".
In effect, people who are deemed to lack capacity have no legal rights; they become non-people. That position leaves the most vulnerable—often elderly adults —open to abuse. That is made possible, in part, by the fact that people without capacity are largely hidden from public view. They may be in care and in residential home settings, incapacitated in intensive care, sectioned under mental health legislation or under the charge of carers or relatives who have power of attorney. There has never been comprehensive research on how many people in these situations have their legal rights suspended because by law they lack the required "mental capacity" to make decisions for themselves. Our approach is for a fundamental reform to give all those assessed as lacking capacity new rights to maximise their own preferences on how their daily lives should be managed and experienced, and to redefine radically the way in which incapacity is treated in law.
We propose that the principles and methods used to define and assess mental capacity should be fundamentally reconceived so that simplistic tests, such as naming the Prime Minister or subtracting seven from 100, are not applied by doctors and lawyers in an all-or-nothing way and so that partial capacity is recognised and utilised. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, capacity very much fluctuates and people can have capacity to take some decisions even if at the same time they lack capacity to take others. For example, the capacity to enter into a complicated financial transaction is obviously very different from the capacity to maintain a life at home by going out to a local corner shop and buying the food which they will then cook to look after themselves.
New legislation is needed also as a basis for a code of practice to support practitioners. It is necessary for those caring for people who lack mental capacity to have a general authority to "act reasonably" in order to protect people. However, there should be certain restrictions on the general authority to act reasonably—for example, force should never be used—and there is a class of decisions which can only
768
ever be taken by a person acting for himself or herself, such as consenting to marriage or divorce or to sexual relations.
We also propose that the Court of Protection should extend its jurisdiction beyond its present somewhat Victorian jurisdiction which is concerned almost entirely with the protection of property rights. The extension of the jurisdiction should 'be a key plank of new legislation. Too often, relatives and carers find themselves in a legal maze when someone ceases to be able to be responsible for themselves. We also propose that new continuing powers of attorney should be introduced to replace the present enduring powers of attorney. These continuing powers of attorney should be extended to cover health and welfare as well as financial issues. They should be regulated through the Court of Protection's jurisdiction. There should also be tighter regulation of informal mechanisms of taking decisions on behalf of someone else, such as appointeeships, which are all too often open to abuse.
We also believe that where an individual with capacity has made clear instructions as to anything to be done or not to be done when they are without capacity, these should trump the views of relatives, nominees and statutory services. We therefore propose a statutory scheme of advance directives, an extension of the principle of the "living will", as anticipatory statements of intent which should be legally binding on the parties who subsequently become involved in decision-making on their behalf.
Finally, we believe that new legislation could and should include specific statutory torts and criminal offences covering the abuse of a vulnerable adult. Currently there are no such specific provisions on the statute book, at least in part because the extent of problems such as elder abuse has not been recognised.
I am very happy to give our support to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on introducing this very important debate. I agree with him that the problems of the mentally incapacitated have been neglected.
There have been some very well-informed speeches tonight. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch about special schools. I very much hope that the Minister will pass that on to education Ministers. In doing so, I declare an interest as the father of an autistic daughter now at a special school where she is thriving after many, many difficulties.
The Government stated their policy position on mental incapacity in the 1997 consultation paper, Making Decisions. However, the only commitment forthcoming on this issue is that they will introduce legislation "when parliamentary time allows". Like other speakers, we believe that, five years on, the Government should take the opportunity to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

769
We are pleased that the Lord Chancellor's Department is pursuing work on mental capacity including beginning to look at drafting a Bill. That work also includes good practice guidance for professionals, which was recently published for consultation, and a consultative forum on mental incapacity.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, concern remains that a Bill to afford protection for some of the most vulnerable people in society will not be given the priority for legislative time that it clearly deserves. I also look forward to clarification of the Government's intentions from the Minister.
The law assumes that every adult has the mental capacity, or is competent, to make their own decisions if given the information, support and time to make their own choices. However, the law does not define capacity and we do not have a legal definition of when someone does not have the capacity to make their own decisions. This means that although very few people are totally unable to make any decisions, those who may need support to make decisions, or who are able to make some decisions and not others, are not adequately protected by the law.
People with autism spectrum disorders may have difficulty making and communicating decisions across a range of every day activities, from what to eat to how to spend their money. More profound decisions about where they live or what work they may be suited for may be taken for them as a matter of course. The National Autistic Society would like to see new legislation to ensure that people with autism spectrum disorders are supported to make as many decisions as possible and also to give their carers a legal right to have a say on decisions taken when they are unable to decide for themselves.
There does need to be greater legal protection for adults without mental capacity. Similarly, adults who have difficulty making or communicating some decisions must have a legal right to the support they need to make as many decisions as possible for themselves. It is particularly important for people with autism spectrum disorders that the proposed new legislation on sexual offences against people with a mental disorder includes a comprehensive and workable test of capacity.
As has been pointed out, the law in England and Wales lags behind that of Scotland where the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 defines incapacity. The law here is unclear, inconsistent and fails to protect a person's right to make their own decisions. It fails to protect people from abuse when they cannot make their own decisions as a result of disability, illness or injury and has not kept up with changes in attitudes and understanding; for example, towards people with learning disabilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out. Nor has the law kept up with advances in treatments and care which mean that people with Alzheimer's Disease are diagnosed earlier and remain independent for longer. There is also now
770
new legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned the Human Rights Act—that the current law on decision-making does not take account of.
Furthermore, while it should be assumed that adults have the capacity to consent and that no one can consent on their behalf, in practice the principle is confused. For example, there have been cases where people, because of assumptions made about an individual's capacity, have been asked to give consent about an older relative's medical treatment. That denies people their basic right to make choices, and demonstrates the confusing situation faced by professionals and carers when dealing with the consent process.
The current legal situation does not provide people with adequate safeguards, even when an attorney can be appointed to make decisions. For example, a person might enter a care home and another person might be allowed to deal with their finances without official authority from the individual, the local authority or another official body. That demonstrates that, although there is legislation relating to finances in the enduring power of attorney, stronger protection measures are needed.
The cases of the Crown and Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust ex parte L highlighted the loophole in current legal protection for people with a mental disorder who lack capacity to consent to treatment and are informally detained in hospital. Section 131 of the Mental Health Act 1983 permits doctors to detain patients in hospital on the basis of common law without recourse to the safeguards in the Act. In this case, the plaintiff L was kept in hospital and prevented from seeing his carers and those closest to him for almost four months—far too long.
The current legal situation in England and Wales, as set out by Lord Justice Steyn in the House of Lords judgment, is that people who lack capacity to consent to treatment can be informally detained indefinitely on the opinion of a single doctor. There is no right of appeal for relatives or carers on this decision, nor is it subject to the review processes of the current Mental Health Act. Although the Government have published a draft mental health Bill that goes some way to addressing those concerns, those who have campaigned on L's behalf feel that the proposed new safeguards would have offered him little protection.
Legal protection for all people with impaired mental capacity would be provided if the Government implemented the policy position set out in their policy statement, Making Decisions. I urge the Government to give priority to introducing legislation on mental capacity. If possible, that should be done at the same time or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, suggested, as part of the proposed mental health Bill.
10.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate, and thank all noble Lords who have participated. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Ashley of

771
Stoke not only for introducing the debate but for his kind acknowledgement of the efforts made by the Government to address the issue. Of course, I acknowledge the frustration that he feels, and that others have expressed, such as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about the length of time that we have journeyed together towards this point.
We have had some moving contributions in today's debate. and I take the opportunity to thank all who have participated. They have all demonstrated not only their expertise but their special and personal experience of the difficult issues faced by those labouring under disability and by their carers and families. I mention particularly in that regard my noble friend Lord Ashley, the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, Lord Rix and Lord Astor, arid the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
I share the concerns that have been eloquently expressed this evening; we all share a common purpose. I have no hesitation whatever in saying to my noble friend Lord Ashley that the Government are sensitive to the fact that the law in this area has developed in a piecemeal fashion and does not always offer sufficient protection either for mentally incapacitated adults or for those who look after them. With that in mind, we recognise the importance of creating a new statutory framework within which decisions can be taken on behalf of adults without capacity.
We understand the concerns and anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lady Howells about addressing the needs of all those who suffer from mental illness incapacity or disability, and the special demands of culture and ethnicity in that regard.
On 9th December 2002, my honourable friend Rosie Winterton announced to the mental incapacity consultative forum of the Lord Chancellor's Department that work has begun on producing a draft mental incapacity Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Ashley and other noble Lords that at this stage we cannot commit to when it will be published, nor has the situation on securing legislative time changed. However, this is an important first step to readiness. The draft Bill will be based upon the policies set out in Making Decisions and will use the draft Bill prepared by the Law Commission in 1995. That gives us a very good starting point. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that time spent on preparation will enable us to focus on what the legislation should look like.
I say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that the Law Commission's recommendation, accepted in the Government's policy statement, "Who Decides?", was that new statutory provisions should apply to those aged 16 or over. Other government departments, such as the Department for Education and Skills, are involved in our consultative forum. It is important to discuss how any new legislation would interact with current legislation relating, for example, to special educational needs.
Thu draft Bill will not just be another academic piece of legislation. It will provide common-sense guidance to those working with people with impaired capacity, making sure that good practice is embedded
772
into every decision. We will ensure that implementation is carefully and comprehensively managed so that the legislation makes a real difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. To do that takes time and we have used the time, since 1999, to good effect by identifying and working on projects that can make a difference now, as well as paving the way for legislation.
By working closely with stakeholders and listening to what they say—their concerns and problems—we can get it right the first time. Working together buys in the support that we need to make the legislation work on the ground. We will look with care at the experience in Scotland and try to learn from everything that is currently being done there.
We are all in agreement that such legislation is much needed to ensure that people lacking capacity retain as much autonomy as possible in making decisions in their everyday lives while also being protected by effective safeguards. The Government are all too aware that the current situation is far from satisfactory. There is a great deal of confusion as to how decisions should be made on behalf of those without capacity, leading to a lack of legal protection for both vulnerable incapacitated adults and those who care for them. That point was made by virtually every noble Lord who has spoken.
We are very aware that legislation must meet the many and diverse needs of everyone in our society, since it is a fact that almost all of us will suffer from incapacity ourselves at some time in our lives or help to care for someone who does. We are looking to empower and protect those who are born with impaired capacity, those who lose capacity suddenly through a head injury, those who develop a mental disorder and those who lose capacity in later life, a subject upon which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, spoke so powerfully.
A draft Bill will be welcomed by the majority of people as a positive way of empowering and protecting those with mental impairment or incapacity. Some people, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will have reservations about some of the proposals for reform. They may have concerns about the proposals for healthcare, or may disagree about how the legislation will meet the needs of those with impaired capacity. But I am pleased to say that most people appear to be broadly supportive of the need for legislation on mental incapacity and how it can make real changes to the lives of many vulnerable people for the better.
As I have said, we have been doing work to make changes for the better now, which will also put us in a better position to take forward legislation. Working with stakeholders we have listened to their concerns and identified, with them—it is important to say that—what can be done to make the present situation better.
We have already increased physical accessibility to the law by establishing a regional Court of Protection in Preston. Having a local hearing makes sense on many counts. It saves time, costs and, above all,

773
reduces the stress that a court appearance inevitably involves. This regional court has been successful and there will be other regional courts set up for hearing some mental incapacity cases. However, we must be sure of a consistent approach to the work. We must have good electronic links and supporting administration for the regional courts. So there is much to do—identifying and training judiciary and staff, developing procedures, installing links and heightening awareness as to the existence of these regional courts and the limits of their jurisdiction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, we are publishing a series of new guidance leaflets based on existing practice and law and have recently finished a consultation exercise on those issues. These leaflets are both for people who have to make decisions on behalf of others and for people who want to provide for future help in decision making on their own behalf, should the need arise. These guidance leaflets provide a starting point for the code of practice that will support the legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, raised the issue of how we will work together with our colleagues from the Department of Health. I can reassure the noble Lady that officials continue to work with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that any mental health legislation is consistent with the definitions of making decisions, and that legislation in any area that impacts on people with mental incapacity works in harmony with the proposed draft mental incapacity Bill. We shall do everything in our power to make sure that legislation is brought forward as quickly as possible. But, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is not always within our gift.
774
The proposals for making decisions will allow financial, personal, welfare and healthcare decisions to be made on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults. The current enduring powers of attorney apply only, as noble Lords have said, to financial decisions. But people with mental incapacity will be able to plan for a time when they may lose that capacity, by appointing another person to make those decisions for them under a continuing power of attorney. Perhaps I may say how very cogently I thought the case was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the real difficulties experienced with fluctuating capacity and the need continually to ensure that the last expressed view is actually the real view communicated by the person who may from time to time suffer from that incapacity. We are determined that our proposals should not lead the way—through the back or any other door—to euthanasia. The noble Baroness may be confident that that is not our intent.
We have come a long way. In closing, I must say that the forum that we have set up provides a useful setting for operational and policy discussions. The practical experiences and expertise of forum members, many of whom work with or care for vulnerable adults, will help us to build appropriate safeguards into a framework that ensures that decisions are made in a caring and transparent way and are focused on safeguarding the best interests of all involved. Forum members will also ensure that we are constantly reminded of the practical considerations that the implementation of future legislation must address. All the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be addressed and discussed together, with the forum as one of the vehicles that we will be able to use.
I thank all noble Lords present. I almost feel like saying, "We few, we precious few". People in the House tonight have been on this journey for a long time, but we have been in the very best of company.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
(Second Day)
Wednesday, 18th December 2002.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Duty not to exceed allowances]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) All monies in respect to financial penalties collected as set out under section 8(2) and (3) will be hypothecated directly to waste disposal authorities as directed by the allocating authority."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 48. We have spoken several times during debate on previous amendments about the financial problems of the Bill and the money that it will cost local authorities. Here, of course, if the Bill is enacted, there will be some income from the fines that will be paid. Rather than that the fines end up in the Chancellor's pocket or in some other area, we believe it is important that the money should be used to compensate for some of the other costs associated with the Bill. In fact, it should go hack to the waste area, either to help recycling or to help in another area associated with this legislation.
We are suggesting that the fines should be hypothecated back. We would obviously have to find a mechanism for doing that and we are not suggesting how such a mechanism should work. It could be done through DEFRA or through the Environment Agency. The money could go to the Environment Agency and to local authorities to help in this area. Obviously something has to be done with the money from the fines. I hope that the Government will take on board the amendment as a way of easing some of the other financial problems that we talked about during debate on earlier amendments to the Bill. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): As the noble Lord explained, the amendment would require that the penalties imposed on waste disposal authorities go back to the allocating authority so that the money raised could be used to support waste disposal. One can understand) the attractions of that proposition as it would keep the money in the system to be used to best effect.
GC 62
However, the suggestion cuts across a number of normal principles of public financing. Not only is it hypothecation, which, by and large, our colleagues in Great George Street are not keen on, but it also cuts across the general view that the tined income should not be set against expenditure in the same field be cause that would provide a perverse incentive and sanctions money normally goes hack into the Exchequer. The proposition in the amendment would also relate to other parts of the United Kingdom, as well as to England, and our devolved colleagues require flexibility in that respect.
Having said that, and having put down serious caveats from the point of view of overall government finance, all the Strategy Unit report proposals, which have funding implications in general, are currently under consideration inter-departmentally. Any proposition which relates to this area is therefore being considered in that context. In that sense, I should not like to rule out the proposition put forward by the noble Lord. However, the issue may not be resolved during the course of the Bill's proceedings within this House, although it may before the Bill completes its course through Parliament.
Therefore, I cannot give any indication that I shall return with a proposition that would go some way to meeting the objectives of the amendment. I understand the motivation behind it, but the issue needs to be seen in the wider context. We shall need to be clearer on that point at a significantly later stage in the Bill but, at present, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Obviously, there are other cases where, for example, parking fines are hypothecated and the funds go back to local authorities. Increasingly, discussions are held about other examples of money being returned for the use of the service from which it is raised. I can understand the original idea but I do not believe that that would be that much of an exception. That said, the Minister made sonic encouraging comments that the money might be returned to the waste system, which is so short of money. It would be a shame if it was not. I was encouraged by those comments and hope that the Government will reflect further upon the matter so that we can hear more about it when we reach Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Monitoring authorities]:
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert "and monitor the measures used for handling the remaining biodegradable municipal waste which is not sent to landfill"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. Amendment No. 52 imposes a requirement for the overall monitoring of the destinations of biological and municipal waste. I have written that down here as "BMW", which somehow

GC 63
does not seem a very appropriate acronym, but I may continue to use it. It states that the Secretary of State must:
"monitor the measures used for handling the remaining biodegradable municipal waste which is not sent to landfill"—
in other words, it covers that part of the BMW which does not go to landfill. Amendment No. 57, which is grouped with it, imposes a requirement upon the waste disposal authorities to:
"produce evidence as to amounts of waste, or of waste of any description, which is handled by measures other than being sent to landfill".
The amendments are intended to help prevent fly-tipping of those biodegradable wastes which are not landfilled. As we all know, fly-tipping is a significant, continuing and growing problem, both for farmers and owners of land and for the general community in both the town and the countryside. In relation to farmers and growers, in August 2000, the National Farmers Union conducted a telephone survey of 300 producers in which 25 per cent of them identified a significant increase in the incidence of fly-tipping on their land in the preceding year. Although the problems reported included all the things one would expect—abandoned cars, tyres, construction and building waste and so on—it also included a significant amount of household waste.
More recently, it surveyed 2,000 farmers and growers in the urban fringe, of whom 67 per cent reported that they suffer from fly-tipping. Probably the only thing that would surprise some of us about that is that the proportion is only 67 per cent. We are all aware of the extent of fly-tipping and anecdotal evidence and personal observation suggests that it is increasing not decreasing.
Fly-tipping is not merely unsightly. It is also a health hazard wherever it takes place. On farmland, it is a danger to grazing livestock; it is also a source of pollution. Often the owners of the land on which the material is tipped end up having to deal with the problem and being responsible for removing it. If they will not remove it, eventually the council will serve a notice on them to do so. The whole system is, therefore, worsening from an already bad position.
There is also increasing concern about fly-tipping from commercial establishments involved in operations, particularly catering, which involve biodegradable waste. We are all familiar with the increasing problem of people getting a takeaway and eating about a third of it before chucking it away. Whether it goes in the bottle bank, the waste paper bank, somebody's front garden or into a hedgerow, it is just as bad.
I am not suggesting that measures in the Bill will have a direct effect on the motivation of people who chuck away their uneaten curries, chicken chow meins, fish and chips or whatever it happens to be. There is, however, a concern that on the broader scale, the measures in the Bill may result in greater fly-tipping—greater unauthorised disposal of all kinds—of biodegradable waste that is not sent to landfill.
The purpose of the amendments is to place a duty upon the authorities at all levels in the system to monitor and provide information about—to keep a check on—not just the biodegradable waste that goes to landfill under the Bill but that which does not. Unless we know what is happening to that which does not, we do not know what problem it poses. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am bound to support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in these amendments because the problem of fly-tipping is universally offensive. Unfortunately, by definition it is impossible to measure it because it is unofficial and we do not know that fly-tipping has happened until it is too late. Even if it is reported, all too often—certainly in my part of the world—nothing happens and the poor old landowner is left facing a problem.
Many years ago, I even recall a dead sheep being dumped in one of my ditches in the middle of a major disease outbreak among livestock. When I reported that to the relevant authorities—both the Ministry of Agriculture and the local authority—they were not interested in the slightest. There is a problem with fly-tipping and out in open country people will get rid of lawn mowings, rose prunings—you name it.
To encourage the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we have tabled amendments relating to clauses towards the end of the Bill that we hope might relieve the pressure for fly-tipping, but we will deal with them when we reach them. I make that point, but I support the principle of anything that will help to get hold of that dreadful problem. Knowing about waste that does not go to landfill is just as important as knowing about waste which does.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Dixon-Smith, have now elucidated the objective of the amendments: it is primarily to deal with fly-tipping. I am not sure that this is the appropriate way to deal with fly-tipping. Later, the Committee will discuss Amendment No. 86, and I recognise a lot of what both noble Lords have said about the problem of fly-tipping. But we are here dealing with the tracing of municipal waste. Although some municipal waste may, regrettably, end up in fly-tipping, the bulk of flytipping—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, implied—comes from commercial or private sources, which are much more difficult to deal with.
The amendment may contribute towards controlling the problem, but it would not deal with the main problem of fly-tipping. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is important that we monitor what is happening to all sorts of material—not simply biodegradable municipal waste but all waste, whether or not it is going to landfill. Whether we need to monitor everything is another matter. Surveys are carried out to produce the wider picture; local authority efforts at improving recycling and composting performance continue to be upgraded, and that requires monitoring aspects. However, this way of amending the Bill is not the appropriate way to put that effort onto a more systematic basis and statutory footing.

GC 65
Indeed, in order to change the behaviour of local authorities in dealing with their waste, it would seem to us better to reshape the best value indicators for waste authorities. The indicators for each coming year are clear and transparent and are subject to public consultation. They can enable the creation of statutory targets, should we so wish—like the current targets for recycling and composting—and the returns made by the authorities will judge their performance against that target, rather than simply monitoring the information. That information would then be available for auditors—both the district auditor and the Audit Commission.
The amendments would require the complete separation of biodegradable waste. However desirable separation is, biodegradable waste does not usually come in separate waste streams; it is usually mixed with other materials. So a statutory requirement to track all municipal biodegradable waste could of itself present significant difficulties and resource implications for local authorities. We should not simply write that into the statute book, as would the amendment, without considering those implications. There may be a better way to ensure that local authorities meet the objectives, which we all share. For those reasons I resist the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and interested by his comments on how he believes that he can better tackle the problem in future. We shall read what he has to say in Hansard with great interest, as usual. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Scheme regulations]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8. line 10, leave out -make provision about what amounts to" and insert "define"
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Clause 10(2) contains a number of paragraphs that start with a general "make provision" but then go on to make provision about specific items. Paragraph (c) caused me some difficulty because I do not understand the terminology. It states:
"make provision about what amounts to the utilisation of landfill allowances".
Does that mean, "make provision defining the utilisation of landfill allowances" or "make provision about amounts of material may be used in landfill allowances"? Or what? If it really is to make provision defining the utilisation of landfill allowances, it would be much better if the Bill said so. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the amendment in the interests of plain English. It means something far clearer than the words in the Bill and comes to the point, which is a desirable effect.
Lord Whitty: I am of course always in favour of plain English—and rarely achieve it. I am not sure that the amendment would provide what the noble Lord seeks. At present, the Bill is an attempt to make clear that regulations make provision for what amounts to the utilisation, rather than including a definition of utilisation. That may be seen as somewhat obscure. The power is included to allow an allocating authority to determine whether utilisation of an allowance occurs until the end of the year—when the allowance occurs and allowances are reconciled with the waste sent to landfill—or whether utilisation occurs piecemeal, as and when waste is sent to landfill; and, if later, as soon as the allowances are acquired to cover waste already sent to landfill. So there are three different situations, all of which this reference attempts to cover. However, we shall define utilisation. I take the points made and I shall take the amendment away to consider whether the clarity of the English can be tidied up.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply. When I heard him read from his sheet that described what the provision actually did I thought that we were adding chaos to confusion. The Bill should be sufficiently clear and precise in its meaning that even an idiot such as me can understand it. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that he will look at the wording at this point to see whether it could be improved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before I call Amendment No. 55 I have to tell the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 56 or 57 because of pre-emption.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 14, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 55 is a slightly different problem. Again, this paragraph is not particularly clear. The reason we thought it best perhaps to leave it out comes back to the question of definitions. This is a probing amendment to find out what lies behind the provision. The problem in this case is not quite so flagrant as in the previous amendment. In this paragraph, we are into the business of,
"requirements on waste disposal authorities in the area to produce evidence as to amounts of waste, or of waste of any descript on".
I have some difficulty—waste is waste. What is this distinction between waste and "waste of any description"? I can understand the distinction between biodegradable waste and inert waste, but not a distinction between,
"amounts of waste, or waste of any description, sent to landfills in pursuance of arrangements made by them".
We are back to the issue of plain English. I wonder whether our Bill draftsmen occasionally have what I would call worditis and stick words in for amusement, or perhaps just to provoke me, though I am sure they would not do that. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is quite a tricky one. I have a written a note that says, "paragraph reads like gobbledegook". However, it is important to quantify amounts of waste and I am worried that if the whole paragraph is removed an important aspect of the Bill will not appear. There is a case for rewriting this paragraph with the essentials in it, but perhaps not in the way that is presented, which is quite difficult to understand. It is desirable that anyone who is acting on the objectives of the Bill can understand precisely what it encapsulates.
Lord Whitty: As I understand it, these two amendments are options. The first option in Amendment No. 55 would delete the whole of paragraph (e). As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has said, that would remove the requirement to provide evidence on the amounts of waste sent to landfills. Therefore, we would be in difficulty in meeting the targets, or at least having a robust evidence base to see whether we had met them.
There is an apparent problem of understanding the reference to "waste of any description", which Amendment No. 56 would remove. I am informed that the "amounts of waste" reference relates to waste as defined in the Bill from the framework directive, whereas allowing also for other waste to be monitored and evidence provided means that there will be some waste on which we would want evidence, which would be outside the terms of the directive. That is why the provision is included. Some explanation of the reasons for that will be needed, but we must include a provision that allows us to require evidence of how we dispose of waste other than that which is defined in the directive. We would need some provision. Again, we could always look at the language, but the intent will need to be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I always understood the need for the intention to be on the face of the Bill. That is why I prefaced my words with the fact that this was a probing amendment seeking information. I am now even more confused because apparently we have three types of waste: biodegradable waste; waste of any description; and, of course, a vast quantity of inert waste which also goes to landfill but which, if I understood the Minister's words correctly, is not to be recorded.
We need to consider this matter a little more carefully. It is essential to have information on what is happening because the capacity of any landfill site is finite. Up to a point, one can say when it is full but it always useful to know exactly. Certainly, historically, it is important to know what has been placed in the site. Ultimately, there is also the question of its future use. If the intention is not only to keep records of biodegradable waste but to deal with all other waste
GC 68
that goes to landfill, including inert waste, that is fine, but the Bill should state "and of all other waste". It is the words "any description" which cause confusion. I could not distinguish between that and inert waste. Once again, I ask the Minister to consider this matter in his response.
I have probably said enough. From what he said, the Minister realises there may be a problem. If he will nod his head strongly, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty: In order to prepare for that objective, I also want to say that this is a complex issue. It may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and to other Members of the Committee if I write down what was intended. On Report, we can then judge whether that is properly represented by these words or by some other proposition.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 8, line 18, leave out "make provision requiring" and insert "require"
The noble Lord said: I am sorry, but with this amendment we again return to the business of language. In this case, where the Bill states at page 8, line 18, "make provision requiring", why does it not simply say "require"? That would be one word instead of three. It would be far simpler but would have precisely the same effect and would still be good English. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As usual, I was deeply suspicious as to what lay behind the amendment and I therefore had difficulty in finding a substantial reply. If the good intent of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is simply to tidy up our English, then let us take the matter away to see whether it makes any difference. I shall undertake to return to him at a later stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I count that as quite a triumph. I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate;

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representatives of industry as he considers appropriate; and

(c) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate."

The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the need, when making regulations, to consult the interests of local government, representatives of industry, and the public in general. When I looked at the amendment in detail, I could not understand why it referred only to subsection (2)(d) rather than to the whole of subsection (2). These things happen when one compiles amendments. When they are being compiled, one thinks they are the most intelligent and important thing in the world. Then sometimes, when you read them afterwards, you wonder what on earth that means.
I have two questions about subsection (2)(d). The first relates to the whole subsection, which is about scheme regulations and the whole area in which regulations may be made. Noble Lords will remember that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, in its first report 2002–03, had some interesting things to say about the number and extent of the regulations that are set out in this legislation. Paragraph 26 said:
"The Bill is, effectively, almost a 'skeleton bill'".
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, read out a good deal of the comments on Second Reading. I will read a little of them again because they vital in the context of the regulations, both in relation to consultation and in relation to what kind of orders they should be—a matter to which we will come later.
The committee said:
"The bill is, effectively, almost a 'skeleton bill'. We have previously reported unfavourably on such bills, which leave many important matters to ministerial discretion. Even where the powers in the Bill are subject to affirmative procedure, Parliament can only Accept or reject what is proposed. It cannot amend it. Had this Bill applied only to England"—
this is the crucial bit—
"we would have considered seriously whether to recommend that some of what is proposed to be done by regulations should appear on the face of the bill."
The committee went on to explain why that situation had come about. We all understand that the Bill refers not just to England, where the powers are vested in the Secretary of State, but also to the devolved administrations, where the powers are quite rightly vested in the devolved authorities.
We shall deal later with whether the affirmative procedure should be used, so I will not pursue that further. However, I would like a general assurance about the consultation that will take place on all these regulations. Given that some of them would almost certainly have appeared on the face of the Bill, and if they had not, we would have been discussing a clear recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee that they should, then it is doubly important that the consultation that takes place is as strong as it possibly can be.
Secondly, what does subsection(2)(d) mean? The more I read it, the less I understand it. It may be absolutely clear if you understand what the words mean. However, if you do not understand what the
GC 70
words mean, as in the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it does not mean anything. It says that regulations may, in particular,
"make provision for determining the amount of biodegradable municipal waste in an amount of waste",
but for the life of me I cannot work out what that means. I would be grateful if the Minister could increase my general level of education by telling me. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in this amendment, particularly on the issue of consultation. It is essential that those who will be affected by these regulations are able to make their views known before the regulations are drafted. There is an obligation for consultation about the totality of a Bill but consultation comes into this Bill pretty rarely. I am not sure that the references that there are to it cover this specific point where we are really getting down to the nitty-gritty.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I too have a problem in that the Bill is designed for the United Kingdom, which unfortunately leaves England in a handicapped position vis-a-vis the regulations. Scotland can devise its own legislation in detail on the subject, if it so chooses. The Welsh Assembly has an absolute power, because of its function, to discuss the possibility of regulation in detail. The Northern Irish set up, where there is a hiatus at the moment, has such a power built into it. In this country, we have this clause and in due course, the Minister can write the regulations and Parliament can say yes or no. It would serve the Government right if one day someone said no, on principle, to all such regulations when they come forward because there has not been proper consultation. That has not happened yet but the more Bills of this kind that appear before us, the more likely that becomes. I therefore support the noble Lord.
Lord Hanningfield: I support that. Being involved in a Local Government Association, I take a particular interest. However, the Minister said, during some of his responses yesterday, that bodies would be consulted. Therefore, perhaps the fact that the wording of the amendment is not in the Bill is an oversight. The Minister may be able to confirm that such bodies will be consulted.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have a couple of points to make on this matter. It is absolutely essential that those who are deemed to carry out the duties should be consulted, and they should have been consulted a long time ago. What happened, for example, when the directive was discussed in the European Council or in the Parliament or wherever? Were local authorities involved in that? Were they consulted by those who were negotiating? I do not know how the Government makes arrangements for directives with the European Union. Were the local authorities consulted before the process began? That is a stage at which local authorities can have the greatest effect.
Secondly, were local authorities consulted and did they help with the construction of the Bill? They will have to put the Bill into practice, they may be penalised

GC 71
and they will have to find the money to cope with the Bill, possibly from their council tax payers, if the Government do not give them enough money to cope with the provisions in the Bill. I am extremely interested in the matter of consultation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can help.
Lord Hanningfield: I want to add something from the local authority point of view. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was involved in the Committee of the Regions for some time, as I have been. Unfortunately, until recently, the Committee of the Regions, the body that would be consulted, had not been consulted much on such matters. We are being given increasing responsibility and involvement in European legislation but for much of the earlier legislation, and in regard to this piece of legislation, local authorities had not been consulted or involved, although the European parliament is involved. Perhaps increasingly, with the new convention about the future of Europe, local authorities may become involved in such matters. At the moment, we often end up with legislation that is passed without local authorities having been involved.
Lord Whitty: On the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, it may be true that the Committee of the Regions was not consulted. Indeed, the role of that committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, indicates, is subject to some discussion now in relation to the legislative process. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the local authorities' domestic people are consulted. In fact, between them, DTLR and DEFRA were consulted four times on the implementation of the Landfill Directive and were informed while the directive was being drawn up. Two of those consultation documents, Limiting Landfill and Tradable Landfill Permits, solely concerned how to implement Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the directive—the articles with which this chapter deals. They were heavily involved in consultation about how to translate that into legislation here—consultation that is partly reflected in what we now propose. So I do not think that the domestic consultation was at fault. When we come to make regulations, they require consultation and we shall engage in that consultation in the normal way.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to imply that he wanted to withdraw the exact terms of the amendment because it was limited to subsection (2)(d), to which he did not wish to limit it—except insofar as he did not understand subsection (2)(d)—he wanted it to relate to all the regulations. He also referred to the Delegated Powers Committee. On the question of whether it is acceptable for the Bill to leave so much to delegated regulation for England, the Committee concluded:
"the extent of delegation is acceptable in the light of the position under this bill elsewhere in the United Kingdom."
GC 72
It then went on to comment on how those regulations should be made, which we will be moving onto when we discuss a later group of amendments. One cannot cite the Delegated Powers Committee as criticising the manner of these clauses.
The clause relates to all allocating authorities. I can give the assurance that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks, that as concerns England, there will be a consultation on the regulations. I should be surprised if that is not paralleled elsewhere, but it is a matter for the relevant authorities, not a matter for the Bill to lay down how that consultation should be carried out. We intend to consult on the regulations under the clause. I hope that that clarifies the issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister says that he will consult. Can he tell us exactly whom he will consult?
Lord Whitty: The consultation will certainly include all the waste disposal authorities and others involved with waste collection. I shall not give a definitive list because the private sector must also be involved. I suspect that we have a list that I could provide to those interested before Report, but it will include all those who are affected by this clause.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to intervene once again, but can the Minister tell us whether, when a consultation of this sort is undertaken, the proposition is posted on a website to which everyone has access and can respond should they feel so inclined?
Lord Whitty: That is now a normal procedure and I have just been informed that that will occur on this occasion. I withdraw the reference to the normal list because those on it will no doubt receive hard copies, but anyone will be able to respond to that consultation.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he gave about consultation in England, at least, which were helpful. It would be helpful if we could read the list of organisations and persons covered by what he said. I am not sure that he explained to me what the subsection means.
Lord Whitty: I apologise. I intended to return to that but forgot. The intention is to ensure that there is within the regulations a way of defining how much of any given mixed waste is likely to be biodegradable. There will be separated biodegradable waste but there will also be unseparated waste which has to enter into the calculations. If that is the case and biodegradable is only part of the waste stream and only part of that stream is municipal, the calculation based on the 1995 figures is that 63 per cent of the municipal stream is biodegradable. It is that fraction on which we shall be regulating and that is what this clause is about. My apologies for not responding to that immediately. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I leave matters in the capable hands of my noble friend Lady Farrington.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that explanation and think I now understand what the provision means. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 8, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to deal with the situation of one authority having to be fined or having problems because of difficulties caused by another authority. We raised this issue yesterday. We wish to remove the subsection to stop this anomaly.
We went through this in considerable detail yesterday. I mentioned Essex, where there are 12 collecting authorities and one disposal authority. The disposal authority could be fined, through no fault of its own, because one of the collecting authorities, for political reasons or some other reasons, had not met its targets. There ought to be a mechanism to cater for disposal authorities that have problems through no fault of their own. Amendment No. 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tackles this problem, which needs to be addressed. We discussed it at the earlier stage but I am afraid that this one will not go away. An authority should not be fined or get into particular problems on this through no fault of its own. Some mechanism must be found to prevent that. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have a great deal of sympathy with the position that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, finds himself in in Essex. These problems may also arise in other parts of England. It is a little concerning that, as I understand it, the amendment would remove the means of penalising a waste disposal authority. That is an important principle. None the less, as the noble Lord has said, there must be some way of dealing with the particular circumstances that obtain in his area and others. I ask the Minister to consider this situation most carefully. We may need to put something additional into the Bill. I am sure that advice will be forthcoming.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 142 and 146 are grouped with the amendment of my noble friend. Amendment No. 142 comes in a clause on penalties generally. We find it somewhat strange that, having created a scheme of penalties, the allocating authority calculates the amount of penalty and then has the power to defer payment of the penalty and could also defer the payment of interest on the penalty. Therefore, the allocating authority, having penalised somebody, also has the power to go a long way towards obviating the effect of the penalty. One really wonders quite what the point of the whole exercise is. Presumably, if the penalties are to have any impact—and we have heard of many failures—they will have to be substantial. If they are to be substantial and supposedly have effect, why is there a power to obviate the complete effect by deferring payment and deferring interest? We found a bit of confused thinking in
GC 74
Clause 25 and we felt that if the penalties were paid it would be quite nice if, since the penalties were for people causing some sort of problem with a tip, that money was used to benefit the environment of the immediate vicinity. Amendment No. 146 is designed to give effect to that. They are not irrational amendments; they are quite sensible.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 146 deals with the recurring issue of hypothecation. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we intend to deal with that in the way that my noble friend the Minister mentioned earlier. This is quite a convenient time to clarify the difference and the distinction between civil penalties and penalties for criminal offences. The Bill makes provision for civil financial penalties if waste disposal authorities exceed their allocation of allowances. It also makes provision for a waste disposal authority to be liable to a penalty where it fails to comply with a requirement imposed by regulations under Clause 11, such as the requirement to maintain records. Clauses 6(3), 7(3) and 10(3) also enable regulations to provide for waste disposal authorities to be liable to a penalty. Clause 25 provides for the amount of such penalties or a formula for calculating them to be set by regulation.
These are clearly distinguishable from the penalties for offences. Clauses 6 and 7 permit allocating authorities to create offences for breaches of regulation. An example of an offence that may be created is knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information to the monitoring authority. The Bill sets out maximum penalties for such offences, which we discussed yesterday.
Clause 12 provides for a landfill operator to be guilty of an offence—for example, failing to supply information or obstructing an inspector—and sets out the penalties.
These are all civil penalties. Amendment No. 60 would take away the provision for a penalty for breaches of the rules at the scene such as a failure to provide evidence on how much biodegradable waste has been sent to landfill. Such evidence is clearly vital to the ability of the monitoring authority in each area of the UK to ensure compliance with the scheme and therefore to enable us to meet our international obligations. Most of the commentators during consultation have made it clear that any system of landfill allowances will also need to have attached to it significant penalties for failure to comply with the limits imposed within the system. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, recognised that the absence of such penalties could mean that there is no real incentive for waste disposal authorities to meet their limits. Any sanction must be sufficient to incentivise the investments implied, either in traded allowances or infrastructure, by meeting those limits.
For this reason we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 60 or 145 as those sanctions are a key to the success of the scheme. At the same time, referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we do not wish to take money out of the local authorities when it would be best used for the

GC 75
investment required for the UK to meet its international obligations. We therefore believe it is important to give the allocating authority in each area of the UK the ability to waive part or all of the penalty or the interest that may be payable on it where circumstances make that the appropriate course of action. An example is where the landfill allowance is exceeded by only a very small amount, and where there are clear plans for improvement. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for the whole penalty to be applied. There may be other such cases where we believe that it is important for that authority to have such a power and the ability to take into account the particular circumstances facing the authority.
While there are good reasons to be able to keep track of the amount paid in penalties, the Government could not accept hypothecation which would take resources out of the waste disposal section in those circumstances. Perversely, for once the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would be arguing against retention of resources within the sector. We cannot accept those amendments. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw them. I apologise for speaking at length.
Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify one point. Originally my amendment was devised because of the problem in virtually 60 per cent of England where there are two-tier authorities. Essex has 12 districts. At the moment, none of them meets its recycling targets despite the pressure that we are placing on them. They are not investing enough money.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said is important. If the Environment Agency is to be the allocating authority and if it were not the county council's fault, the Environment Agency could say that there would be no penalty to Essex County Council until the districts have been sorted out because it would be the districts' fault. Is the noble Baroness saying that? If the disposal authority were not at fault, but for some reason, due to the fault of others, the targets were being breached, the Environment Agency would have the power to waive the penalty. Is that what is being said?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I clearly said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that where there was a minor variation, that would be logical particularly if steps were being taken. I am sure that he would understand that, if I placed on record the fact that if the districts were failing to do anything to improve the future pattern, there would be no sanction, that would be an unwise and counterproductive statement. The allocating authority, which is the Secretary of State, would have the power to relieve penalties and not the Environment Agency.
I have listened carefully. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Dixon-Smith, know that I have listened with knowledge and with understanding to the points that have been made about those parts of England that have two-tier authorities with separate collection and disposal
GC 76
authorities. We are giving consideration to the points that they have raised. I understand the point that is being made, and I have no doubt that it will be referred to later today. We do not believe that the amendments would help that situation. Perversely, they could work against it.
Lord Hanningfield: The reply of the noble Baroness is helpful. We hope to hear more about that later today, and if not, certainly at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 8, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: On this amendment I return to the nature of orders and regulations made under the Bill and whether they should be negative instruments or affirmative instruments. When I moved Amendment No. 59, I referred to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which there was debate. I shall not go over that ground again. The other amendments in this group, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seem on reflection to be better ones to tag this debate on to. That does not matter; we can debate it as a whole.
It seems that, but for devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, some of the regulations that will be made under this Bill would be dealt with in primary legislation. If this were simply an English Bill, the issues would be dealt in primary legislation. Those of us who want to move amendments at later stages have to get our minds round which provisions that applies to. There is a prima facie case for saying that any regulation that in different circumstances would have been contained in primary legislation should be an affirmative instrument and not a negative instrument. Does the Committee understand the point I am making?
Some of the regulations in this Bill are clearly ordinary regulations that would normally be negative instruments. However, some need to be considered as possible affirmative instruments because of the nature of them. The argument procedure at least provides slightly more scrutiny when the order comes to Parliament. It is still not satisfactory because it is still on the "take it or leave it" basis, whereas primary legislation is subject to scrutiny in Committee.
If the Government have their mind round this, it would be helpful to know which of the regulations set out in this Bill would have been in the Bill itself in the circumstances I have talked about. If the Government are able to tell us that in an honest way, it would at least inform the debate and narrow it down to more than just all the regulations in the Bill which we are

GC 77
talking about at the moment. In the hope that the Minister will be able to give us helpful information on this, I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My amendments are Amendments Nos. 148, 150 and 151, grouped with this. Their impact is designed to make all regulations under Part 1, Chapter 1 of this Bill subject to positive resolution because, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already said—which I will repeat only once, like the man in "'Allo, 'Allo"—it guarantees greater parliamentary scrutiny. I readily accept that some of the regulating powers in this part of the Bill might not have that applying to them normally. Because of the way the Bill is constructed, however, we have to do it this way. I support the noble Lord.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments address the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee, who recommend that there should be provision in the Bill to debate the way in which the wide powers of the Bill will be used. The Committee recommended that the first use of the powers in England should be subject to affirmative resolution. These are matters for the Scottish Ministers on amendments relating to Scotland and we wish to discuss them further with those ministers. We will look more closely at the recommendations of the Select Committee on regulations that relate wholly to England and give further views on Report. I hope that in the light of these comments, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which was as helpful as I was hoping it might be. It would help if we could have advance information of what the Government's intention may be on Report, so that we can react accordingly. We do not want to go over the top if what we are doing is similar to what the Government would like to do. The sooner we can have clear information on what the Government propose to do, the easier it will be for us to respond and the better the House will proceed with its business.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can give that undertaking, because quite patently it is in everyone's interests that all Members receive the earliest possible information.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Disclosure of information by monitoring and allocating authorities]:
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 10, line 4, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment which leaves out the word "may" and inserts the word "shall". It is important that there is a duty for that
GC 78
provision to be carried out. We wish to enforce the matter. The amendment refers to Clause 13(1) which states:
"A monitoring authority may disclose any of its monitoring information to any other monitoring authority".
We seek to change the wording to:
"A monitoring authority shall disclose any of its monitoring information to any other monitoring authority".
That would enable the information to be much more widely spread, which is important.
Amendment No. 64 removes reference to "any allocating authority". I interpret that as meaning that monitoring information will become freely available—that is a matter of freedom of information—so that the public know what is happening. Amendment No. 65 seeks to replace "may" with "shall", and I make the same points as I did when speaking to Amendment No. 63.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 are in the group. Their purpose is simple: to try to retain what I would call normal lines of communication between the different levels of government within the United Kingdom. It seems to me entirely appropriate for one allocating authority to talk to another allocating authority; in other words, England should talk to Scotland or England should talk to Wales. It is also entirely appropriate that the allocating authority in England should talk to the monitoring authority in England, and it is entirely appropriate that the allocating authority in Scotland should talk to the monitoring authority in Scotland.
However, the Bill appears to imply that the allocating authority in England can cross-examine or obtain information from the monitoring authority in Scotland and the monitoring authority in Scotland can cross-examine the monitoring authority in England. I believe that that cuts across what I would regard as the normal lines of communication and creates some diagonals which may be unfortunate. I would have thought that if English waste were to be disposed of in Scotland, recorded by the Scottish monitoring authority, the proper line of communication would be for the English allocating authority to ask the Scottish allocating authority what information it was receiving from its monitoring authority. I am sure that the information would be made available and, in that way, the normal etiquette, as I understand it, would be preserved.
The problem arises when there are diagonal lines of communication. Perhaps the diagonal lines of communication already exist and we have a confused pattern of communication. It is not necessary for the Scottish Parliament to go to an English government department if it wants to question someone who, in a sense, is doing something in England on behalf of Scotland. Perhaps I have a confused state of mind—it is not unknown.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In reply, perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify for me the difference between "may" and "shall". When I have been involved in other Bills and there has been a move to substitute "may" with "shall", I have usually been told that "may" means "shall" anyway. There really is a difference and it could well be that it is not in the interests of one monitoring authority to disclose information to another. There may be a good reason for that. If we insert the word "shall", then the authorities will have to disclose information, whether they like it or not and whether or not there are good operational or policy reasons why they should not. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clear up my confusion.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I can deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the meaning of the words "may" and "shall". It is my understanding that the meaning of a word can vary according to the way in which it is used.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am more confused than ever.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: However, on this occasion, "may" would permit allocating authorities and monitoring authorities to disclose, while "shall" would require them to do it. I shall come back in a moment to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart made, with which I agree.
I also hope to return to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the question of diagonal lines of communication between different authorities within different countries within the United Kingdom. It may be more logical for me to write to him and to other Members of the Committee about lines of communication and organisation. I shall see whether that is the case when I have finished replying to the other points.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 65 would make it a requirement for the monitoring authority to disclose information to other monitoring authorities and to allocating authorities and for allocating authorities to disclose information to other allocating authorities. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 would remove the power to disclose any information to any other allocating authority. I have the sense here that this group of amendments is going in both directions and that the Government are being reasonable and balanced, taking a middle course between the two lines that the different amendments advocate.
For England, it is important that the information available to the monitoring authority is made available to the allocating authority so that a check can be made on whether the requirements of the Bill are being kept. This point relates to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that it was particularly important for information to be shared between monitoring and allocating authorities in countries of the UK which took part in the trading scheme. Clearly, it should also take place here. The trading scheme can work only if such an exchange takes place. In that way, all trades can be monitored and the owners of allowances can be ascertained.
GC 80
However, this power has been made permissive as not all allocating authorities will make regulations permitting the trading of allowances.
We have returned to the whole issue of devolution. Where trading is not permitted—this is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—it will not be necessary for an allocating authority to disclose information to other monitoring authorities and allocating authorities. We do not believe that they should be forced to do that. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments. I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the complex issue of diagonal lines of communication between different countries within the UK.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: In view of that explanation, can the Minister say why it would not be simpler, clearer and altogether better to state in the Bill that the information shall be disclosed in the circumstances that she outlined, rather than to say that it may be disclosed? People might not know what "may" means.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That may be a logical point. Without any commitment whatever, I shall undertake to look at that. If what the noble Lord says is correct I shall wish to return to the matter.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This debate has been useful. Before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spoke, I had not understood that the circumstances which he described were a possibility. I can understand that that could be the case. I believe it would be better if the matter were in the public domain. On the other hand, we are looking at trading and there are aspects that perhaps should be confidential. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Registers: public access]:
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 10, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 67 is grouped with Amendment No. 68 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which I also support. This is also a may/shall issue. Clause 15 relates to the matter of public access to registers. I have read this carefully in the light of the discussion that we have had. It states:
"An allocating authority may, in relation to a register that a person is required to maintain by regulations under this Chapter made by the authority, by regulations—
(a) make provision for public inspection".
It seems to me that the word "shall" is appropriate here because in some circumstances it may not be necessary for a person to require to maintain, and so on, so the position would not arise. The word "shall" would apply if and when such registers are maintained.
This matter concerns making provision for public inspection of the register or such of the information contained in the register as is of a description specified by the regulations, or making provision for members of the public to obtain copies of information in the register. It seems to us that the case for making that information publicly available is incontrovertible. I do not believe that the Government can say that there are circumstances in which such registers will exist but to which the public should not have access to the information. Perhaps they will clarify that. Do they say that if the registers exist the public must have access to them? If that is so, I believe that they agree with the amendment.
The aim of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is to make provision for public inspection of the register rather than of that part of the register that the Government believe they should see. The fundamental question is whether any parts of those registers should not be open to public access, and if so which parts. We want clear answers from the Government on this. If we do not receive satisfactory answers. we shall return to the issue later. For the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and shall also speak to my amendment in the group. The Bill appears to imply that there are two registers: a register of information that may be available to the public and a register of information that should not be made available to the public. The Bill does not put it like that, of course: it puts it all in one register and then, by regulation, the Minister has power to differentiate the information. That means that if the public want to see the register they have to get the extracts that they are allowed to see out of it, which is a lot of trouble for somebody.
In local government we were familiar with this problem a long time ago. My noble friends who have local government experience will recognise it immediately: we had to have on agenda papers for local authorities a differentiation between the generality of the business that was entirely appropriate to be made public and the confidential information, which might have been of a commercial nature and therefore should not—although I am not sure that I can see what confidential information there might be on the registers that should not be available to the public. We have tabled a straightforward amendment to try to simplify the situation and give the public full access. However, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply because it may be that the distinction that had to be made in local government is envisaged as essential in this area. If that is the case, we ought to make the distinction clear on the face of the Bill rather than leave in the rather exotic words that the Minister can define by regulation what the public are not allowed to see because it would be so frightfully dangerous or offensive and we should not upset them. I have some difficulty with that as a proposition, given the very tolerant nature of the society in which we live today. I would prefer to have straightforward, clear
GC 82
access to a register of information unless there is a good reason why some information should be held back.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We believe that all relevant information should be in the public domain, except for sensitive financial details, pricing and trading details, which it is not in the public interest to have in the public domain—if I can put it that way. Other than that type of sensitive information, we intend to operate an open and transparent trading system. The scheme will have to operate that way to be successful. We agree on objectives, but the amendments would require an allocating authority to make regulations providing for public inspection of the register that is required to be maintained under Chapter 1 of the Bill. That is the difficulty, because we would be turning a permissive power for an appropriate authority to do that into a mandatory one. There may be circumstances in which the sensitive part—and only that part—would have to be withheld from the public domain. I hope that with those assurances noble Lords will be happy not to press the amendments.
Lord Greaves: I shall withdraw the amendment in a moment, but I am less happy with the Minister's response than I was with her response to the debate on the previous amendment. We shall look very carefully at what she said when it is written down. This is probably an issue to which we shall return in order to find wording which is more satisfactory and which reflects more accurately what she said than what appears to be written down now. With that firing shot across the bows, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Strategy for England]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11, line 3, leave out "reducing"
The noble Lord said: This is a large group of amendments which all have a common purpose. That purpose is to give a slightly greater degree of clarity to the Bill than exists at present. The amendments have an interesting parentage in that originally they come from Friends of the Earth, and I am amused to find myself proposing them.
The strategy for England and those for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all the same. The Secretary of State must have a strategy for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste from England and from outside England. It is simply a question of whether the wording on the face of the Bill is clearer than that in our amendments.
We believe that the wording in our amendments is clearer. Under the wording in the Bill, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to achieve the level of reduction in biodegradable waste going for landfill that he required by adjusting solely the amount that came from, say, England and not adjusting the

GC 83
amounts that came from Wales and Scotland, or vice versa. The same would apply to Wales and Scotland. Therefore, the slightly ridiculous situation could arise whereby we could reduce our national waste and, in a sense, relieve our burden by shoving the stuff over the border into Wales or Scotland and the Welsh and the Scots could do the same. One could set up a wonderful merry-go-round.
It was because the suspicion existed that that might be possible that we simply suggested shifting the position of these words. That would be consistent with amendments relating to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. My advice that these amendments have no effect in substance does not appear to tally with the noble Lord's interpretation. Probably the best thing that I can do is to undertake to look carefully at what the noble Lord said. Either he and his advisers or my advisers have misunderstood the result of this group of amendments. Without any commitment—I do not know what I would be committing the Government to—perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to study this particular aspect of the Bill. It is in no one's interest that there should be the least doubt as to precisely what the Bill means. It was only because of the way that this question was raised that I felt it worth troubling the Committee with this problem. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) the amount of waste sent to incineration"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 72 is the first of a series of amendments tabled to Clause 16, which is invitingly entitled, "Strategy for England". It is not surprising, in those circumstances, that between them, the amendments cover a wide range of issues.
Subsection (1) begins:
"The Secretary of State must have a strategy for reducing—
(a) the amount of biodegradable waste from England that goes to landfills, and
(b) the amount of biodegradable waste from outside England".
Amendment No. 72 inserts a new subsection to read
"the amount of waste sent to incineration".
We tabled the amendment because the whole question of waste going to landfill—particularly biodegradable waste going to landfill—and incineration are closely related. There is a danger that putting pressure on waste disposal authorities to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill will make incineration a more attractive option, which we
GC 84
do not want. I do not want, at this stage, to start a huge debate about the merits or otherwise of incineration. The purpose of the amendment is to discover from the Government what is their policy and approach to the amount of waste that is incinerated.
Amendment No. 105 does not belong in this group and should be in the next group—although it is a technical point which does not matter too much. All the other amendments in this group also relate to incineration and related matters in the different devolved administrations. I shall therefore speak only to Amendment No. 72.
Yesterday, I received a report that set out the number of waste incinerators in England and proposals for new ones. The impression that I gained from that is that incineration is a growing business and that the number of incinerators around the country is increasing. On the back of the amendment, I want to ask the Government: what is their policy in relation to the amount of biodegradable municipal waste, or other incinerable waste, that will go to incineration? Do they believe that the present level should be maintained and not increased; that the present level will be and should be increased; or, do they believe with us, that, wherever possible, it should be reduced? That is the fundamental question behind the amendment and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, these amendments concern the strategies for each part of the United Kingdom required under Clauses 16 to 19. Each of those clauses requires there to be a strategy to fulfil the requirements of Article 5.1 of the Landfill Directive, which obliges member states to have a national strategy.
Amendment No. 105 seeks to extend the statutory scope of the strategy beyond its main purpose. Amendment No. 105 would add waste other than biodegradable waste, such as construction and industrial waste, for which local authorities do not have responsibility and which therefore lie outside the scope of the relevant provisions of the Landfill Directive to the requirement to create a strategy for Wales. That amendment, and Amendments Nos. 90, 97, 102, 109, 115 and 122 all relate to parts of the UK outside England. The general issue of sustainable waste management is devolved. The wider strategy issues are for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly and the Department of Environment in Northern Ireland to determine, not for Parliament under the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the first two amendments in this group require the strategy for England to set out how it will reduce the amount of waste sent to incineration. That is a broad provision as it applies to all waste streams. I presume that it is not, in fact, intended to extend it to, for example, hazardous or clinical waste. However, as the Committee recognised yesterday, the issue of incineration often revolves around the treatment and disposal of that small part of the overall waste stream that is municipal waste.

GC 85
All commentators and analysts agree that the Landfill Directive targets for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste away from landfill are already immensely stretching for the authorities concerned. As much as 30 million tonnes of waste per year may have to be diverted from landfill if we cannot arrest the current rate of growth.
In England, we currently landfill around 80 per cent of municipal waste, but we incinerate less than 10 per cent—against the European average of 20 per cent or more. In answer to the specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the Government have no plans for constructing or aiming for a particular number of incinerators, and the choice for waste treatment facilities is up to local authorities.
Our aim is to try to slow down and reverse the growth of waste and recycle as much as we can of the waste that is produced. Whether we shall need more incineration in future will crucially depend on the success of these measures. That cannot be predicted at this stage.
I therefore regret that the Government cannot commit to a requirement in primary legislation to reduce incineration when it may be that at some point in future, the need for some small increase may occur. I am certain that the noble Lord will want to think carefully about what I have said. He may want to return to it in future. However, I hope that he now feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation and reply. I am not sure whether she was inciting me to come back later with further amendments. I am sure she was not, but it sounded a little like that. The Minister knows it will make no difference whether she tries to incite me or not; I will do what I think is right.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord that all I was doing was seeking to prevent him from feeling that he had to explain to me that he would be returning to the amendment.
Lord Greaves: I am not prepared to give that commitment. We can all play the same game. I am grateful to the Minister for rapping me over the knuckles on the question of inappropriately including devolved administrations in this group of amendments, and for pointing out that devolved powers should not be brought back to this Parliament. I entirely agree and thank her for that, and rather hastily withdraw from that set of amendments.
On the lead amendment, I think that the Minister said that the Government have no policy on the number of incinerators, and that it is all down to local government. If that is what the Minister said, that is interesting, but I shall read carefully in Hansard exactly what she said regarding the Government's policy. It is extraordinary if the Government are saying that they have no policy over the number of incinerators that will be required because that is a matter for local authorities to sort out. I am as strongly
GC 86
in favour of local devolution, control and decision-making, as anyone, but something as important as this requires a national strategy. I note that that is no-t the view of the Strategy Unit, in its recently published report, which suggests that there should be an attempt to reduce the amount of waste going to incineration. We will no doubt have many opportunities to discuss the matter in future.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I noticed that the noble Baroness made the comparison between this country and some other countries in Europe. We incinerate 10 per cent and they incinerate 20 per cent, which is an enormous difference. Has the noble Lord made any calculation of how many additional incinerators we would need if we were to meet the European average?
Lord Greaves: I have made no such calculations. I am sure that even the most avid proponent of absolute uniformity across Europe would not suggest that, on matters such as incinerators, we should regard it as a matter of policy to go to the European average. I have always taken the general view that we should be trying to lead the rest of Europe in whatever direction we think is right, and hope that they follow us. I know that the noble Lord does not believe that that is ever possible and that we always have to kow-tow to some mythical gang of bureaucrats, but I am afraid that I cannot provide him with the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) the amount of construction and demolition waste from England that goes to landfill;

( ) the amount of construction and demolition waste from outside England that goes to landfills in England;

( ) the amount of commercial and industrial waste from England that goes to landfill;

( ) the amount of commercial and industrial waste from outside England that goes to landfills in England;

( ) the amount of end of life electrical and electronic equipment from England that goes to landfill;

( ) the amount of end of life electrical and electronic equipment from outside England that goes to landfills in England;

( ) the amount of end of life vehicles from England that goes to landfill; and

( ) the amount of end of life vehicles from outside England that goes to landfills in England."

The noble Lord said: This is another collection of items that we should like to include under the strategy. This group of amendments should include Amendment No. 105, which was turfed out of the previous group, and should not include Amendment No. 106, which belongs in the group starting with Amendment No. 77. But those are details and no doubt I shall have my knuckles rapped again for trying to involve matters which are properly the concern of devolved administrations. I accept that before I start.
Amendment No. 73 is misprinted in the Marshalled List and the first two proposed subsections appear twice—it shows a commendable enthusiasm for our amendment to print them twice, but I should point out that it is unnecessary. That leaves six subsections, four of which cover the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the matter of end of life vehicles. We discussed that in some detail in relation to the first amendment that we discussed yesterday, so it would be wasting the Committee's time if we discussed them in detail again—save to say that we believe that the Bill really ought to be more over-arching and it ought to include those matters, but we have made that point before.
The substantive new point here is the question of the amount of construction and demolition waste from England that goes to landfill. That forms the majority of landfill anyhow. It makes the major claim on the holes in the land and the new hills that people may build—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred yesterday. This is a probing amendment to ask the Government: what is their strategy for construction and demolition waste? Do they believe in a strategy that will result in a reduction in the volume of that important waste that goes to landfill—a huge amount of which, with reasonable treatment, can be used again? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments concern the strategy for each part of the United Kingdom required under Clauses 16 to 19 to fulfil the Landfill Directive requirement to have a national strategy for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfill. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about not pursuing issues that have rightfully been devolved to other administrations. That may lead to some amendments possibly not being moved later in the groupings list.
Amendment No. 92—I will delete the reference to Amendment No. 106 in the light of the noble Lord inserting Amendment No. 105—and Amendment No. 106C relate to parts of the UK outside England and therefore can be left on one side.
Amendment No. 73 would extend the statutory scope for the strategy for England well beyond the main purpose. As the noble Lord said, it would add waste other than biodegradable waste, such as construction and industrial waste. The Government agree with the need to reduce in this area. The aggregate levy is used to encourage reuse. Landfill tax at £12 a tonne on this waste is also an incentive to achieve the objective that the noble Lords rightfully identified.
Many of these are matters that the Government would wish to cover in any waste strategy for England. Indeed, the Waste Strategy 2000 does so. We will review that strategy in the light of the recommendations or, as the noble Lords recognise, of the Strategy Unit report. We do not believe there is a need to include in the Bill everything that should be
GC 88
contained in the general waste strategy for England. The main purpose of Clause 16 is to give effect to the Landfill Directive, not to provide for a strategy—as the noble Lord heard us say yesterday—for electrical waste, for example, which is not biodegradable. I hope the noble Lord will feel I have answered the points he raised and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves: On a similar basis to the previous amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) the amount of inert waste that goes to landfill in England"
The noble Lord said: I need to make two apologies at the start of my remarks. The first is that I have to confess that I took my eye off the grouping ball on this one, for which I apologise. However, so did the Government Whips Office and so did the department.
My second apology is to the Minister, because what I now say may throw her papers into confusion for a few moments. Amendment No. 75 is parallel with Amendments Nos. 91, 103 and 117, and Amendment No. 76, which is grouped with this one, is parallel with Amendments Nos. 93, 103 and 117, because we are now dealing with the strategies and the legislation that sets them up and backs them. These first two amendments apply to England, the second two apply to Scotland, the third two apply to Wales and the fourth two apply to Northern Ireland. We did not manage to get the amendments grouped correctly, for which I apologise. The answer is perhaps that we debate the issue on these and when we get to the subsequent amendments discretion might be the better part of valour and we should say no more. Even I may miss that as we go through but I will try and stick to that.
The important point that we want to make on Amendment No. 75—and it has to apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—is that although the Bill is concerned with domestic biodegradable waste, that comprises only about 30 or 35 per cent of the amount of material that goes to landfill. There ought to be a strategy for reducing the amount of inert waste that goes to landfill as well. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have to consider that. That is the rationale behind Amendment No. 75 and its parallel amendments. While under the European regulation we have to have a strategy for domestic biodegradable waste, there is the wider issue of inert wastes, and they need to be considered also.
Amendment No. 76 appears to be reasonable. We need to work very hard to reduce the volume of waste we produce in the first instance, before it becomes waste. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is a strong advocate of this. We have a throw-away culture and we need to reverse that. Amendment No. 76 has that thought as its prime motivation and again it is parallel through Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I see that the noble Baroness is shuffling her

GC 89
papers. I apologise that we did not get this right but I am surprised that everybody else missed it as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My recollection is that the split did not occur until there was some regrouping of amendments. On the issue of strategies beyond the framework within which we are seeking to achieve the reduction of biodegradable waste to meet the European Landfill Directive, many, if not all, of the amendments referring to the devolved administrative countries of the UK refer to matters that are their responsibility within the powers that have been devolved to them. Because the Bill is defined in a particular way, to deal with that directive and what we should be doing, the Government do not wish to extend the statutory scope beyond this main purpose
The amendment, which adds inert waste, is a different area in that a significant proportion of inert waste will be produced by industry, for which local authorities do not have responsibility. That lies outside the relevant provisions of the Landfill Directive. Amendment No. 76, which describes the way in which the strategy should be delivered, is far too prescriptive. I experience this as a householder in my home city of Preston. It is appropriate for that local authority to adopt that strategy, but the noble Lord goes too far in suggesting that one method should be used everywhere.
The Waste Strategy 2000, which is outwith the Bill, is aimed at reducing inert waste. Here we are dealing with a strategy to cope with those elements of waste that either pollute water or release methane. The strategy that we have adopted, in response to the very important issues the noble Lord has raised, is a far wider one. As we explained yesterday, many of these issues will be dealt with in our response to the Strategy Unit report. I note with gratitude that both noble Lords acknowledge the importance of recognising the devolved situation. I therefore hope I will not have to repeat my comments on amendments dealing with Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In defence of our amendments relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they deal with matters on the face of the Bill. Clause 17 deals with the strategy for Scotland and the wording is virtually identical to that of the strategy for England. Clause 18 deals with the strategy for Wales with virtually identical wording and Clause 19 deals with the strategy for Northern Ireland, again with virtually identical wording. It therefore seemed that if I were going to amend the Bill for England, I would have to amend it for the other countries as well. It did not seem improper in view of the fact that we are already imposing responsibilities on Scottish Ministers, on the Welsh Assembly and on Northern Ireland. It is entirely proper, therefore, to suggest that.
I heard what the Minister said about inert wastes. If there is a strategy for diminishing these elsewhere and the matter is covered satisfactorily—and I shall read
GC 90
what she has said with care—we may not need to pursue this. Furthermore, I agree that telling householders how they should dispose of their waste in order to put pressure on them is somewhat dictatorial. I am not particularly in favour of that. In the end, somehow, we have to go beyond merely the sort of talking that takes place in chambers like this and to exert persuasion on them. This was just one way of looking at that. Again, I shall study what the Minister has said.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record, I would like to make plain that I was not saying that householders should not be required, by the waste collection authority, to comply with the scheme that is most appropriate for that particular neighbourhood. I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to misunderstand that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: No, I understood that absolutely. The reply is what I expected, but this is perhaps not appropriate for the face of the Bill. However, we have to ensure that the issue is covered and that it will be dealt with. We hope it will come from the waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities. We will see. The issue needed raising, so I do not apologise for moving these amendments. I will try to avoid picking them up when we come to them later in the Bill because at the moment, they are not correctly grouped, for which I apologise. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—

"( ) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for—

( ) providing every household with either a home composter or a separate collection of biodegradable waste;

( ) providing every household with a separate collection for the recycling of dry recyclable waste;

( ) reducing, by 2010, the quantity of waste arisings, including waste arisings from households, from 2002 levels."

The noble Lord said: These are more amendments similar in nature to ones that we have recently discussed. I recognise what the Minister said about devolved administrations. She does not need to repeat it. However, I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is interesting that biodegradable municipal waste is a matter for this Parliament and for the Government of the United Kingdom and all other sorts of waste are not. I understand why that is being said but we find ourselves in an interesting position.
Amendment No. 77 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 78, 94, 95, 106, 107 and 120. The last amendments, Amendment No. 94 onwards, concern devolved matters, so I shall say nothing more about them.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 include four matters, two of which are virtually identical to those that have just been raised in Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so I shall say nothing more about those. They probe what the Government have to say about their policy on those matters. The two new matters raised in these amendments are home composting and the proposal for a mandatory doorstep recycling scheme in all local authorities not later than 31st December 2006. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about those. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, indicated, the amendments concern the strategy for England in Clause 16 of the Bill. That requires the Secretary of State to have a strategy for reducing biodegradable waste to fulfil the requirements of Article 5(1) of the European Landfill Directive, which obliges member states to have such a national strategy. Many of these amendments seek to extend the statutory scope of the strategy beyond its main purpose. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to prescribe the way in which that strategy should be delivered—for example, through home composting or compulsory kerbside collection of materials—and to set statutory targets other than for the reduction of landfill.
A single system, such as kerbside recycling, will not always be appropriate in every place. Our approach, therefore, has been to specify the outcomes that we need to achieve and not how they are to be delivered, thus leaving councils free to adopt solutions most appropriate to their particular circumstances. One solution may be appropriate for Harlow in Essex but a small, sparsely populated, rural community may require a different solution. Both solutions may be equally valid in terms of meeting the targets that are agreed. Many of the matters raised in the amendments that seek to extend the scope of the Bill will be considered in the context of the developing waste strategy outwith the Bill.
The other amendments in this group cover the position in other countries. I note that the noble Lord recognises that they are not for Parliament to consider under this Bill. We seek to impose a minimum constraint upon the devolved administrations but together the component parts of the United Kingdom make up the country as a whole which is required to meet the directive targets.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In relation to this group of amendments, which is very ambitious, I simply do not know how we shall incorporate some of these matters mentioned in Amendment No. 78 by December 2006. It is very ambitious and probably over-ambitious. I agree with the Minister that a great deal has to be left to the local authorities, because local authorities have different problems. The configuration of their towns and cities is also very different for which they need different strategies.
GC 92
One has to realise that this will be an imposition on individuals in households. Many households are so small that they cannot accommodate one dustbin, let alone two. Therefore, one cannot really have a single strategy and think only about the local authority and the waste disposal and waste collection people. One has to think of the people on the ground—the householders—on whom are imposed enormous amounts of unsolicited waste which somehow has to be disposed of. The local authorities are the only bodies to whom they can turn. There has to be a pact between them and the local authorities if the system is to work properly. We must not be too prescriptive from the centre. We should certainly give guidance to local authorities and let them know of the best practices in this country and, indeed, others. However, to impose things from the centre would be to go along the wrong road.
I return to what I said at Second Reading. We should try to persuade industry, retailers and commerce to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that they produce. I refer to the awful 10-pound pile of newspapers that one has at the weekend and the two or three newspapers which are pushed through virtually everyone's letter box. Those are all issues that can be addressed and worked on together. However, we have to work in co-operation with local authorities and not impose too much on them—particularly at a time of financial constraint.
Lord Hanningfield: I cannot resist saying a few words in response to that because, on this occasion. I agree with the Minister rather more than I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. It would be totally impractical to have the same solution everywhere and, in fact, it would be totally wrong. We always say that we want more local autonomy and, in this case, there are different solutions for different places. As much as I agree with composting and so on being done in the right way, such things will be done differently in different places.
I return to an issue that we talked about yesterday. A report called Waste Not, Want Not has been referred to several times. Is the Minister able to give us a timetable because we need to go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has just said. We need, as other countries have, legislation and help in order to reduce waste. Instead of a great deal of prescription, we need encouragement and legislation to help to reduce waste. This matter is obviously tied up with the report, Waste Not, Want Not, and the strategies therein. Can the Minister give us an idea of the timing and an indication of when that will come about?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My recollection is that it will happen in the spring. That was the timing given to the Committee yesterday. I hope that that is of help.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I want to make two observations. First, we need to remember that many people do not live on the ground but above the ground in flats. They certainly would not be able to use some of the things suggested in the amendments.

GC 93
More importantly, I mentioned yesterday the biosecurity aspects of composting. Those will be difficult enough to deal with if we are talking about composting domestic biodegradable waste at large-scale industrial composting sites. Frankly, we would need to he very hesitant—if we did not actually ban it—about the idea that domestic biodegradable waste, which might include meat waste, might be "composted" in someone's garden. I suspect that if we are concerned about the possible risks of animal disease, it probably should be banned. We shall come to that debate later on.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for lecturing me on localism. It is an interesting new idea and philosophy, and I shall consider it. In that respect noble Lords are banging at an open door. Noble Lords are quite right; nevertheless it is important to raise such issues when we have the opportunity. In some cases, we shall not raise the issues at further stages of the Bill; we shall raise them in debates that will take place in the future, particularly when the Government have produced their waste strategy which we are all looking forward to reading.
It is important to be ambitious in this wider area. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that these were ambitious amendments. However, in many ways there is a lack of ambition about the Government's policies in this area. All too often, we have the impression that the Government are reacting and responding to European directives and legislation. That appears; to have happened in relation to fridges. The Government have not reacted or responded effectively or quickly, but they have been dragged into situations. That appears to be happening with end-of-life vehicles and the WEEE Directive. I fear that that will happen when the packaging directive comes in next year. That may not be the case. If not, we welcome that.
The experience so far is that the Government say the right things about waste management, waste minimalisation, recycling and cutting down landfill, but as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says, they are not ambitious about doing that. They do what they have to do and no more. We regret that. We believe that we should lead rather than follow the rest of Europe in that area. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, may not worry too much about what the rest of Europe does or says, but he still uses comparisons. It is fair to say that we could be in the lead on such matters.
Apart from anything else, new technologies and industries, which could provide a huge opportunity for this country, are being developed to deal with waste. We run the risk of falling behind and missing out in that area. If the accusation is that I am ambitious, I plead guilty. If the accusation is that I am not localist, I plead not guilty—very strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that such a provision would be an imposition on different kinds of' households. Different kinds of households need different approaches to separation, recycling, composting and so on. I do not believe that there is any kind of household that cannot play a full part in that.
GC 94
A big wheelie bin with many different sections is obviously inappropriate for a pensioner on the third floor of a block of flats. However, there are appropriate ways in which that pensioner can separate waste and he or she would probably be very happy to do that. It is a matter of devising systems that are appropriate to fit the local circumstances and to fit the individual circumstances. What is appropriate in one street may be inappropriate in the next. That kind of approach is important. Having pleaded guilty to being ambitious, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State must develop a national strategy for moving towards zero waste which shall include targets for all waste disposal and collection authorities."
The noble Lord said: This may be my final attempt to be ambitious today. Amendment No. 79 requires the Secretary of State to develop a national strategy for moving towards zero waste with targets for disposal and collection authorities. There is much talk about zero waste but that is not the whole answer. If too much material goes into the system at one end, too much waste comes out at the other. Even if all of it is recycled, the system may well not be ideal, because there is too much through-put in the system and too many resources being used at the beginning. Nevertheless, zero waste is a very useful slogan and concept. At least one local authority, Bath and North-East Somerset Council, has overtly put zero waste at the heart of its waste policy, with a long-term vision of eliminating waste altogether, rather than simply managing it.
The aim of eliminating waste altogether may be utopian and impossible, but it is an objective worth having because it is something that we can always work towards. If we end up with 2 per cent still having to go to landfill, or whatever—still being waste—that is a great deal better than 95 per cent. It may be that eliminating the final 2 per cent or 5 per cent is impossible, but at least we can get somewhere near.
Speaking now on behalf of my party, there should be a full debate on the matter within the European context—I know the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will not like that, but that is the way things are with us—about how we move towards achieving a totally zero waste strategy, given the environmental costs and benefits. We are doing a lot of work on how that may be possible. I am not talking about next year nor even the next 10; the time period of 40 years has been mentioned and may perhaps be the answer.
However, if we are being ambitious and looking towards a long-term solution to this huge problem, we should decide to make the least amount of waste possible to be processed and process the vast majority of it by putting it back into the system in one way or another. That must be the objective and that ambition is not to be derided.
The remaining amendments in the group are all more or less on the same lines. No doubt I shall be admonished again for including Wales and Scotland in matters that should be matters for Wales and Scotland. I have to say that the Welsh and Scottish Liberal Democrats will be the first to come to rap my fingers over this, along with the Minister. So I put all those on one side, because my fingers have been rapped enough for today. I had better now conclude my party political broadcast on zero waste. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may say a few words, because the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned me several times and gave the impression that I was anti-Europe. That is absurd; I am very pro-Europe. I have said before that I love the Italians; I think French cooking is good; and even the Germans have their good points. So I am not anti-Europe at all. I am all in favour of Europe—and, indeed, also in favour of the utmost co-operation with Europe on a voluntary basis.
What I do not want is this country to be governed by Europe, as increasingly we are. That has a lot to do with a lack of ambition—which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, possesses, for which I commend him. Indeed, this country should be a lot more ambitious. Unfortunately, that ambition is often constrained because people say, "Let Europe do it, then we can blame them if anything goes wrong". In fact, getting Europe to do virtually everything is now leading to a lack of ambition by our Government, who get lazier by the day and do not deal with the great problems that we are discussing. I am as ambitious as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but it must be done in the right way.
I remind the noble Lord that those of us who have been members of local authorities know their background. We should like to return to the days when local authorities led the Government rather than the Government leading local authorities. Some of the greatest advances in education, waste disposal, sewage disposal, the provision of water and the provision of transport—all sorts of services—have not come from the Government; they have come upwards from local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I are really on the same side. We love Europe; we are ambitious to get things done in this country; and we recognise that good, democratic, free local authorities with great power can act as the engine of progress. It is all too unfortunate that they are often constrained from doing the right things for their areas by the bureaucratic interference of central government.
The amendments are sensible. We indeed need a no-waste strategy; we need to ensure that everybody is involved. However, regulation often creates the waste that we find in our shops. A good deal of packaging arises from regulation. In this country, we are so law-abiding that we read every regulation, gold-plate it and enforce it. If one goes to France, for example, one sees that largely—certainly in the markets—the regulations are utterly ignored. We should not criticise
GC 96
ourselves too much, but the regulation that we introduce all too often creates problems such as this, which are difficult to deal with.
I have said enough, but I hope that I have put the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, right about my attitude to various matters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to remind noble Lords that many years ago it was the City of Birmingham that developed a strategy and a manufacturing process for converting sewage into paving stones. I endorse everything that he said about the power of innovation at local authority level. I must tell him that this bit of Government does not feel as though it is getting lazier by the day, but that may be my weakness.
I shall not repeat everything that has been said about the inadvisability of trying to promote a single kerbside system. We believe that the matter is important; that is why we set out proposals in the Waste Strategy 2000 to have targets, programmes and instruments. Those targets, programmes and instruments will be reassessed in the light of the Strategy Unit's report.
Amendment No. 85 would require the Secretary of State to consult various interests before formulating policy. We intend to conduct wide-ranging consultation with all interested stakeholders before finalising a scheme in England. A legal requirement to consult in the Bill is therefore unnecessary. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about what I would not even call a conversion on the road from devolution, because I know that he has supported devolution all the way through.
Lord Greaves: I remember when some of us were promoting the benefits of devolution to sceptical people such as the noble Baroness and the Labour Party—or many of her colleagues, if not the noble Baroness herself. I am grateful for her further assurance about consultation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 11. line 12, at end insert "and the safe composting of catering waste, which shall be disposed of safely through a treatment process at pre-determined specific temperatures"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 82 addresses the vexed question of the safe composting of catering waste. There are several ways of achieving our aim. One might include incineration. There has been some agreement in this debate that increased incineration is not necessarily desirable. There are other methods of achieving temperatures, such as considerable heat treatment. We are particularly concerned that composting does not necessarily achieve high enough temperatures to dispose of bugs or viruses that are nefarious not only to animal health, but also to human health. Given the quantity of catering waste that is

GC 97
now being used in various ways, including quite a lot going into landfill, it is vital that we treat this waste in a way that does not encourage the spread of disease.
It has been said that compost will be spread on the land. It has also been estimated that an enormous area will be required on which to spread it. If the compost—particularly kitchen waste—has not been properly treated, we have a dangerous problem. It can seep into water courses, which is very problematical in that it could find its way into human drinking water. It can be spread around by vermin. When I was very close to the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Northumberland, I remember the column inches that were written about seagulls spreading the disease. Whether they actually did so was uncertain. None the less, the birds certainly spread the material around and there were many mysterious outbreaks of foot and mouth disease thought to be spread by birds. Vermin such as foxes and rats will undoubtedly consume some of this material. If it has not been treated adequately we will have a considerable risk of spread of disease. Many other animals, such as stray dogs, may be involved in spreading this material around.
As I have said, it is possible that composting temperatures are not hot enough. As I asked on Second Reading, why has it been necessary for animals associated with foot and mouth disease to be rendered when it is possible for imported food that goes into waste, which may contain various diseases, not to be treated similarly? The provisions in the Bill for composting catering waste could be described as "negligent" in terms of what I have just been talking about. I hasten to add immediately, before the Minister admonishes me, that it has been brought to my attention that a risk assessment has been carried out, as the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, said in answer to a question in another place. However, I do not necessarily accept the veracity of that risk assessment or its conclusions. I would like to know who carried it out and whether veterinary experts and other scientists who would address these matters in considerable detail were involved.
Amendment No. 129 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, refers to very specific temperatures and periods. I am sure that the noble Lord will put his amendment very adequately, so I will leave the detail to him. Amendment No. 129 specifies very accurately what needs to be done—if you like, it is an alternative approach to the same problem. This particularly important issue is a weakness in the Bill affecting animal health and possibly human health. There is a great deal of this stuff about—it is estimated that one third of the food consumed in the UK is consumed in catering establishments, restaurants and other places. Those of us who occasionally pass by these establishments and see the amount of waste that comes from them understand that it is a considerable problem. If such waste is to be separated out from landfill, it needs to be treated properly, for the reasons stated. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 129 is grouped with this amendment and addresses precisely the same subject. I prefer my amendment to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, simply because it is precise—although I have to confess that it is not precise enough. I am told that our typist made an error and "80 degrees" should actually read "98 degrees". I suspect that we were catching up with the science, rather than the typist's fingers, but I apologise to the Committee for that. It would help if the Committee would read "98 degrees" for "80 degrees", rather than having to present the amendment anew another time in precisely the same form in order simply to get the temperature right.
We are talking about a very serious problem of biosecurity. It is almost certain—although it will never be absolutely certain because we will never get down to the detailed analysis—that the foot and mouth outbreak of more than a year ago was started because some infected meat or bone material came into this country, went through a commercial catering establishment of some sort, went into the swill chain, went through the swill chain having been inadequately heated and prepared and came out at the end as a live virus which cost this country billions. That is what we are talking about and that is not the only potential offender. Swine fever is another. It is believed— although this can never be proved—that the swine fever outbreak in East Anglia four or five years ago was started by someone chucking a ham sandwich over a hedge.
Fowl pest is a third disease that could be spread in this way. It has not hit the headlines in recent years, but it may well come back one day. Composted domestic biodegradable waste that was spread on agricultural land—or even in the garden of someone who kept pet goats—could cause a foot and mouth outbreak.
We have an open gate to unpredictable disaster. I am not bothered about official assessments that say there is very little risk. They will never be able to say that there is no risk. As long as there is a risk, we face this dreadful lottery. It may hit us only once every 30 years, as with foot and mouth disease, but, considering the cost, it would be better if it were not possible for it to hit us at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, coupled this possibility with the possibility of spreading human disease via something that leaks from compost into ground water, coming back via the water supplies. We already have problems in that regard because, as we know, London's water is used at least five times between Teddington weir and the Becton outfall. The water is recycled, recycled and recycled. I would like to think that we are on top of that problem, but once you start to go out of the normal means of dealing with these problems and put the stuff into the natural cycle, you are opening entirely another door. This is very serious and we need to think about it carefully.
My instinct tells me that we should avoid—and continue avoiding to the maximum possible extent—the idea that composting is a partial solution to dealing

GC 99
with domestic biodegradable waste. If this stuff were ever to be used in agriculture or in gardens, we would have a potential for another very expensive disease disaster.
There are other ways of dealing with these wastes. I do not like incineration, but technology is moving on. I mentioned some of the other systems on Second Reading, so I do not intend to go over that ground now. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and I are after the same principle. We want a secure way of dealing with this problem. The Minister will reveal in a moment whether she is minded to accept what we have suggested. I look forward to her reply but I hope she will accept that it is a problem that we shall have to deal with. The question is not whether we deal with it but how we deal with it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall deal first with the specific questions about risk assessment raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. Yes, vets and scientists were involved and there was a peer review study, the results of which will be available on the DEFRA website in the New Year.
I shall also deal with the related issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. In any process, it is almost impossible to achieve a no-risk result. I believe all Members of the Committee accept that, whatever strategy is adopted to avoid the spread of disease, that is the case. In many ways, the risk assessment showed that the alternative to landfill was even more dangerous than composting because of the heat treatment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not regard landfill as an alternative to composting. We should be absolutely clear about that. Landfill is used at present, and I agree that that is what we are trying to get away from. If one took all domestic biodegradable waste and put it through industrial-type processes, one would end up with an irreducible minimum material that might need to be disposed of in some other way on the land. I do not believe that we should be complacent about landfill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to get rid of it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As a government, we recognise that this is a major issue. We believe that composting catering waste has an important role to play in helping local authorities to meet both their recycling and composting targets and the directive targets. As a result, composting waste is already a component of our strategy to achieve a sustainable waste management system. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether or not it should be included as part of the strategy in the Bill. However, in the light of the serious level of concern expressed by Members of the Committee, it is important to recognise that at present composting and biogas treatment of catering waste are effectively banned by the Animal By-Products Order 1999, as amended.
Drawing on the results of the risk assessment Commissioned by the department, a draft amending the Animal By-Products Order went out for consultation on 20th November. The overall objective
GC 100
of this work is to develop a set of rules that will allow the composting of catering waste to take place economically while fully protecting animal and public health. The amended order will lay down the processes that will be permitted, including those relating to time and temperature, because there is obviously a relationship between the time process and the temperature process.
In the light of what both noble Lords have said, perhaps they could help the department to ensure that organisations and individuals who have views on the time/temperature requirements respond to the consultation before the closing date of 12th February 2003. I hope that that helps Members of the Committee. Where people challenge the premises of the proposed revised order, it is important that they act quickly. They also need to ensure that that applies to anyone else who they believe wishes to be consulted. That is outwith the scope of the Bill—it is a separate procedure. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for that response, which I regard as a responsible and constructive contribution to our debate. None the less, had we the power in this Committee to vote on the matter, I would have called for a Division. This is an issue about which we need to stop and think very hard.
References were made to disposal authorities meeting composting targets. In my view, given the degree of risk, this is not a good enough reason for achieving sustainable targets, as referred to in the Minister's reply. We are talking about other reasons, not just meeting the targets of disposal authorities and local authorities. I accept that the Minister has shown great concern about that and that he has taken the whole matter on board.
I comment that there must have been a very good reason why, in the draft order concerning by-products of 1999 to which she referred, those substances were specifically excluded. It now appears that legislation will be introduced to include them, albeit by specifying temperatures, as we have requested, and time of exposure to the cleaning up methods.
The consultation to which the Minister has referred is very important. It needs the widest possible publicity. Can she ensure that the department communicates fully with bodies such as the NFU, the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, NFU Scotland and other bodies like the CLA, so that they are all aware of what is happening and so that they can participate in the consultation? I hope that that will provide a comprehensive response that the Government can use. However, I remain uneasy about the process. In this instance we must avoid the horse bolting through the stable door. Does the Minister wish to say anything further?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I want to confirm, so that it is on the record, that the full range of organisations, examples of which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, gave, are being consulted.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for that. I hope that the Members of the Committee will have that information so that they can distribute it. I am sure that they will. I am sure the Minister will take note of what we have discussed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
"(e) assess the extent to which there is sufficient capacity in measures other than landfill for the handling of biodegradable waste."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 83 refers to a related matter: the after use of treated biodegradable wastes. It concerns whether there is an adequate market for it and whether the capacity is there, rather than whether or not it is safe. Amendment No. 110, in the same group, refers to Wales in identical terms. I do not know why there is not an amendment relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland but at least it means that I shall have my knuckles rapped only once and not three times.
The amendment relates to Clause 16, "Strategy for England", which states:
"The Secretary of State must have a strategy for reducing—
(a) the amount of biodegradable waste".
It also states:
"Before formulating policy for the purposes"—
of the strategy,
"the Secretary of State must",
do various things. The amendment adds that the Secretary of State must assess the extent to which there is sufficient capacity in measures other than landfill for the handling of biodegradable waste.
Although the Bill outlines the requirements for strategies for dealing with biodegradable waste in Clauses 16 to 19, including measures to achieve the targets by,
"recycling, composting, biogas production, materials recovery or energy recovery",
important consideration also needs to be given in the strategy to the potential capacity of end markets and end users to absorb the wastes and products. Principally the concern relates to the extent of the market, particularly in agriculture, to utilise treated, biodegradable wastes, whether they are compost or the digestate which is the result of the processes that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was waxing lyrical about yesterday, or indeed other processes.
Often, application to agricultural land may be seen as the least additional cost option to land-filling, either as an organic fertiliser or a soil conditioner. We suggest that there is a need for research into current and potential future wastes that might be applied to agricultural land and the capacity of the land to accommodate such waste region by region, area by
GC 102
area. That may be particularly significant given the recent designations and additions of nitrate vulnerable zones, as a result of which farmers are looking hard at their need for a use of soil conditioners and/or organic fertilisers in general.
The question raised is whether the possible end use of treated biodegradable waste on agricultural land is a realistic one, and whether an assessment of the capacity should be on the face of the Bill—something that should be done before strategies for dealing with waste are agreed. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We set Amendment No. 110 to one side. Amendment No. 83, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, requires the Government to assess the availability of alternatives. We accept that that is necessary. That took place in the course of producing the Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales, and the Strategy Unit's report that was published last month. We fully recognise the need for proper consultation and would want to take into account all the points to which the noble Lord has referred.
The Strategy Unit recommended that DEFRA looks at biowaste. That is an issue that we need to cover in our government response. All the items raised by the noble Lord are extremely important. I hope that I have reassured him that we consult fully, that we have done so in the past, as our record shows, and that we shall do so in future.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. We are calling for research rather than consultation. However, I am reassured by what the Minister has said, and I shall read it carefully. Those issues will come up again as the strategy unfolds over the corning months. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 86:
Page 11, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for the prevention of fly-tipping and for dealing with fly-tipping."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 86 would add a further line to the requirements on the Secretary of State in Clause 16 on fly-tipping. During the course of the Committee we have tossed around the issue of fly-tipping adequately, so I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Strategy for Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 98 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Strategy for Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 111 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Strategy for Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 123 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 ["Biodegradable waste" and "municipal waste"]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 14, line 4, leave out from "decomposition" to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 124 is another of those wonderful examples of my trying to be helpful to the Government. We want to remove some words that do no more than set out examples. Those words are entirely unnecessary to the meaning of the Bill. The Bill states:
"'biodegradable waste' means any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition".
One does not need to specify "such as". That deals with Amendment No. 124.
Amendment No. 125 raises a slightly different point. The Bill mentions,
"waste that, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from households".
Amendment No. 125 states:
"similar waste from commercial or state-run establishments"—
although I should have preferred the wording "similar waste coming from any other establishment, or from other local authority activities"—
"but excluding waste from agriculture".
That is our specific point.
Many wastes from agriculture, especially farmyard manure, pig manure and so on, are in fact biodegradable wastes within the meaning of the Bill, which we feel should be specifically excluded so that they cannot be mistaken for being organic waste. I am positive that there is no intention that they should be included within the scope of the Bill, but they are not specifically excluded, as they should be. Even if we have not got the wording of the amendment right, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would either give an assurance that there is no intention to include them, or say that she will reconsider the wording of the Bill to ensure that they are specifically excluded, if that is what is required.
Amendment No. 128, which is grouped, adds a definition for "inert municipal waste", which the Bill mentions. There should be a definition of that, and so we propose that it,
"means waste that is not biodegradable within 25 years".
That would help the Bill and people in future, and I ask the noble Baroness carefully to consider the matter. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said about Amendment No. 124. Amendment No. 125 on the exclusion of agricultural waste is especially important because the precise nature of agricultural waste is well known. I would go so far as to say that I have spent many
GC 104
hours—not necessarily happy hours—spreading it on the land, and it does a lot of good. Amendment No. 125 is therefore perfectly acceptable.
Our amendment, Amendment No. 126, refers to,
"commercial waste from catering establishments".
That is important because one-third of all food is now consumed within catering establishments and the amount of waste generated is considerable. That is the reason for that amendment.
Amendment No. 127 adds two subsections. One refers to,
"end of life vehicles",
and the other to,
"end of life electrical and electronic equipment",
which incorporates EU Directive 75/442/EEC.
It is important to separate out those matters and refer to how they are to be disposed of. We all know the problems, so I shall not repeat them; we have talked enough about that already. I note, understand and support what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said about Amendment No. 128 regarding inert municipal waste.
We also tabled Amendment No. 130, which refers to an insertion on page 14, line 31, after "sorting". We want to make absolutely sure that that does not include incineration. We do not want more incineration.
I believe that Amendment No. 40 is also in this group.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I missed Amendment No. 40 in opening the debate and it might be as well to have it formally laid before the Committee before the noble Lord speaks to it. It is a very small amendment; it would, in fact, simply remove the word "small". However, there is a point to it.
In Clause 24, the Bill mentions:
"the deposit of non-hazardous dredging sludges alongside small waterways".
The amendment would remove the word "small". What is a small waterway? I can imagine lawyers having a wonderful time with that in future. A ditch is clearly a small waterway when there is water in the bottom of it, but a ditch does not normally carry water all year round. Then there is a stream, a rivulet, and in the north there is something called a beck. Then one gets to a small river, a medium-sized river and a large river. There are waterways where it is entirely appropriate to spread the dredgings on the bank. I have seen that done adequately and sensibly on the banks of medium-sized rivers. The word "small" could reasonably be removed. Perhaps we should have put the words "and insert 'appropriately' in its place. That would have been rather better.
When I looked at the clause a few moments ago, I saw something that offended me far more than the word "small". I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I mention it. The clause refers to,
"small waterways from out of which they have been dredged".

GC 105
Ugh! We really cannot permit that to go forward. I hope that, if we agree on nothing else in the amendments, we shall agree on that.
Lord Livsey, of Talgarth: I take on board much of what the noble Lord., Lord Dixon-Smith, said. It is important that non-hazardous waste is allowed to be put on the side of waterways. Very often, it prevents flooding and contains the waterway. But the maintenance of small waterways can also be extremely important in ensuring that productive land is adequately drained for growing crops and perhaps also for carrying intensive livestock. I can think of situations in, for example, Somerset where that is particularly important.
Often the cleaning out of waterways is done single-handedly by one person working alone with, for example, a JCB. He does not have the support of several other tractors and the means to take the stuff away. It is simply a practical problem and I wonder what the Environment Agency has to say about it. Is the Environment Agency concerned about whether this has been a problem in various parts of the country and has it asked the Minister's department to ensure that this provision is included?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was not clear whether the question regarding the Environment Agency was linked specifically to that concerning small waterways.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Yes, it was.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was. Therefore, what the noble Lord really wants to know is whether the Environment Agency agrees with the importance of being able to place non-hazardous waste on the banks of "small waterways", which would become simply "waterways" if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, were carried. I now understand.
First, perhaps I may put on one side the issue of agricultural waste. The reason that it is not excluded is that it is not municipal waste in the first place. I hope that that is reassuring. I am conscious that, had the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, still been here, he might not have liked the way that I shall handle this point.
This group consists of technical amendments to definitions in the Bill. However, the definitions in the Bill—for example, of "biodegradable", "municipal waste", "landfill" and "treatment infill"—reflect the definitions in the Landfill Directive. The aim of the Bill is to give legal effect to the obligations imposed on the UK by Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Landfill Directive. It is important that we cover everything within the scope of the directive.
Amendments Nos. 125 and 140, in particular, are narrower than the definitions in the directive. In such cases, moving away from the definitions in the directive always bears a risk. The interpretation of any definition is, in the final analysis, for the courts to determine. It would be highly undesirable if, in addition to any domestic debate on the interpretation, there were also a challenge from the European Court
GC 106
of Justice as to whether we had transposed the directive correctly because we had adopted a different set of definitions from those in the rest of Europe. I think noble Lords will spot the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, may have pointed out this was not his sort of Europe. I regret that Amendments Nos. 124, 125, 126, 130 and 140 would all place us in this difficulty and on these grounds we cannot accept them.
Amendment No. 128 defines inert municipal waste as waste that is not biodegradable within 25 years. This amendment is only necessary for Amendments Nos. 75, 103, 91 and 117, which relate to landfill strategies in each country of the UK and which we have already considered. The definition is very different from the definition of inert waste in the Landfill Directive and therefore we are unable to accept that amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about the Environment Agency. The answer is simply yes, it was consulted.
Finally, Amendment No. 127 proposes definitions of end-of-life vehicles and waste electrical and electronic equipment required for those amendments we have already considered in group one. As they are consequent on other amendments that we could not accept, for the reason given, I regret that we cannot accept these too.
I am conscious that that is slightly complicated and noble Lords will want to read it. The basic theme point is that it is important to use and mirror the terminology used in the directive in order to protect us against challenge in the future. With those explanations I hope noble Lords are happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I entirely understand what the Minister is saying about the European directive. That is entirely logical and one would not wish to challenge it. I am concerned about the business of small waterways, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is about to mention. It would appear that DEFRA consulted the Environment Agency but we do not know what the Environment Agency said and whether it wants to ban this. It will cause a lot of hardship in some family situations if this is the case and it will be interesting if that information comes out.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am hoping that information will come out. We consulted on "small" in the context of landfill regulations and it may be helpful if we write on the issue of what constitutes small. I am trying to think of another way of saying this because it is possible it may come to me whether I am going to be in a position to say what the Environment Agency said when we consulted it.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Perhaps I may assist the Minister. That part of the Environment Agency that deals with landfill may well have been consulted, but

GC 107
there is another part that deals with drainage and runoff of land and water basins, which may have a different view.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have reached the conclusion that, given that we have to decide which size water courses we are dealing with and who said what to who where, it is possible that in the end I may resort to writing about whether the Environment Agency accepted the importance of dredging and placing on the bank on a small waterway. The answer is yes. It came to me in a flash.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has been very helpful in her reply and explained why these particular terms are in the Bill and how they were arrived at. I am grateful to her for that and we will go away and study her answer with some care. Maybe we will need to refer to it again and maybe not. However, one point that she did not pick up is that I cannot believe that anyone translating from a French original to English came up with "from out of which". I cannot think of a single translator who would do that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It appears to me, speaking without advice, that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has a point. I will see if others share my interpretation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: With that assurance, I am most grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to
Clause 21 ["Landfill"]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 ["Scheme year" and "target year"]:
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 14. line 40, leave out "2019" and insert "2015"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is about the derogation that this country has obtained, which allows it to implement the various stages of this Bill four years after better geared up countries. Our view is that this derogation is not necessary. It is a matter of whether the commitment—the ambition—is present in this country to do things. It is a matter of commitment and a matter of resources. If we were in government, we would not use this derogation. We would get on with it and do it all four years earlier. There is not really much more to say than that. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments would change the target years and adjust the length of the landfill allowance scheme to bring it into line with the underogated targets in Article 5.2 of the Landfill Directive. These targets are already very difficult to achieve and we have made allowance for
GC 108
the full derogation, which is why this scheme is expected to run until 2020. However, if the UK managed to achieve more than the minimum, Clause 22(2) would allow the Secretary of State to alter target years to the underogated years, or to any of the years up to the full derogated ones. This gives us full flexibility to decide whether to take full advantage of the derogation, if we make good progress towards achieving the targets under the directive. That is our intention and I hope with that explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves: I feel able to withdraw the amendment but not on the basis of the unsatisfactory explanation that has been given. We will disagree on this and for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 14, line 41, leave out "2013" and insert "2015"
The noble Lord said: The amendment was tabled because we have problems with what you might call the schedule of these dates. I know exactly what the Minister is going to say in response, but the fact is that the date schedule in the European directive has given rise to this Bill. All the negotiators from every country in Europe must have been asleep to agree these. We have from 1995 to 2010 to make a 25 per cent reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill. We then have another three years to get rid of the next 25 per cent and then another eight years to get rid of the third 25 per cent. That is weird scheduling by any calculation. I can see no rationale for it at all. I cannot understand how sensible—or otherwise sensible, perhaps—negotiators can have come to this conclusion. The amendment was aimed at making that rather funny position slightly more logical, but I am bound to say that the flaw is in the directive. I know that the Minister will tell us that the directive is what we must live with but none the less I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would change the middle target year in the Bill from 2013 to 2015. We cannot accept that, because the effect would be to make it harder to meet the legal obligations under the Landfill Directive, as the target years in the Bill would not be in line with those in the directive. The three target years for the directive, including the full four-year derogation, are 2010, 2013 and 2020, and we do not have the flexibility to move the middle year to 2015.
We accept that the targets are challenging. That is why we have the Waste Strategy 2000 and the Bill and why the Strategy Unit has reported on meeting the targets. But they remain, and we cannot unilaterally alter them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am not surprised at the Minister's response—she has her brief. I must confess that if I were in her position, I should be constrained

GC 109
by exactly the same background and I should have to give precisely the same reply. Although I am not satisfied, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Other definitions]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 139:
Page 15, line 21, leave out from beginning to "regulations" and insert "Environment Agency subject to"
The noble Lord said: If my memory is correct, during our discussion in Committee yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in response to another point that the Environment Agency would be the monitoring agency for England. If that is so, I do not need to move this amendment. If the Minister would assure me that my memory is not at fault, I should be delighted.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record, that is exactly the case. In fact, the amendment would make the Environment Agency the appropriate monitoring authority in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. If he were to move the amendment, the noble Lord would join other noble Lords who have got into trouble for imposition on the devolved countries.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Activities to which Chapter I does not apply]:
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 141:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF THE LANDFILL TAX ESCALATOR
(1) Commencing in the financial year 2006–07, the whole of the portion of landfill tax above £15 per tonne in each year will be disbursed to the allocating authority for each area.
(2) The allocating authority for each area will apply the disbursement received under subsection (1) to—

(a) research into ways of reducing the amount of all waste going to landfill,

(b) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable municipal waste to prevent it from going to landfill,

(c) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable waste to reduce the amount going to landfill, and

(d) schemes designed to benefit the local community where waste treatment projects are sited.

(3) The allocating authority for each area shall ensure that capital projects for treating biodegradable municipal waste are—

(a) sited within the boundaries of the location controlled by each waste disposal authority that is applying for funding, and

(b) supplied with waste mainly collected within the boundaries of the locality controlled by the relevant waste disposal authority."

The noble Lord said: Here, we step into slightly more difficult territory. We are really in the business of hypothecating the use of the landfill tax escalator. Once again, I must assume that the noble Baroness will
GC 110
be somewhat negative in her response, for all sorts of good reasons. We have heard on numerous occasions that if we are to have specific taxes placed on this area, where we know that there are huge potential investment liabilities if we are to meet both the directive and the needs of society at large, we need the money to be retained within the business so that it can be put to other use there.
The amendment proposes that the product of the landfill tax escalator—not the landfill tax but the escalator—should be devoted to four purposes:
"(a) research into ways of reducing the amount of waste going to landfill,
(b) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable municipal waste to prevent it from going to landfill,
(c) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable waste to reduce the amount going to landfill, and
(d) schemes designed to benefit the local community where waste treatment projects are sited".
I do not need to read out the whole amendment. Those purposes are well worth while. I am sure that, in replying, the Minister will sympathise with our ambition even if she has to be negative, but it is an area where more than sympathy is required. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for tabling the amendment because it raises several significant issues that the Government will address during the coming months following the recent Pre-Budget Report and Statement given in another place. That report made clear that there is a strong case for increasing the tax rate for active waste significantly in future years to provide incentives for the development of alternatives to landfill and to reduce the volume of waste disposed of that way.
The Government therefore announced that we shall consult on a revenue-neutral proposal to increase the landfill tax escalator to £3 per tonne in 2005–06 and to increase the rate of tax by at least £3 per tonne in future years on the way to a medium to long-term rate of £35 per tonne. The Government intend to introduce the increases in a way that is revenue-neutral to business as a whole. We announced that we will consult with stakeholders on options for the package, including the recycling of revenue, before making our decisions. A ministerial group will be set up to co-ordinate activity in that area across Government that will report to Parliament in the Budget next year.
To support the amendment and the new clause would cut across one consultative process already announced by the Government and the results of another that has already concluded, and would require all extra tax take arising from an increase in the rate for active waste above £15 to go to local projects and local councils, so the business sector, which would also be paying significantly more tax, would receive no further help to minimise its waste.

GC 111
I therefore regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be interested in my reply.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has been helpful by setting out the position. However, there is always a problem with revenue-neutral proposals. Revenue-neutral proposals for business do not necessarily help the waste disposal business to get funding for the investment that it requires, which the amendment may well have provided.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well be right in trying to produce revenue-neutral proposals for business, but at the same time, if he does so and businesses are either let off other taxes or whatever, so that they are not adversely affected, he will still have the residual problem of finding the funding—huge amounts of capital funding will be required by the waste disposal sector—to meet the targets. We are talking about one system against another.
I accept what the Minister has said for now. She gave the explanation that I expected, if not the one that I desired. We shall study it, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 146 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 16, line 28, insert—
"( ) Where a waste disposal authority is liable to a penalty under this Chapter and that liability is a result of an action or actions or a failure to take action on the part of a waste collection authority within the area of the waste disposal authority, the allocating authority may levy all or part of the penalty on the waste collection authority."
The noble Lord said: This is yet another amendment that returns us to the interesting question of potential problems under the Bill in two-tier local authority areas in England. The amendment would allow the allocating authorities to levy penalties on district councils—the collecting authorities in effect—if they were satisfied that the failure to comply with the requirements of the Bill, to meet the targets and the quotas, was the result of the collecting authorities and not the waste disposal authority.
I do not wish to say anything more about that. Previously in Committee we have discussed the interesting matter of the inter-relationship of collecting and disposal authorities in those areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, gave some clear commitments that the Government were looking at those problems, and that during the progress of the Bill they expected to be able to report what their thoughts were on resolving difficulties.
On that basis, I do not wish to move the amendment as the matter of two-tier authorities has been discussed sufficiently, but the Minister may be desperate to reply, so I shall move the amendment for her benefit. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for moving the amendment. I wanted to place on record that at this stage, without prejudice, that particular mechanism could worsen relationships between the two tiers of authorities if one were able to impose the penalty on the other. We have noted the problem and we shall give it further consideration.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that response. The amendment does not allow the waste disposal authority to impose a penalty on the collecting authority. It would allow the allocating authority to do that in extremis. That may not be the right mechanism, but mechanisms are clearly needed. We look forward to discussing those matters as the Bill progresses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations under Chapter 1: procedural provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 148 to 151 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 151A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]

  WASTE DEPOSITED IN PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND ON HIGHWAYS DEPOSITING OF WASTE FOR COLLECTION
  (1) A local authority may designate any part of the following land in the area of the local authority as land to which this section applies—

  (a) a public off-street car park:

  (b) a recreation ground. garden, park or open space under the management or control of a local authority;

  (c) a path. pavement or highway which is open to public access, whether or not as of right;

  (d) an area of land beside a railway under the ownership or control of a railway undertaking, a station or a station forecourt.

  (2) Any land so designated shall include any other area—

  (a) which is not within permanently enclosed premises; and

  (b) which is within seven metres of such land.

  (3) The local authority may, when designating any land under subsection (1), provide that the designation of the land shall have effect in relation to one or more of the following—

  (a) commercial waste;

  (b) household waste; or

  (c) industrial waste.

  (4) Any person who, without the written consent of the local authority, or in breach of any condition subject to which the local authority's consent has been given, places, or causes or permits any other person to place, commercial waste, household waste or industrial waste for collection on land which is subject to a

  GC 113
  designation under this section relating to that type of waste, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (5) Where the Commission by any person of an offence under subsection (4) is due to the direction, act or default of some other person, that other person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings for the offence are taken against the first-mentioned person.
  (6) The conditions of consent referred to in subsection (4) may include conditions as to—

  (a) the times during which the waste may be placed for collection or period for which the consent is valid;

  (b) the part of the place designated under subsection (1) where the consent is to apply;

  (c) the use of means by which waste can be attributed to any particular occupier of premises;

  (d) a requirement for a person to produce on demand to an authorised officer of a local authority or to a constable documentary evidence of the consent; and

  (e) any other matter that the local authority has reason to believe will reduce the depositing of waste in public open spaces and on paths, pavements or highways without consent.

  (7) A local authority may charge such reasonable fee for a consent under this section as they think fit, and in setting the level of such fees shall take into consideration—

  (a) any reasonable costs or expected costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the administration of the provisions of this section; and

  (b) the cost or expected cost of enforcing the provisions of this section.

  (8) A consent under this section may be revoked and the conditions of consent may be altered by notice to the person to whom the consent was given.
  (9) A person aggrieved by—

  (a) the withholding by the council of consent referred to in subsection (4);

  (b) the conditions subject to which the council give such consent; or

  (c) the revocation of such consent under subsection (8);

  may appeal to a magistrates' court by way of complaint for an order and on such appeal the court may dismiss or allow the appeal or may vary any conditions imposed by the council.
  (10) In this section "commercial waste", "household waste" and "industrial waste" have the same meanings as in section 75 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)."
  The noble Lord said: I cannot claim absolute responsibility for the authorship of the amendment, which will not surprise Members of the Committee. The provisions have been extracted, and only marginally adapted, from the London Local Authorities Bill which is currently before Parliament. They are a serious attempt to reduce the problem of all those awkward wastes that all too often result in fly-tipping.
  The purpose of the amendments is to allow a local authority to designate an area—it might be a bit of derelict ground or a building site that is currently empty—where for a limited period people could deposit waste of the kind that was defined in the designation, which the local authority would itself make. It could be anything from burned out cars downwards. It could be glass, old furniture, or garden waste. At the end of the designation period, or at intervals during it, if that were necessary, the local authority would clear the site.
  The Bill before Parliament deals only with London, but if those provisions were put into this Bill, all local authorities would have the power to make designations of areas within their boundaries. We might then make a considerable step towards reducing the problem of fly-tipping.
  I am sorry that the amendments were tabled quite late and that the Government may not have had as much time as they would have wished to consider them. I ask them to look seriously at the amendments and to consider whether, at the very least, they are adequate to do what we are trying to achieve or whether they could devise a better amendment. Whatever happens, the Bill provides us with an opportunity to do so.
  Fly-tipping does not occur only in rural areas; it is just as much a problem for people in urban areas because stuff is dumped on the street or in the garden of an empty house and so on. We are all familiar with the problem. If we could find a way to give authorities the power to give people the opportunity to dispose of such material in defined areas in a limited way for a limited period, we could go a great way towards easing a chronic problem which causes everyone everywhere a great deal of vexation.
  I do not intend to say any more in moving the amendment. I look forward with interest to the reply from the Government but I hope that, in this instance, even if they cannot be positive, they will at least not be negative. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord recognised, these clauses are similar to ones included in the London Local Authorities Bill in the last Session. Those clauses were eventually withdrawn by the sponsors of the Bill. The powers that they contain are very broad. First, they give local authorities the ability to designate land for depositing waste for collection. As that is not defined within the clauses, we take it to mean collection by any party, be it the local authority or a private waste company.
  Secondly, the powers would enable the local authority to designate an area as one where a number of persons may deposit their waste for collection. If that were the case, there might be a need for a designated area to be covered in some way by a waste management licence or exemption, regardless of the conditions applied to that area in any designation made by the local authority. Therefore, the Environment Agency might also need to be involved.
  An alternative use of the powers would be to place requirements or conditions on the producers of waste as to when, where, how and in what receptacle their waste should be made available for collection. Many of these powers are already available to local authorities in respect of household waste under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and, to a more limited extent, under Section 47 of that Act in respect of commercial and industrial waste. For example, a council can already place conditions upon householders in relation to the receptacles that they use for their waste, where those can be placed, how access to them should be provided, and the steps that

  GC 115
  should be taken by householders to facilitate collection. Local authorities also have the ability to make by-laws as to the times when householders may put out their waste on the highway. There are examples of this power being used in Portsmouth and Great Yarmouth.
  I am not sure how anyone could view those powers as deficient. But we are concerned that the powers relating to other waste are potentially very broad, and possibly burdensome in their operation. I have covered that point fully in the hope that it may resolve the issue for the noble Lord.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full and detailed reply, which I believe was not no. It certainly was not yes, but it tempts me to go back and have another shot. The Minister has raised a number of issues which could perhaps be resolved by slightly redesigning these amendments. We shall study that reply in intense detail and see if we can do that, as we believe the ambition is worthy. I am sure that, whatever else she may have said, she would agree with the ambition, if not with the method. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 151B not moved.]
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 151C:
  After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
  "SUMMARY OF EFFECTS OF THIS ACT IN RELATION TO WALES
  The effects of this Act in relation to Wales are set out in the Schedule."
  The noble Baroness said: I apologise for rushing in, but the train just made it into Paddington in time and I have just come up from Wales. I understand that the Government have given a great deal of help with previous legislation to ensure that the Explanatory Notes contain a table summarising the issues as they pertain to Wales. These changes have been particularly welcomed in the Welsh Assembly and are being welcomed by the constitutional legal department in the university, because they are making it increasingly easy to track primary and secondary legislation and the concordance of the two. I have tabled the amendments in that spirit. I beg to move.
  The Duke of Montrose: Does this raise the question of whether a similar schedule should be added for the Scottish Assembly?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Scottish Parliament. I shall need to get guidance, because the difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is that the Parliament has power to make primary legislation and the Welsh Assembly does not. It is because of the blurring within the legislation as to which parts of the Act—we are dealing with the Explanatory Notes that go with the final Act—apply to Wales alone and which apply to Wales and England. I shall seek advice as to whether there is anything in the nature of the Bill when it becomes an
  GC 116
  Act that should need that. I do not know. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the normal policy will continue to apply on this.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is not here, so we are about to finish the Committee stage unless the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is going to move his amendment for him.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I want to back up what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is doing here as it is very important to the National Assembly that this goes through in the form that it is in. There have been huge and notorious problems within Wales about landfill and I know the Assembly was particularly anxious to get this through. It is good that it has been specified in this way. I back up what the noble Baroness has said about the division of powers for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. She is quite right in defining them in the way she has.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall respond to the question about Scotland. Such a schedule would not be necessary in Scotland because the Scottish Parliament is also an allocating authority in Chapter 1 of the Bill. I am not quite sure how that answers the question that was posed to me, but perhaps when we both read what I have just said we may understand more. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment in the light of the undertaking that I have given on behalf of the Government.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful reply; I also thank Members of the Committee for their support in tabling the amendment. I am delighted that it will be incorporated in the Explanatory Notes and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 152:
  Before Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
  "REPORT ON CAPTURE OF COAL MINE METHANE
  The Secretary of State shall prepare a report on the inclusion of the capture of coal mine methane emissions from disused coal mines in the emissions trading scheme."
  The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I move Amendment No. 152. In introducing it, I should say that my noble friend has been bowled out—as I suspect that we all have—by our productivity today. Here we are finishing the Bill after only two days in Grand Committee, for which four were originally allocated. I am not sure whether that creates some sort of record or precedent but it is remarkable. I should also like to make the point that because of that original scheduling, few people were thinking about amendments to the latter part of the Bill, because they

  GC 117
  thought it would be all right to table them in January. If that produces some awkward shocks on Report, I hope that that will be understood.
  With that introduction, I do not intend to speak to this amendment but felt that it was important that it should be moved. The important thing is to get the Government's response on the record. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, and I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: With respect to the inclusion of the new clause Commissioning the Secretary of State to produce a report on the inclusion of coal mine methane from abandoned mines in the UK emissions trading scheme, I note that the Bill does not attempt to set out the eligibility of individual industry sectors or particular sources of emissions for the scheme.
  However, I place on record that the department are only too happy to offer the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, a meeting on this subject, particularly in the light of the circumstances tonight, before Report, if he would find that helpful. He may well be interested in some
  GC 118
  research being Commissioned outwith the passage of this Bill. In asking the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may thank all those who have made my task this afternoon such an easy one.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister. That reply is helpful and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Jenkin will be happy to receive it. He will also almost certainly be happy to meet the Government on the matter. Perhaps I may also thank all colleagues who have participated. This has been a remarkable achievement and I look forward to going somewhere to get a stiff drink to recover front the shock. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
  Bill reported without amendment.
  The Committee adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland: Primary and Post-primary School Funding
  Northern Ireland: Primary and Post-primary School Funding
  Northern Ireland Assembly Suspension: Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland Assembly Suspension: Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland Assembly Suspension: NSMC
  Northern Ireland Assembly Suspension: NSMC
  Northern Ireland: Criminal Justice Review
  Northern Ireland: Criminal Justice Review
  Members of the House of Lords: Congestion Charge Payments
  Members of the House of Lords: Congestion Charge Payments
  Shareholder Executive
  Shareholder Executive
  Biodiesel: Vegetable Oils
  Biodiesel: Vegetable Oils
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Rail Freight Grants and Rail Network Enhancements
  Rail Freight Grants and Rail Network Enhancements
  Road Bridges Crossing Railway Lines
  Road Bridges Crossing Railway Lines
  London: Roadworks
  London: Roadworks
  EC Draft Directive on Road Tunnel Safety: Consultation
  EC Draft Directive on Road Tunnel Safety: Consultation
  Army Training and Welfare Policy
  Army Training and Welfare Policy
  Royal Air Force: Battle Honour "Kosovo"
  Royal Air Force: Battle Honour "Kosovo"
  Single Living Accommodation Modernisation Programme
  Single Living Accommodation Modernisation Programme
  Review Board of Government Contracts: Report
  Review Board of Government Contracts: Report
  Benefit Claimants: Bank and Post Office Accounts
  Benefit Claimants: Bank and Post Office Accounts
  DWP Correspondence
  DWP Correspondence
  EU Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  EU Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Hydrogen Oils Duties Act 1979: Form EX 103
  Hydrogen Oils Duties Act 1979: Form EX 103
  Biodiesel Duty Rebate: Modified Waste Vegetable Fat
  Biodiesel Duty Rebate: Modified Waste Vegetable Fat
  Human Eggs
  Human Eggs
  General Dental Service
  General Dental Service
  Acrophobia
  Acrophobia
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Stem Cell Research
  Stem Cell Research
  GP Prescribing
  GP Prescribing
  Plasma Supplies
  Plasma Supplies
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  China: North Korean Refugees
  China: North Korean Refugees
  Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals: Annual Report
  Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals: Annual Report
  Ian Stillman
  Ian Stillman
  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art: Annual Report
  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art: Annual Report
  Hate Crimes: Protection of Homosexual People
  Hate Crimes: Protection of Homosexual People
  Sentencing
  Sentencing
  Prison Service: Retired Governors
  Prison Service: Retired Governors
  Speeding fines: Lancashire and Merseyside
  Speeding fines: Lancashire and Merseyside
  prison Inmates: Dental Treatment
  prison Inmates: Dental Treatment
  Youth Offending Teams
  Youth Offending Teams
  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person under Section 29
  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person under Section 29
  Independent Schools: Charitable Status
  Independent Schools: Charitable Status
  Racial Incidents
  Racial Incidents
  Prison Service: CRE Report
  Prison Service: CRE Report
  Biodiesel Processing Plants
  Biodiesel Processing Plants
  Waste Incinerators
  Waste Incinerators
  Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy
  Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy