Sitting of 26 November 2002

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

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. John Baron: When she will publish the results of her consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [81439]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I hope to be able to make a decision before the end of the year.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but given that at present there are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, each representing on average 25,000 constituents, whereas, on average, the figure south of the border is closer to 70,000, and given that politicians can often be the problem rather than the solution, does the right hon. Lady agree that the pleas of most MSPs should be ignored and that the interests of the Scottish people would be better served by a smaller, more effective and less expensive Parliament, as envisaged by the Scotland Act 1998?
    Mrs. Liddell: I really wish that when Members pick up hand-out questions from the Tory Whips they would do a wee bit of homework before they come into the Chamber. There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, 73 of whom are elected under the first-past-the-post system and the rest of whom are elected under the list system. Indeed, it is the list system that has allowed the Scottish Conservatives some life after death in Scotland.
    There has been a lengthy consultation exercise and people who have a genuine interest in the success of devolution have given a range of responses to it. I shall take those responses fully into account, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have reached this stage because of a consensus built up across civic Scotland, of which the Scottish Conservative party is not a part. I shall seek a conclusion that builds on that consensus.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: As someone who was involved in the project from day one, I never saw the Conservatives express any interest whatever. All they did was to tell us how useless it would be and that the Scottish people would reject it. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Scottish Conservatives have refused to make the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State cannot answer for the Conservative party. That is not what she is here for.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Has the Secretary of State had time to consider our proposals for a leaner, fitter, more focused Parliament, with fewer MSPs, which would go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the Parliament as a whole? Given that the Deputy Minister for Justice in Scotland was reported as calling firefighters "fascists", does she agree that far too many MSPs and far too many Ministers in Scotland are undeserving of public support?
    Mrs. Liddell: I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Front Bench. It is an historic day to see at the Dispatch Box an elected Conservative representing a Scottish constituency, and I wish him well in his deliberations.
    On the Government Benches, we know that the Scottish Conservative party does not wish the Scottish Parliament well. The 18 years of Conservative Government helped to focus people's attention on the need for a Scottish Parliament. I shall take into account all the representations made to me, including those from the Scottish Conservative party. They will be taken into account when I make my decision, which will, I hope, be shortly.
    Pete Wishart: Given that the Secretary of State is the only person to have seen the consultation document, she will have had plenty of time to come to a view about the future size of the Scottish Parliament. Does she agree with the unholy alliance of Labour Back Benchers and Conservatives who believe that the numbers must be reduced, or does she agree with me, the rest of the Scottish National party and the overwhelming majority of MSPs that 129 should be retained? The question is straightforward and simple: does the Secretary of State believe that 129 should be retained? Yes or no?
    Mrs. Liddell: I have to respect the traditions of the House. I entered into a consultation exercise, and I am not the only person who has seen the consultation document: 800 copies have been distributed, 1,300 hits have been made on the Scotland Office website, and there have been 230 replies. I shall deliberate on them. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the reason that there is a Scottish Tory at the Dispatch Box is the failure of the Scottish National party in Galloway.
    Rosemary McKenna: It ill behoves the SNP to make any comment about the size of the Scottish Parliament, given that neither the SNP nor the Conservative party were part of the process in the first place.
    Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that her response to the document will be based on the constitutional convention consensus, and that it will take everyone's views on board?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I congratulate her on the work that she did in the Scottish constitutional convention. There has been a wide range of responses from people, and I have asked for some additional work to be done on those responses because I am anxious to reach a conclusion that meets the needs of the broad spectrum of people who have responded to the consultation exercise.

    Scottish Fishing Industry
    Chris Grayling: What assessment she has made of prospects for employment in the Scottish fishing industry. [81440]
    Andrew Selous: What assessment she has made of employment prospects in the Scottish fishing industry. [81442]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Future employment in the Scottish fishing industry will depend on the size of fish stocks and on the regulation of fish catches. The Government and the Scottish Executive are examining those issues with a view to securing a sustainable future for the industry.
    Chris Grayling: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that all of us in the United Kingdom will be losers if jobs and hence the communities in the remote parts of Scotland that depend on fishing are weakened and disappear. She will also be aware that the North sea suffers badly from industrial effluent from northern Europe and factory fishing from Denmark, which have as much of an effect on fish stocks as over-fishing. What can she and the Government do about those problems?
    Mrs. Liddell: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about how serious the issue is, particularly for the fishing communities around the coast of Scotland. We are now fully engaged in discussions with the Commission and, indeed, our colleagues in the Scottish Executive. It is our intention to have a common fisheries policy that not only delivers value for money, protects fish stocks and secures a future for the industry, but takes into account environmental issues. This is a time for cool heads, and we should all work together to secure the livelihoods of fishermen and their families in Scotland and the United Kingdom.
    Andrew Selous: Given that haddock stocks are at their highest level since 1971, why is Scotland contemplating the end of fishing for that fish? Does the Secretary of State agree that fishing will return to its long-term viable status only when the communities are able to manage the fish stocks on which their employment depends?
    Mrs. Liddell: Again, I return to the issue of people doing their homework; Scotland is not contemplating the end of fishing. Indeed, Scotland is determined to fight for the continuation of fishing, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that haddock and whiting stocks are being caught in the trap of the depletion in cod stocks in the North sea and that the by-catch is the difficulty for us. We would welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in ensuring sustainability for the fishing communities around Scotland. These are serious issues, and they require serious consideration.
    Mr. Calum MacDonald: Does the Secretary of State agree that there are several different kinds of fishing industry in Scotland, some of which are hitting very serious problems while others are very successful? In particular, the west coast fishing industry, which largely catches shellfish, has had one of its best years for two decades. Will she join me in commending those fishermen on the responsible way in which they have conducted their fishery and seek to ensure that the Commission's fishing policy fully takes into account the different needs of the various industries in Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question. Indeed, I congratulate the fishermen in his community and elsewhere on their work. The nephrops fishery is an interesting case because by-catches of cod from the nephrops stock was an issue. There has been some success in relation to that, but fishing communities throughout Scotland must bear in mind that we are in very difficult times, and we need to co-operate to find a way forward. As I said earlier, this is a time for very cool heads in a very serious situation.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will sign up to an agreement in Europe only if they are convinced that it is based on accurate scientific evidence and provides a solution that will sustain fishing stocks and the long-term future of our fishing industry in both its elements—catching and processing?
    Mrs. Liddell: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. He and I were present during the fisheries debate last Thursday when the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), made that point. I understand that, as recently as this morning, representatives from fishing communities met scientists from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I hope that that meeting was useful. There

    147
    is no doubt that the science issue has to be taken into account seriously, but we also have to question in great detail the conclusions reached as a result of analysing the science. We have to take into account the measures that have been previously introduced to preserve cod stocks in the North sea in reaching our final conclusions.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about taking into account the substantial reductions in fishing effort over the last year. When haddock stocks biomass figures a re the highest that they have been in the North sea for 30 years, when saith is at its highest for 20 years, and when whiting is at its highest for 10 years—and even cod, which is at very low levels, is improving—why on earth are we talking about a management plan for next year that might involve the loss of thousands of jobs around the coastline of Scotland? What personal involvement has she had in securing those jobs and the livelihoods of thousands of people in the communities of Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I agree with him about the inequity of haddock and other stocks being caught in this trap. He asks about my personal involvement. I have taken a considerable interest in this matter, and yesterday I met the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Affairs who has responsibility for fisheries. I am going to Brussels this afternoon, and I hope to meet representatives of the UK permanent representation to get a handle from them on how the discussions are likely to go. Like him, however, I am determined to see a future for the Scottish fishing industry.
    John Thurso: I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware of the grave concern for the Scottish fishing fleet on both sides of the House. Given the considerable concern regarding the interpretation of the science that the Commission has produced, will she, in her meetings, impress on the Commission and her colleagues the real contribution that the Scottish fishing fleet made to reduce effort last year, particularly with regard to increasing mesh sizes and other measures?
    Mrs. Liddell: I shall certainly make those points, and the hon. Gentleman does well to draw them to the attention of the House. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out on Thursday night, these are areas in which we have strength on our side in challenging the conclusions of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and in taking on the position of the Fisheries Commissioner, who seems to think that closing down the fishing industry in Scotland would be a price worth paying. It is not a price worth paying for this Government.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I hope that at the forthcoming European Fisheries Council my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking that the Government will argue strongly for maximum possible protection for
    148
    Scotland's fishing industry. Does she agree, however, that it is vital that effective enforcement measures apply consistently across each and every member state?
    Mrs. Liddell: That is an important point with which I agree. It is difficult to have unregulated fishing and excessive factory fishing as well as sustainable fishing stocks. Indeed, we signed up to the international plan of action in Rome in 1991, which is a good way forward. It is vital that we constantly take into account the whole issue of sustainability. However, some of the issues concerned with sustainability are difficult. We must engage across the House in a proper debate on these matters, along with those who know most about it, the fishing industry, so that we ensure the future of the industry, not just for those who are in the industry today, but for those in the industry in the future.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As hon. Members have referred to nearly 44,000 jobs in Scotland in the fishing industry being at potential risk, will the right hon. Lady tell us who in her team is going to Brussels this afternoon, what subjects they plan to discuss and what outcomes she expects?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am going to Brussels this afternoon. I have other engagements, but part of my visit is to give me an opportunity to talk to the UK permanent representation about the nature of the negotiations going on in relation to this matter. These are critical times, as the run-up to the Fisheries Council is, in many respects, even more important than the Fisheries Council itself. I know that the Scottish Fisheries Minister will be in Brussels at the end of this week, and we must work together across the House and with the Scottish Parliament to ensure that a balanced case is put, and that we have a sound and coherent argument that sustains the fishing industry for the future.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that information, and I am glad that she is taking unilateral action on the fishing industry. From her website, nobody in the Scotland Office appears to be doing anything much. As the Prime Minister, last Wednesday, tacitly accepted the European Commission's questionable science, and condemned, in effect, the Scots fishing boats to tie up, can she tell us what action she is preparing to support the industry by the use of structural funds? What thought has she given to the long-term future of those communities, given that the funds will run out in 2006?
    Mrs. Liddell: I get the impression that the hon. Lady is selling out the fishing industry already. We have a way to go in the negotiations and a coherent case will be significant. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the science. The science is important and we have to come to a mutually agreed decision about the robustness of the science, because the future and sustainability of the fishing industry are important. If the Government whom she supported had taken action in the 18 years that they were in power, we might not face these difficulties now.

    Recycling
    Miss Anne Begg: What discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about encouraging more recycling in Scotland. [81443]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues. The recycling of waste, however, is a devolved area of responsibility.
    Miss Begg: My constituents are concerned about a proposal to build a very large incinerator in Aberdeen, South. If that proposal is turned down because it does not receive planning permission or if it turns out to be much smaller than planned, it will be crucial to lessen through recycling or waste minimisation the amount of waste that we produce. This Parliament has responsibility for incentives that promote waste minimisation, that encourage business to use recycled materials and that help to create markets for such materials. Will my hon. Friend hold discussions with the Treasury to help to ensure that it is gives as many incentives as it can to encourage recycling and to make sure that we have less waste to deal with?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he prepares his pre-Budget consultation, will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all recycling is to be applauded? Will she deplore the recycling of soiled, used and defeated candidates in first-past-the-post elections for the Scottish Parliament? As this is an issue for which—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a waste of the House's time.

    Inward Investment
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: When she last met the Scottish Executive to discuss inward investment in Scotland. [81445]
    Mr. James Gray: When she last met the Scottish Executive to discuss inward investment in Scotland. [81447]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the Scottish Executive on a range of matters affecting the Scottish economy, including inward investment.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that a recent report from Ernst and Young has shown that inward investment in Scotland has fallen by almost two thirds in the first half of this year? I find that
    150
    extremely worrying, recognising, as I do, how important inward investment is to Scotland. Given the wealth of experience in business that the Secretary of State has had both personally and as a Minister in the Department of Trade and. Industry, is it not frustrating that Labour and Liberal—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough. The Minister will answer the hon. Lady's point.
    Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Lady may have failed to notice that we are living in a very difficult global market. However, I reassure her that the United Kingdom is second only to the United States as the most popular place for inward investment. Scotland still holds its place within the United Kingdom. Perhaps she will consider some of the good new stories on inward investment, such as those involving the French whisky firms that have relocated their businesses to Livingston, AEA Technology, Excell Biotech and Pentland Ferries.
    Mr. Gray: The Minister is bullish about the prospects for inward investment in Scotland, but how does she explain the fact that, in the first half of this year, only seven new projects were recorded compared with 18 in the previous six months? Will she comment on the fact that five of those projects came from the United States?
    Mrs. McGuire: We have close relations with the United States, so I am not at all surprised that some of that inward investment has come from there. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), we are living in a difficult market, but significant trends have shown that we have cause for optimism. We should stop talking the Scottish economy down and start talking it up.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my hon. Friend and her colleagues in government continue, as they have been doing, to focus on the importance of inward investment, particularly in the light of the economy that we inherited? Will she pay particular regard to the future of Gartcosh, which is crucial to my constituency and to the rest of Lanarkshire?
    Mrs. McGuire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on highlighting the importance of Gartcosh. We all agree that it is vital to the regeneration of Lanarkshire. However, I want to alert the House to the fact that, as we speak, 252 inward investment projects are safeguarding or creating 40,000 jobs in the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that we live in a difficult recession-ridden international climate and that Britain's macro-economic stability enables us to continue to attract inward investment when other countries, trying a lot harder than they did, are unsuccessful? That is because of the great assets of our labour force, our flexible labour market and, as I said, the general macro-economic stability of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend has a wealth of experience in those matters and I can do nothing other than agree with him.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Human Rights
    Ann McKechin: What assessment she has made of the change in the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998 is applied in Scotland since devolution. [81430]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There have been significant changes. I have noted that alleged breaches of the convention can now be raised much more quickly and effectively in domestic courts. In some areas of procedural uncertainty, I have attempted to obtain clarification of the law.
    Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her reply. I agree about the success of the implementation of the Human Rights Act, especially in greatly speeding up the process of pursuing cases in the courts. What examples can she give of recent attempts to clarify the law in that regard?
    The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend will appreciate that some of the matters are technical. There was a problem after the Human Rights Act came into force because some litigants thought that they no longer had to use the devolution minute procedure but could rely instead on the Act. I took a test point in the case of Mills which confirmed that the Scotland Act 1998 is the correct route to follow if a party litigant wants to allege that a Scottish Minister, including the Lord Advocate, is in breach of the convention. There have been other examples of that, too.

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent devolutionary issues she has considered. [81431]
    The Advocate-General: I consider all devolution issues intimated to me. Of those intimated recently, all have concerned the criminal sphere, with the majority relating to the right to a fair trial.
    Miss McIntosh: May I seek the Advocate-General's advice on one devolution issue? If a Scottish airport seeks expansion, who will have the final decision—the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Executive or the Secretary of State for Transport in England?
    The Advocate-General: No such devolution issue has been intimated to me. [Interruption.] I am afraid not. There is a procedure under the Scotland Act 1998. Such devolution issues are not raised in Parliament. On the general point, each matter has to be considered within its context. It would be necessary to consider the particular proposals, both the relevant reservations
    152
    under the Scotland Act and the particular devolution aspects. That is why, for example, I have to consider legislative proposals within the context of the Scotland Act. We cannot answer such questions in broad terms; they have to be considered in the specific context.
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 23 October under the Scotland Act 1998. [81432]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What devolution issues she has considered since 22 October. [81433]
    The Advocate-General: Since 22 October, 26 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, all relating to the criminal law. A substantial number concerned undue delay in criminal proceedings, while the rest related variously to the right not to self-incriminate, to whether shameless indecency at common law is a sufficiently defined offence for the purposes of the convention, to reversal of burdens of proof and to the determination of the punishment part of life sentences.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Advocate-General for her answer. She will be aware that she has intervened in 24 devolution cases out of a total of 1,575 since the inception of her office. That is about 1 per cent. of cases. Will she clarify whether there is a formal ceiling that limits the number of times she can intervene in devolution cases?
    The Advocate-General: There is no formal ceiling. Many devolution cases are intimated to me at the first level, in the lower courts, and I never have to deal with them again because they are resolved. Many of them, approximately 700, have dealt with questions of delay, and because they raised a number of difficult legal points, I took steps to tackle them in a recent test case in the Privy Council. It would be ludicrous to intervene in 700 cases, so I try to identify cases in which the law may, for various reasons, need clarification, or in which there are pressing reasons, for the UK, for me to intervene. It may be considered to be a mark of the success of the devolution settlement that I have had to intervene in so few cases.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does the Advocate-General consider it appropriate in 2002 that the commissioners of the Northern Lighthouse Board should still be drawn from the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and sheriff principals? Will she consider the human rights aspects of the matter and give the appropriate advice for reform to the Department for Transport?
    The Advocate-General: On the face of it I am not sure that there are any human rights issues, but I am happy to listen to any that are brought to my attention. This is a devolved matter, and I am sure that the Lord Advocate—[Interruption.] Well, I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Personal Immunity
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What the Lord Chancellor's policy is on the personal immunity of the Sovereign in relation to actions in court. [81465]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The policy that the sovereign has personal immunity in relation to actions in court remains unchanged.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that the recent application of that principle of immunity has caused considerable embarrassment to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and, not least, the monarchy? Will she therefore contemplate reviewing those arrangements, particularly bearing in mind the comment made yesterday by David Pannick QC that one person's liberty as a defendant should not take second place to someone else's status?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman clearly has strong views about the matter. However, on 4 November, at one of his regular press conferences, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in relation to the Paul Burrell case that he did not believe that the constitutional position should change.
    Kali Mountford: Does not this case have wider implications for immunity in general terms and, in particular, for Crown immunity? Does my hon. Friend have a view on the implications for Crown immunity, and how can Members of the House have a say in what happens about that?
    Ms Winterton: Consideration has been given to the quite different issue of the state's immunity in legal proceedings. For example, a recent consultation paper, "Revitalising Health and Safety", contains proposals for removing or modifying that immunity. In the light of the responses to that document, an interdepartmental working group is considering the implications, and advice will be given to Ministers about Crown immunity.
    Mr. William Cash: Has the Lord Chancellor formally inquired as to what law, procedure or judicial rule led the judge in the case of R v. Burrell to convene prosecuting counsel in private and exclude defence counsel, which is usually done only when a public interest immunity certificate is applied for? If not, why not, and will he do so?
    Will the Minister confirm to the House that what the Attorney-General wrote to me on 6 November is the case, namely:
    "No minister was asked to give a PII certificate or sign one, nor was a draft certificate ever prepared, or any consideration given by anyone to preparing such a certificate to place before the judge"?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he addressed those issues to the Attorney-General, who has replied to him. The Lord Chancellor played no part whatsoever in the Paul Burrell trial.

    Magistrates
    Hugh Robertson: If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for increasing the number of magistrates. [81466]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The most recent figures show that there are 28,500 magistrates in England and Wales. Work is under way to assess what impact measures such as increased sentencing powers will have on the number of magistrates needed in future so that we can plan recruitment programmes accordingly.
    Hugh Robertson: I should like to raise with the Minister the case of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Summers, who was removed from the Bench by the Lord Chancellor this summer. She has lived in this country for more than 30 years since her marriage, had been a magistrate for more than 10, but was removed this summer by the Lord Chancellor because she failed to meet the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, which allows for magistrates who are United Kingdom nationals, Irish or members of a Commonwealth country. She is Dutch. The Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to me and promised to return her to the Bench as soon as possible. I have heard nothing further—what more is being done?
    Yvette Cooper: I am not aware of the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raised, but he is right that a number of cases have been caught by the Act of Settlement and nationality requirements for magistrates. We have made it clear that we are keen for people who have been serving magistrates for a long time, often with great experience and having given a huge amount of time to their community and the justice system, to be returned to the Bench. We have been working on measures to support individuals to help them meet the requirements so that they can get back onto the Bench. We are also looking at legislative provisions in that area, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with a detailed account of progress.
    David Taylor: If the Government expand the number of magistrates, as a member of the Magistrates' Association I believe that it is desirable to widen the sections of society from which appointments to the lay Bench are made. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government are tackling the chronic difficulty of making the Bench representative?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. An important principle in the justice system is that of being judged by one's peers. It is important that magistrates are drawn from the areas or constituencies on which they will judge. We are concerned to recruit more people who are in work, more people from ethnic minorities and younger people to the Bench. We have been working

    155
    with Operation Black Vote, particularly on recruitment from ethnic minority communities, and we are looking to do more through a national recruitment strategy.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: If we are to have a large lay magistracy, which is desirable, is it not important that the courts are kept local? In that context, may I emphasise the importance of keeping the magistrates court at Sleaford?
    Yvette Cooper: I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's representations on that court. Local access to justice is certainly important, which is why we have supported it across the country. We are also looking at closer working between magistrates courts and the civil and family courts, because that can often support access in areas where individual courts may be under pressure. That is also why decisions are made locally about the use of court houses and resources.

    Court Witnesses
    Hugh Bayley: What research her Department has carried out into the reasons why some witnesses fail to testify in court. [81467]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Government have carried out considerable research on this issue, much of it led by the Home Office, although it is used across Departments involved in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently looking at new research into why trials are ineffective and do not go ahead on the day, including the reasons why witnesses do not attend.
    Hugh Bayley: York Women's Aid tells me that six of its clients in the past year have withdrawn witness statements that they have made to the police against men who use violence against them. The longer the wait between the man being charged and the case coming to court, the more likely a woman is to be harassed and intimidated into withdrawing her evidence. What are the Government going to do to bring domestic violence cases before the courts more speedily to avoid that problem, thus ensuring that women who have been subjected to violence get justice?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to point to problems of delay and intimidation for witnesses. Those are both reasons why witnesses often do not give evidence in the end, and cases can fall apart as a result. There are particular problems in cases of domestic violence, given the relationship between the person who has suffered the violence and the perpetrator, which can make matters more difficult. That is why we are considering not simply reducing unacceptable delays across the board, but measures relating specifically to domestic violence, and why the Government are working on proposals for a White Paper in due course.
    Mr. David Heath: The Government are right to identify intimidation of and reprisals against witnesses as a serious matter. In the Government's preparations for legislation to deal with the problem, will the hon. Lady include research among
    156
    local authorities and parliamentarians with experience of these matters? Can she say what the likely timetable is for the introduction of the victims and witnesses Bill, and whether the antisocial behaviour Bill will include procedural changes to free tenants and others who wish to lay information without threat of reprisal?
    Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Criminal Justice Bill has already been published and includes improvements to support for witnesses. He is right to say that there is also a considerable amount of work going on in support of victims and witnesses across government and across the criminal justice system—for example, work in the courts includes equipment for those who are vulnerable and for intimidated witnesses to be able to give evidence through the Crown court. We are keen to include any representations from hon. Members across the House, and if the hon. Gentleman has particular views or examples, it would be helpful if he passed them to us and also to the Home Office.
    Mr. David Kidney: May I invite my hon. Friend to extend the current research that she mentioned to include an examination of a scheme at Stafford, where there is a support scheme for witnesses and antisocial behaviour cases? I have seen for myself that witnesses feel supported, they feel that they are mutually backing each other up, they obtain information about the cases, and they go to court believing that what they are doing is right and is valued. Will my hon. Friend consider whether such a scheme could be replicated across the country, with the beneficial effect of more witnesses turning up to give evidence?
    Yvette Cooper: I certainly would be interested to see the example that my hon. Friend described. He may be aware that the Crown Prosecution Service estimates that 30,000 cases each year do not go ahead because victims or witnesses are not prepared to give evidence, so we would be interested in any measures that are helping to improve the position. At present, all sorts of support for victims and witnesses is provided by volunteers across the country, so anything that allows communities to provide support and witnesses to provide support for each other would be extremely interesting to look at.

    Solicitors
    Mr. David Cameron: How many complaints she has received about the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in the past year; and if she will make a statement. [81468]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The responsibility for handling complaints about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors falls to the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman. Information about specific numbers of referrals to the OLSO about the OSS is available in the ombudsman's most recent report, a copy of which is in the Library. However, concerns about the operation of the OSS have been raised in correspondence to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Lord Chancellor has warned that unless swift

    157
    and substantive improvements are made, he will not hesitate to implement his reserve powers and establish a legal services complaints commissioner.
    Mr. Cameron: What would the Minister say to my constituent, Mr. Fraser of Chipping Norton, who wrote to me stating:
    "Self-regulation only seemed to work when solicitors did not tout for business and there were fewer solicitors."
    Now that the number of complaints is so large, as the Minister said in her answer, the backlog is so significant, and the level of dissatisfaction is getting so high, can she set a deadline for when she will make a decision about whether or nor the current system is working?
    Ms Winterton: With regard to self-regulation, the Government have always started from the position that the legal profession should be independent and self-regulating. Solicitors should be able to represent their clients freely and without fear, potentially against the Government, if necessary. It is important that we accept that as the ideal position. However, we are keenly aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about complaints, particularly about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. As I said, the Lord Chancellor would prefer the office to get itself in good working order. However, if that does not happen, he has taken reserve powers that will be reviewed frequently to ensure that improvements are being made. If not, other action will be taken.

    Legislative Scrutiny
    Mr. Graham Allen: What her policy is on scrutiny of Bills sponsored by his Department. [81470]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Queen's Speech highlighted the importance that the Government place on pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills by Parliament. We are keen to see much greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills and legislation introduced by the Lord Chancellor's Department in future.
    Mr. Allen: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on their commitment in the Queen's Speech to ensuring more pre-legislative scrutiny, which will allow this place and the public outside to contribute to Bills. If her Department were to introduce a Bill on, say, courts or mental incapacity, would she look favourably on pre-legislative scrutiny in those areas? Looking further ahead, as Departments are now preparing Bills for next year's legislative programme, will she alert her Department—and I hope, with the President of the Council present, all other Departments in Whitehall—to ensure that time is now being built in for pre-legislative scrutiny, so that all Bills can be properly scrutnised by this House and the public?
    Yvette Cooper: The points that my hon. Friend makes are extremely important. We will introduce a Bill on courts reform, as set out in the Queen's Speech. That will need to move relatively quickly into the House for discussion, so I understand that it will not be possible to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny on that Bill. However,
    158
    we are looking to future areas of legislation, including issues relating to mental incapacity, which he mentioned. I certainly believe that such legislation would benefit from the scrutiny afforded by prior publication in draft, although he will understand that I can give no commitment about the timing of publication, nor can I give any commitment about parliamentary scrutiny. He will understand that as well as timing decisions taken by business managers, the final decision must rest with parliamentary Committees. We are keen for them to take the decision to conduct more pre-legislative scrutiny when the opportunity arises.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    House of Lords Reform
    Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on proposals for further reform of the House of Lords. [81510]
    Tony Wright: What progress has been made with his preparation for reform of the House of Lords. [81512]
    The President of the Council (Mr. Robin Cook): The Queen's Speech stated that the Government look forward to considering the interim report from the Joint Committee on options for the composition of the House of Lords. I understand that the Joint Committee may reach a view on its interim report before Christmas. The Government have already given a commitment to facilitate the House reaching a decision on the options on a free vote.
    Dr. Lewis: Will the President resist the temptation to shelter entirely behind the Joint Committee schedule and now give a firm pledge to this House that House of Lords reform will be implemented by the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman waves temptation in front of me. I am happy to say that I am very able to resist the temptation to shelter behind the Joint Committee. I have said before and am happy to say again that I would like us to take forward House of Lords reform in this Parliament. I would like it to be enforced by the time we reach the end of this Parliament, but whether I can arrive there depends not only on me, but on 659 Members of Parliament, how we vote and whether there is a centre of gravity for reform. I would be very concerned if we fell into the same trap into which the House has fallen on previous occasions, when the inability among those who wanted reform to agree on it left the field to those who were opposed to any reform. We must not fall into that trap this time around.
    Tony Wright: When the House discussed this matter six months ago, on 13 May, my right hon. Friend said:
    "A vote before the summer recess is certainly possible if the Joint Committee gets down to work quickly, and presents us with the options in good time. It is difficult to see what new matter needs

    159
    to be examined, and I hope that the Joint Committee will cooperate with us in making that speed."—[Official Report, 13 May 2002; Vol. 388, c. 528.]
    We are now approaching the Christmas recess. I understand that when the Joint Committee next meets, it will be five weeks since it last met, and that three meetings have been cancelled. Does that not suggest that the speech for which he calls has not been forthcoming?
    Mr. Cook: I took the precaution of checking what I said before I came into the Chamber. I added that the summer recess was a tough deadline. It is important that I do not get pushed into the position of speaking on behalf of the Joint Committee and defending its timetable or decisions, which are matters for its members. I welcome the fact that the Chairman said that he intends to report by the winter solstice, and I am grateful to those who pointed out that that takes place on 21 December. That is compatible with being before Christmas.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Given the hilarity with which the Government's White Paper recommendation for electing only a fifth was received, will the Leader of the House give a firm commitment that Labour Back Benchers are under no obligation, and not even encouraged, to support the Government's proposal?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Labour Members are under no obligation to support it. I do not imagine that it would make much difference if they were under such an obligation. There will be a genuine free vote on the options. It is important that we emerge from the process of division with a centre of gravity around one favoured option to create the momentum to take it forward.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: In his extensive research into comparing international second Chambers, has my right hon. Friend come across any other second Chamber that gives religious leaders ex-officio positions and the right to vote on legislation? Is not it time to join the rest of the world and get rid of the bishops from the House of Lords?
    Mr. Cook: I do not pretend to be an expert student of comparative second Chambers around the world, and I cannot therefore give my hon. Friend a blunt, frank answer. However, the future of bishops in the second Chamber is contentious and delicate and reflects views in the Church of England and elsewhere.
    The royal commission suggested that a reduced number of bishops should sit in the second Chamber. We must wait and see the Joint Committee's view on the matter.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Building on the helpful reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), does he perceive no genuine obstacle to resolving Lords reform in this House by next summer, and to resolving it legislatively by the end of the Parliament at the latest? Will he assure us that the Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that the matter progresses in an orderly fashion, and
    160
    that he will work as closely as ever with the Lord Chancellor to make sure that the other place acts in the same way?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will use their best endeavours to reach a conclusion on the matter. However, it is going a bit far to claim on the basis of my earlier reply that I perceive no obstacles. With only a moment's notice, I could produce 55 different obstacles that we might encounter. However, the House has to find a centre of gravity around a favoured method of reform. That is the prime issue. I hope that the process on which we have embarked through a Joint Committee and a free vote will enable us to reach that outcome.
    We have rightly put Parliament in the driving seat to consider an issue of parliamentary reform. I hope that Parliament can rise to the occasion and establish an agreed method of achieving reform. If we can do that, I anticipate effecting it in the course of the Parliament.

    Statutory Instruments
    Norman Baker: If he will ask the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consider whether it would be appropriate to allow statutory instruments to be amendable. [81511]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Procedure Committee has already considered the amendability of statutory instruments and recommended against it. It is therefore unlikely that this matter would be re-examined by the Modernisation Committee, which co-ordinates its work programme closely with the Procedure Committee.
    Norman Baker: That is a disappointing reply, although I understand why the Parliamentary Secretary made it. The following position can often arise: a member of a statutory instrument Committee tables an amendment that garners all-party support in Committee; the Minister has to choose between passing the SI unamended, against the Committee's wishes, or asking the hon. Member to withdraw it. The hon. Member refuses to do that. Is not that simply bad government?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not agree. Accepting amendability would negate the point of SIs. I shall quote briefly from the Procedure Committee's report, which states:
    "Permitting the amendment … would involve excessive complications. It would … overturn many decades of practice … and … frustrate the very purpose of which delegated powers were given."
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: If we are not to have amendable secondary legislation, could many more statutory instruments be debated in draft?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am told by my right hon. Friend that that would be very difficult, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him with a more expansive reply.

    Computers
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will recommend to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it review the way hon. Members use laptop computers to assist them in carrying out their role of legislative scrutiny. [81513]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): My right hon. Friend will bring the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the attention of the Modernisation Committee. He accepts that information and communications technology has great potential for assisting the House in its work, and he is examining ways in which new technologies can be used to maximise Members' effectiveness.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister most sincerely for his positive response to my question, particularly at a time when the Liaison Committee has granted an experiment in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee for the use of laptop equipment. I would be most grateful if he could keep the House informed as to the timetable of the recommendation that he has made.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I would be very happy to do that, and I note the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the advance made by the Liaison Committee in relation to the Select Committee to which he referred. I agree with him, to a certain extent; at a time when many Members have done away with paper altogether and use palm-tops, for example, for note taking, the compiling of contact addresses and so forth, the whole House will want to move in the same direction as he does, in the end.
    Kevin Brennan: Is not the continuing insistence on our not using laptop computers in Committee as ludicrous as it would be if we were still required to use quill pens? The rule is often breached by Members sending text messages and using palm-top computers surreptitiously. Does it not make a mockery of the system to allow that to continue? Will the Minister move quickly on this issue?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is perfectly possible physically to remove oneself from a Committee to make a telephone call or to pass notes to and fro. It is important, however, that we take the Chairmen's Panel with us on this matter.

    Draft Legislation
    Helen Jackson: What steps he is taking to develop improved scrutiny of draft legislation. [81514]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Queen's Speech for the first time highlighted the importance that the Government place on the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills by Parliament. In due course, I would hope that most bills would be published in draft.
    162
    For pre-legislative scrutiny to be a success, it will be necessary for departmental Select Committees to recognise it as part of their core tasks.
    Helen Jackson: Is it not the case that, this week, we shall give a Second Reading to three Bills that have not, to my knowledge, been considered in draft? In particular, is not the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill causing considerable difficulties for local authorities around the country that feel that there has not been enough consultation on aspects of the legislation? Is not this an example of how draft legislation might have been extremely beneficial both to local authorities and to the Government in pursuing that programme?
    Mr. Cook: In fairness to the Government, I should say that the matters that we are discussing this week have been around for some time. For instance, the Bill that we shall discuss today on the regional assemblies flows from a White Paper that has been extensively discussed. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend; of course it helps with the final text of a Bill if it has been through pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why we want to see more Bills published in draft. In practice, though, that means that these Bills would have needed to be published in draft in the last Session. What we must now focus on is how many Bills we can publish in draft in anticipation of the next Session.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Commons Chamber (Tourists)
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment the Commission has made of the costs of making the Commons Chamber accessible to tour groups when the House is sitting. [81516]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The trial period will begin when the House returns in January and will end at the Easter recess. Tour groups will be able to view the Chamber from the area at the back of the Strangers Gallery. Glazing will be installed in the apertures behind the seats in the Gallery to provide soundproofing, and additional audio speakers will be installed in the viewing area. Full details of the cost of this work are not yet available, but it is not expected to be large and will be found from existing budgets.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, which has obviously caused some interest around the Chamber. Will he accept that when we move to the new sitting hours in January, there will be reduced opportunities for visitors to visit the Chamber when it is empty? Does he share my sense of urgency that we should have a permanent arrangement as soon as possible for visits to take place while we are sitting, as he has just described?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman's interest in that subject as a member of the Modernisation Committee is

    163
    well known and noted. This is an experiment, and I hope that Members feed back their experience of that temporary arrangement between January and Easter. Once we have the benefit of that behind us, we shall look forward—in the not too distant future, I hope—to permanent arrangements being made.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    Pre-legislative Scrutiny
    Mr. Graham Allen: To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward a schedule for pre-legislative scrutiny online for all Bills before the next Queen's Speech. [81518]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Whether to conduct pre-legislative
    164
    scrutiny online is a matter for decision by the Committee concerned, although we hope that it might become the usual practice, as circumstances allow.
    Mr. Allen: Obviously, there are difficulties with giving all Bills pre-legislative scrutiny as the programme has been agreed, but there should be no such excuse for next year. Departments are considering Bills now for next year's programme. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the wage bill for Members of Parliament does not go up more than 4 per cent. before that essential modernisation takes place?
    Mr. Bradshaw: As my hon. Friend is aware, the wages of Members of Parliament are subject to independent review by the Senior Salaries Review Body, but we certainly take on board his point about pre-legislative scrutiny online. I have had meetings with him and our correspondence is continuing. We are trying to do what we can to expedite the process.

Fire Dispute
3.31 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the fire service dispute. As you know, I was available to give a statement to the House yesterday in line with my undertaking to keep the House informed. [Laughter.] I would hope that the House always feels that Front Benchers should make themselves accountable. In the event—[Interruption.] I bowed to the wishes of Mr. Speaker, as we all must. In the event, the Prime Minister made a statement in response to an urgent question from the Leader of the Opposition, so I will not repeat what he said.
The Government have always made it clear that we want a modern, efficient and effective fire service. We want a fair deal for the firefighters, a fair deal for other public service employees and a fair deal for the public they serve. I am sure that the House will want to join me in thanking the armed forces, the police and other emergency services for the thoroughly professional job that they have done so far. Anyone looking at the pictures in some of our papers today of Wren Amy Stubbs rescuing a young child can see the professionalism and care that they are applying to their role, and I am sure the House would want me to thank them for it.
Since Friday morning, the armed forces have attended more than 5,000 incidents. Their remit is to give priority to category A life-threatening incidents. In fact, they are all coping well and the calls that they have attended have been from the less dangerous category C. There has been no reported instance of property being left to burn.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the retained firefighters for their continuing work and to acknowledge that striking firefighters have left their own picket lines to deal with some emergency incidents, as they did in the case of the rescue by Amy Stubbs. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking the public for their extra vigilance. However, although hoax calls have fallen from 11 per cent. on the first day of the first strike to 7 per cent. yesterday, that 7 per cent. is still too high.
Following the breakdown of negotiations on Friday morning, I held a discussion with Jeremy Beecham on the way forward. Sir Jeremy is the chairman of the Local Government Association, but he is not a member of the negotiating team. He agreed with me, and has made it public, that the document negotiated between the employers and the employees on Thursday night and Friday morning abandoned the essential link between pay and modernisation that has been the touchstone of the Government's approach to the dispute.
I met Sir Jeremy again last night. He was working to put together a new group on the employers' side, which will oversee the process of modernisation of the fire service, drawing on the work of the Bain review. [Interruption.] That involves members of each political party. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will meet the employers tomorrow to discuss that further.
Officials from my Department met the employers yesterday and they are meeting officials again today to work on the costs and benefits of the modernization
166

proposals. We will continue to work with the employers to help them to come to a clear view about the process of modernisation and the costs of any pay deal for the firefighters.
There has been a great deal of speculation about how this fire strike could be brought to an end. It is very important to bear certain absolutely clear principles in mind. First, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, this Government cannot be asked to find additional money outside the agreed Government spending limits. To do so would risk fundamental and lasting damage to the economy. An inflationary pay rise for the firefighters would lead to inflationary pay rises elsewhere in the public sector, and that in turn would lead to job losses, inflation and mortgage rises. That, I think, is common ground—or it was until yesterday—between the Government and Opposition Members.
Secondly, any pay rise in addition to the 4 per cent. already on the table must be paid for by modernisation. That is the clear message that I have given in every meeting I have held with the employers and the FBU since the early summer. It is the same message that has been repeated by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and members of the Government ever since this dispute started. It is the reason why the Government set up the independent Bain review immediately after negotiations with the FBU and employers broke down in early September. It is also the reason why we asked Sir George Bain to bring forward his position paper on pay, which was published on 11 November.
Following the Prime Minister's press conference and Commons statement yesterday, a real debate has begun in the papers about the issues involved. The FBU found itself having to justify its opposition to the type of changes that other public services have faced up to and which, indeed, have been carried out by some individual fire brigades. The FBU even claimed that it was willing to discuss modernisation all along, so why did it boycott the independent Bain review in the first place?
The debate on modernisation is properly under way, and to help that debate I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a principles paper submitted by the Government to the Bain review. The Government's evidence sets out a clear vision for the future of the fire service and the principles that we believe should form the foundations for modernisation. The fire service is a front-line service whose effective functioning is essential to the quality of life in this country. The Government's evidence states that the fire service is well regarded by the public and is effective in many aspects of its performance, but is in need of change and reform. It is a service that could make much better use of its existing resources; that has to consider new ways of working; that needs to forge better partnerships; and that needs to attract a more diverse work force that better reflects the community it serves.
The Government's principles paper sets out our general approach to public sector pay. It states our determination to maintain economic stability and meet our 2.5 per cent. inflation target. It emphasises the need to avoid unnecessarily high pay increases that divert money intended to improve public services, and it stresses the need to link pay to performance and reform, rather than to tenure and time served. The Government's evidence also sets out the five main drivers for change in the fire service, which are: first, a

167
better understanding of the management of risk and the importance of prevention; secondly, the need to reduce the number of fires that occur and the deaths, injuries, and economic and social costs that they cause; thirdly, the fire services' contribution to community safety and action on social exclusion; fourthly, the importance of partnership in the delivery of best value; and lastly, the broadening range of the fire service's work in response to emergencies other than fire, including the new threats posed by terrorism.
The position paper published by the Bain review on 11 November set out the considerations on pay and conditions that were needed to deliver this vision of a modernised fire service. His final, fuller report will be published in three weeks' time. The position paper set out a vision for a single, more broadly based and modernised service with multiple roles offering a wider range of services and expertise. It proposed a reward structure in which individuals would be valued for the contribution they made. It encouraged a more diverse work force with a wider range of career paths, responsibilities and skills, and made it clear that pay and modernisation had to go hand in hand and be consistent with the Government's public sector pay policy. The position paper recommended an increase in the pay bill of up to 11 per cent. over two years, subject to necessary and long-overdue modernisation.
As I told the House on 14 November, the Government remain convinced that the Bain review is the key to resolving this dispute and providing the basis for a modern fire service equipped to deal with modern demands. Let me be clear: that remains the Government's position, as I have said in every statement to the House and in every discussion with the employers and the FBU. We should also be clear that Sir George Bain is proposing a menu of modernisation that is familiar to public sector workers in every other walk of life. What he means by modernisation with regard specifically to working conditions is that full-time and part-time firefighters should man the same engine together; that there should be shift patterns better to match the daily ebb and flow in the number of fires that occur; that overtime should be worked when it is sensible and necessary; that firefighters should be trained to carry out some essential life-saving paramedic functions that could save hundreds of lives; and that there should be joint control rooms, where the fire service and other emergency services can work together. The House should bear in mind the fact that some of those practices are already being carried out in a number of brigade areas up and down the country.
Bain also set out a route map for achieving that vision. He proposed a four-strand approach to negotiations, under which discussions would begin on the whole package of reforms at the same time but would be completed according to different time scales. The first strand would be completed in four to eight weeks, the second in about six months and the third in about a year. That model involved a direct connection between staged payments and the implementation of modernisation. Sir George recommended that, in exchange, the firefighters should receive a 4 per cent. pay rise immediately and a 7 per cent. rise next November. Each rise would be linked to the implementation of modernisation. The fourth strand would depend on
168
action to be taken in partnership with local authorities and central Government, and would take longer to complete.
Sir George said that the question of a longer-term uprating mechanism should depend on the implementation of the reform package, and that he would return to that in his final report—which, as I have said, will be produced in about three weeks.
As with any industrial dispute, there are lots of variables that can be combined in different ways to bring about a final agreement. Bain talks of 11 per cent.; the general secretary of the FBU confirmed today, at a press conference in the House of Commons, that the union's claim is for 40 per cent., and the same is being stated on picket lines up and down the country.
The way forward is for the employers and the union to sit down and discuss how quickly the service can be modernised, how much can be saved, and when the firefighters will get their extra pay. What is absolutely clear, however, is that this fire service strike will have no influence on that process. The Government are not willing to abandon the clear principles that I have set out in the face of industrial action.
I believe that the dispute will be settled only if people sit down at the table and try to reach an agreement. We must lift our eyes above the bile and recriminations of the current dispute, and focus on the long-term future of the fire service. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to introduce a radical change in order to provide a modern fire service for the 21st century. It is the interests of everyone—the public, the employers, the Government and the firefighters themselves—to achieve that vision.
The Bain review has proposed a way forward. That is the basis for discussion. The issue of modernisation must be addressed, and we will therefore go on trying to bring employers and union together to have a proper discussion of pay and modernisation. The two must go hand in hand. The sooner the FBU faces that, the sooner the two sides can begin meaningful negotiation that can bring the dispute to an end. Once again, I urge the firefighters to get back to talking and stop walking.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. I agree that it is time for the firefighters to return to work and for all parties to return to the negotiating table. Let me also associate myself and the Opposition with the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks about the excellent work being done by the military personnel and, indeed, by the retained firefighters. Their hard work has ensured that this week's strike has not resulted in many more casualties. But it is not with their hard work that we have a problem; the problem is that they are needed at all. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, this strike should not have happened in the first place. That it happened is due in part to the chaos and confusion that we have witnessed at the heart of Government over the past two weeks.
The Deputy Prime Minister spoke at length about reorganisation. Some of that may be beneficial, but it will not work if it is not clear who is in charge. Yesterday the Prime Minister stepped in to try and introduce some clarity, but many questions remain unanswered. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can bring more clarity to some of those issues today.

169
First, there is the issue of costs. On Friday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman described the draft agreement between the employers and the FBU as "uncosted" and "half-baked". The Deputy Prime Minister himself said, "nobody knows the costs". Can he confirm that a member of his Department, a senior civil servant, costed the deal in the early hours of Friday morning at some £240 million? If so, why did the Prime Minister say yesterday that the cost was nearer £500 million? Can the Deputy Prime Minister clear up that confusion and tell us which figure he believes: £240 million or £500 million?
This morning, the Prime Minister's official spokesman refused to rule out the possibility of job losses in the fire service. Given that employment-related costs make up more than 80 per cent. of the fire service's expenditure, it seems that they are extremely likely. Can the Deputy Prime Minister say whether he anticipates job losses? If the Prime Minister's figure of £500 million is correct, that will equate to no fewer than 15,000 job losses. Does the Deputy Prime Minister see those coming from a simple reduction in manpower or from the closure of fire stations? Most important, can he guarantee that there will be no worsening of cover or response times as a result of cost savings?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said particularly clearly that there would be no central Government funding for anything over 4 per cent. However, the employers appear to be anticipating some form of transitional funding from the Government, and the Bain inquiry implied transitional funding of some £41 million. Can the Deputy Prime Minister finally put that issue to rest and tell us what the true position is? Do the Prime Minister's comments mean that there will be no transitional funding and does that represent a change of policy from the Deputy Prime Minister's original position?
The strike seems, sadly, set to go on for weeks or even months. Accordingly, the threat to public safety is even greater than we feared. What is the position on the safer red fire engines now? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that they are available to the military if they ask for them. However, do the Government have control of all the 100-plus engines that they talked of last week, and are they being deployed?
Is the experience of the military in Northumberland typical? I have here a copy of an article from Newcastle's The Journal today, which says that they were given modern appliances on Saturday, the decision was reversed on Sunday and reversed again on Monday night. Is the indecision and chaos that have plagued the dispute from the beginning still endangering the lives of the public?
There is growing evidence that the threat of strike action is beginning to spread through the public sector. Even today, teachers and council workers in London are on strike. On Thursday, the RMT will send out ballot papers calling for strike action on the London underground, using the pretence of safety concerns. The Prime Minister sought to avoid that question yesterday, but should not the Government make clear before union members cast their votes what the legal consequences are? Will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear that
170
secondary action or the threat of secondary action is unlawful and that the Government will give their full support to anyone who takes legal action against any trade union engaging in it?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the FBU has refused to sign up to TUC safety guidelines, which are, after all, designed to protect the public from unnecessary risk in the event of a strike? Is that not exactly the sort of circumstance that section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 sought to deal with—a threat to the safety of the public? May I ask him again the question that he and the Prime Minister have avoided: will he go back to the Attorney-General and ask him to consider using that legislation to stop the strike action going on until Christmas?
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can provide clear and concise answers to those important questions and clear up some of the chaos that we have witnessed in the past few days and weeks. The strike has already gone on too long. It is time for all parties to return to the negotiating table and to find a settlement. The strike should never have been allowed to happen, and many in this country will find it sad that, as the strike goes on and with public safety increasingly at risk, the only person who appears to be sleeping easily in his bed is the Deputy Prime Minister himself.
The Deputy Prime Minister: That was a typical cheap contribution from the right hon. Gentleman. The Opposition should reflect on the fact that every day of this dispute causes a threat to our citizens and everything should be done to try—[Interruption.] I will reply, but it is important to create an atmosphere in which we can have a settlement and not inflame the dispute, which is what the Conservative Administration always did. It is a bit cheap for the Conservatives to talk about how many days have been lost in the dispute, when we recall the millions of days lost in disputes under their leadership, quite apart from the millions of days lost through unemployment.
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that I have to direct the Attorney-General? [Interruption.] I thought that he said that the Government should tell the Attorney-General that we do not want the strike. He should ask his own legal affairs spokesman. I am asked by the Attorney-General whether any action is taking place and what the state of the negotiations is, and I properly tell him that it is for him to make a judgment on the public interest and the safety of the community. I leave that judgment to him and it is not our job to direct him on such matters. If—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Deputy Prime Minister answer.
The Deputy Prime Minister: On the question about whether the TUC has an agreement on the 1978 agreement, that is a matter for the TUC. It was a matter for me to seek to find an agreement, which I failed to do on the first occasion, on exceptional situations such as a train crash or an explosion on our transport system. We have an agreement, signed up to by the union and the authorities involved, to make the men and machines available when such problems arise, dealing with what is known as the gold command, with the fire people

171
controlling the fire equipment and the police controlling theirs. That is the normal structure under such circumstances, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that we have an agreement to that effect, willingly entered into by the Fire Brigades Union, rather than shaking his head at it.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the emergency services, and I know that the whole House will agree.
When the estimates were made of the cost of £400 million or £500 million, that was a judgment on the total cost of the deal over three years. The Chancellor was talking about the public expenditure over the whole three-year period. Before considering how much could be paid for through modernisation and whether there would be any transitional payments, we would first have to agree to some modernisation proposals. Without such an agreement, we cannot make a proper judgment of what costs would be involved.
The George Bain judgment is that 11 per cent. could be paid in two years if the firefighters are prepared to modernise in the way that I have suggested here and the way that he set out in his report. He did not say 16 per cent., he said 11 per cent. The union and the employers were discussing 16 per cent., but we did not endorse any of their three agreements and made it clear that any deal had to be financed by modernisation. It was not a matter of how much modernisation—the union made it clear that it was not prepared to engage with any modernisation. In those circumstances, all three deals that were being discussed were unacceptable. The first deal had the details of how much modernisation there should be, but that was taken out of the next two documents. We did not endorse any of them. Bain recommended, and the employers originally agreed, that there should be staged payments along with staged implementation. That is where the judgments have to be made.
As the Prime Minister said, 100 red fire engines are available to the command centres if they want them, along with the 27 or 30 that are currently being used. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a problem in Newcastle, of which I am partly aware. The dispute was not about whether red goddesses should be used, but about where they should be sited. That was apparently what was under discussion by the authorities in the area—not doubts about the Prime Minister's statement. He said that if the machines were requested, we would be prepared to provide them. That commitment was met.
As regards the RMT and its decision, I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman talk to his party's legal spokesman. Perhaps I should let him into this secret: secondary picketing and action are unlawful. There is no doubt about that. I need say no more than that.
The Prime Minister made it clear that, during the first strike, 100 RMT members were involved in what some people called secondary action, although the RMT members said that it was due to safety fears. The company dealt with that and the number fell to one. I can tell the House that the number is now zero—there has been a 100 per cent. improvement.
172
We all have to recognise that the matter has to be settled around a table, and we should do everything that we can—
Mr. Eric Pickles: What about job losses?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I shall deal with that—it is an important point. The FBU is proud of its record in keeping people employed in the industry. However, as 20 per cent. of the industry's work force will be taking early retirement over the next few years—for some of them it will be extremely early, because 70 per cent. of such retirements are for medical reasons—there would seem to be ample opportunity to discuss a more efficient utilisation of labour without redundancies or sackings.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for continuing to keep the House informed. I join him in thanking our armed forces, our police and other emergency services for their work during the strike. He is right to point out that our thanks must go to the retained firefighters for their work. Not only do the Liberal Democrats wholly oppose the strike, but we also believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right on Friday morning to reject the request made by the employers and the FBU. That request was, in effect, for a blank cheque and for a deal that completely failed to guarantee real modernisation.
I join the Conservative spokesman, however, in pointing out that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been giving mixed messages, especially on funding, and that has not helped negotiations. Even now, it is still not clear whether there could be transitional funding to bridge any time gap until savings from reform come through. Yesterday, the Prime Minister distinctly failed to answer a question on that point from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). And the Deputy Prime, Minister failed to answer that question when it was put by the Conservative spokesman today.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister try to answer the question once and for all? Could transitional funding be found within, as he said in his statement, "agreed Government spending limits"? Have not the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues hinted on many occasions during the past few weeks that transitional funding could be available? Could such funding not break the deadlock?
The Deputy Prime Minister has expressed frustration that he has not seen estimates of the savings that could be generated from reform. Will he explain why it is taking so long to obtain those figures? Why has his Department not produced them by now? Will he confirm that, a week ago, Ministers received a costings paper from the national joint council detailing estimated savings of £71 million from reform? If he can confirm that, will he tell the House whether Ministers accept that figure? Does he agree that the failure to draw up full and proper estimates of savings from modernisation is a major obstacle to finalising negotiations?
When exactly did the Government submit their principles paper to the Bain review? As that independent

173
review is even more important than ever if we are to achieve sensible reform, is there any possibility that publication of the final report will be brought forward?
On an operational note, the Government say that they are putting public safety above all other considerations, so does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern that in West Mercia it appears that the police and the Royal Air Force have been instructed to stop helping firefighters to put out fires? An e-mail from a senior fire office to his colleagues, headed "Police advice on striking firefighters attending incidents", states:
"Our police colleagues are understandably reluctant to release the advice they have received from their own headquarters, but the RAF have confirmed that they received similar advice a few days ago.
The basis of the advice is that: The fire fighters are travelling in unmarked cars and may cause a risk to other road users as they chase incidents. They are not insured when working whilst on strike, raising questions over legal liability if they did something that resulted in death or injury. Such 'humanitarian' responses are being used in their propaganda war and undermine the military position, suggesting they"—
the military—
"are unable to cope to cope without their expertise."
The senior firefighter's e-mail continues:
"You will appreciate that this has potentially very significant implications in several respects. The last bullet point is particular disturbing, suggesting that the advice could be politically rather than operationally motivated."
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he is aware of any such military or police advice? Will he guarantee to the House that Ministers and officials have had nothing to do with any such advice? Will he undertake to investigate that issue and make it clear now that the Government would not support any action by the police or RAF to stop firefighters from helping to save lives?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments and come immediately to the more serious points that he makes. May I make it clear that I am not aware of any such incident, which the House would deplore? If he is prepared to give me the information, I will look into it immediately and ensure that it is corrected. Although I do riot know of such an incident, I assure him that my Department would not be involved in it. However, I shall look into it and report back to him as soon as I can.
With regard to the mixed messages, we have been very clear that anything over and above 4 per cent. will have to be paid for by modernisation. Everyone has said that time and again, and that message is very clear. We were not involved in the negotiations, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that employers and employees always negotiate their own agreements. Everyone in government has recognised that, and we have not disputed it. All we have said is that there can be a settlement for three years and that there will be a certain amount of money for public pay. If the settlement is over and above that, it will have to be financed by modernisation. That is a clear position, and it is probably one that the Opposition might have pursued in government, but that will not be tested for an awfully long time.
174
We are making all those matters clear, and whether people can change, whether anything can be done about the savings and what will be the total costs are all issues that concern us. Let me deal with just one question that I inquired about. When I looked at one of the proposals to bring retained fireworkers' pay up to that of full-time fireworkers—especially with regard to part-timers as well—I asked why is there a difference in pay? One of the union's demands is to bring pay up to the same level. I asked whether we could have the figures—I thought that calculating the money involved seemed simple enough—but then discovered that people have to renegotiate all the allowances that are included. It is not easy to go away and find out the figures immediately.
I agree that it is risking a terrible situation when negotiations go on without that basic information. I understand that the same employers involved in negotiations with local authorities receive regular information, but if such negotiations have not gone on with the fire service for 25 years, people get into habits and do not look at the cost savings that are involved. I agree that that should have been done, and that is why we have set up a team to make sure that we have accurate information, instead of ideas just being put down on paper and people asking me to sign a blank cheque. That is totally unacceptable, and it is why the team has been put together to find out accurate information.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our paper on principles. We sent the paper to the Bain inquiry on 18 October, but we thought that it would be useful to publish it today—it had not been published by the Bain inquiry—to show what the Government's attitude to modernisation and pay was on 18 October. The principles are clearly set out in that paper.
Kate Hoey: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that all the firefighters in the three fire stations in my constituency are prepared to talk sensibly about some of the ways of working, but they are not prepared—nor am I—to see modernisation used as a form of cutback? In particular, will he assure the House that the fire service in London will not have fewer firemen and women on duty at night, given that Londoners—certainly the people in my constituency—think that that is the most dangerous time, when we need more firemen and women, not fewer?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is clear that one needs to have a proper risk assessment of where the danger is; it varies from station to station and, indeed, as the general secretary of the FBU has said, from time to time. He said that he was in a very busy station, but some stations receive fewer calls, so risk assessment is quite important. Judgments can be made about whether there should be full teams for the three eight-hour watches, but there have been fewer police on duty at night than during the day for a long time. I understand the arguments about that, but my point is why not sit down and negotiate?
How can my hon. Friend possibly know whether the number of firefighters will be reduced—the charge that she makes—without the required analysis and the discussions? It is easy to pick up a leaflet and repeat what might be said outside, but I have to do something much

175
more informed than that, and the Bain inquiry was about telling us facts, rather than taking things off a leaflet.
Richard Ottaway: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that it is the number of closed underground stations rather than the number of drivers at work that is the issue? Is he aware that the channel tunnel, when faced with closure, installed its own safety equipment to a standard that was acceptable to the Health and Safety Executive in Kent? As a result, the channel tunnel is open. Why cannot the same be done on the London underground to free the streets of London of the chaos that is becoming a daily occurrence?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We must accept that the London underground is working very well—[Interruption.] It has not closed down. Despite the statements made at the time—[Interruption.] Yes, it is working well. Let us look at how many trains are running and how many drivers are turning up for work. As I have already said, 100 drivers did not turn up during the previous strike, but that number went down to one yesterday, and it is now none. That should be welcomed. As for the closed stations, I understand the difficulties behind the Health and Safety Executive's judgment, which we must accept. Perhaps those factors can be taken into account in the modernisation of the underground.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is well known that the firemen have support around the country, and that people would like the dispute settled as lives are in danger, and that is what the Fire Brigades Union is all about—trying to save lives. Would not it be wise of my right hon. Friend to get a room in his office or somewhere else, put the negotiating team in there, and only feed them beer and sandwiches until he gets a result?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is more a case of wine and canapés at the moment. Anyway, I do not think that that is necessary. On the occasions when I have met the general secretary of the FBU, he wants neither a sandwich nor a beer nor tea. We have had meetings and discussions, however, and safety considerations are as important to him as to the ordinary fire workers on picket lines, who, when they see an incident, come off their picket lines and go to save lives. Every one of us must therefore make every kind of effort to get back round the negotiating table to get a good fire service working for us and for the safety of the community.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Given the Deputy Prime Minister's assurance that any settlement will be fully financed by modernisation, will he provide a further categorical assurance that no part of any settlement above 4 per cent. will fall to council tax payers to fund?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have made it precisely clear that anything over and above 4 per cent. will have to be paid for by modernisation. The only reference to council tax came not from the Government but from the leader of the Fire Brigades Union, who suggested putting 20p on council tax. What I found hard was that
176
it seemed that the council tax payer could be asked to pay to overcome this difficulty, and the taxpayer could be asked to pay for it, but the Fire Brigades Union would make no changes. It should make changes.
Mr. David Borrow: Firefighters in my constituency still believe that they are worth £30,000 a year, and they believe that the Fire Brigades Union has evidence to justify that. They do not believe the Bain inquiry because of the fatal flaw in that the FBU did not submit any evidence to it. If the FBU asks the Deputy Prime Minister to set up an inquiry again, in which the FBU would participate, to make a judgment on the extent to which, since 1978, changes in the labour market and the fire service would justify a pay increase, would he be prepared to set up such an inquiry? At the moment, the firefighters still believe—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is an opportunity to say that questions must be brief.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Let me make it clear that there is no need for another inquiry. I have said very clearly to the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union that if he has evidence to give, even at this stage, he should give it. I cannot accept criticism in relation to the worth of a firefighter if evidence is not given to the inquiry that is set up. That is the situation. I do not know all the facts, and it is clear that the employers do not know all of them either, so it is traditional in such circumstances, under all Governments in this country, to set up an independent inquiry as a fair way of obtaining the facts.
As for the judgment on whether a firefighter is worth £30,000. I refer to the one difference about firefighters with which everyone agrees. They walk into danger when most of us walk away from it. That is a special consideration. However, on the point about whether they are worth £30,000, I ask the House to consider what would happen if nurses walked out and deaths in wards resulted from their lack of attendance. We would be asking exactly the same question. We must try to find fairness within the balance that we have set out. I have done that today and the Bain inquiry has done that. Let us sit down and talk and produce whatever evidence one would like to give. However, we must make a decision at the end of the day that is fair to the firefighters, fair to other public sector workers and fair to the economy in its consequences.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am reminded more and more that the Deputy Prime Minister is like Nero, only faffing rather than fiddling. Bearing in mind that soldiers are paid half what the FBU is asking for, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman did the walking instead of the talking and resigned?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Clearly, that was not a serious question.
Mr. Russell Brown: I very much admire the work that my right hon. Friend has undertaken in this dispute. I sincerely hope that the other parties involved do not regret the action that they have taken in removing him from the negotiations.

177
Will my right hon. Friend clarify to the House and to the country at large some of the misinformation that is currently being bandied about? A perfect example is the 40 per cent. pay increase that each and every Member of the House is alleged to have had. Furthermore, can he tell us the salary increase that the firefighters have received over the past five years and say whether any modernisation has been tied to that? Has that modernisation been delivered?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Firefighters' wages have been determined by a formula produced in 1978 and they have been connected to the average rise in earnings. The formula has not required them to have any negotiations or tied pay to modernisation. That system operated for 25 years and everyone can welcome the fact that there had not been a strike in the industry for 25 years. The FBU now feels that the formula is not adequate and it wants to change it. That is the point of negotiation.
The 40 per cent. increase that has been mentioned was given only to the Prime Minister. Members received varying degrees of percentage increase, but I must make the point that the increase was determined by an independent inquiry and not by the House. I recommend such an approach to the FBU.
Mr. Michael Weir: In the statement, the Deputy Prime Minister asked us to lift our eyes above the bile and recrimination of the current dispute. May I therefore invite him to repudiate the bile spouted by Richard Simpson, Labour's Deputy Justice Minister in Scotland, who not only accused the firefighters of being fascists but then went on to question their parenthood? Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that someone using such inflammatory language in this dispute is fit to be a Minister?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am advised that Richard Simpson did not make such a comment. As the question came from such an obvious source, I will treat it with the contempt that it probably deserves.
Jim Sheridan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the local government side of the negotiations will be freshened up. However, does he share my concern about the FBU's reluctance to engage in modernisation? I have spoken to firefighters on the picket lines and they are already engaged in modernisation. What they need is a clear package outlining what is asked of them and what they will receive in return. That will enable them to come to an informed judgment and that may or may not bring the dispute to an end.
The Deputy Prime Minister: On the proposals for modernisation, let us consider those for joint control rooms. They are working in certain brigades and, when I ask the FBU about that, it tells me that they operate because of a decision taken by the firemen in that area. That may be their decision but, because the FBU is negotiating national wages and national agreements, it is fair to ask it, at least, to start talking about them. At the moment, it has set its face against that, but that is
178
just for the moment. We will have to return to the negotiating table, and we will insist on the need to discuss such proposals.
Mr. James Paice:Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not one of his officials costed the deal on Thursday night at £240 million? Yes or no.
The Deputy Prime Minister: There was no cost given. Costs were bandied about—[Interruption.] Let me make this clear. I asked how much the deal would cost because it contained a section that said, "We do not believe that this will finance itself so we will have to go to the Government", or words to that effect. I was told, "We're signing the deal. We'll do the figure crunching later." I cannot sign deals on that basis.
John Cryer:Is not it the case that modernisation, as it is called, will mean fewer firefighters, as my right hon. Friend seems to imply? Is he aware that in all three commands in Greater London, firefighter jobs have been lost over a period of 20 years? In the last round of cuts three years ago, five more pumps were lost with a proportionate loss of jobs. How many firefighter jobs does he envisage will be lost as a result of the current process of so-called modernisation?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It appears from what my hon. Friend says that redundancies were already taking place under the existing system, although I do not have that information. All we are saying is let us have a modernised service by discussing the practices in the industry with the union. That is fair enough. Setting our face against discussion does not mean that we will prevent redundancies. As he says, they are already occurring. Let us have a properly manned service that is fair to the firefighters.
Derek Conway: The Deputy Prime Minister's tribute to the armed forces working in the dispute had a hollow ring to it because they still do not have the equipment that the Government said at the beginning of the dispute would be available. Of the 400 modern engines—perhaps he can respond to this when he has finished muttering to his hon. Friends—that were available at the beginning of the dispute, only 15 were deployed, and he has the nerve to tell us today that still only a quarter have been deployed. What exactly is the problem, other than the Deputy Prime Minister?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is quite wrong to say that 400 engines are available. The hon. Gentleman can get the information on that. There could be 400 vehicles, but some would be without engines or wheels. I do not know what he means. The Prime Minister and the Government have made it clear that 100 are available to be distributed at the request of the armed forces. They will be provided if requested. Indeed, they are being provided, as he can regularly see on the television.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Yesterday the Prime Minister said that firefighters should end their ban on overtime in the name of modernisation. Tonight ambulance staff in west Yorkshire go on a 24-hour work-to-rule, mainly because they are stressed out by

179
having to work routine overtime to provide cover. May I tell the Deputy Prime Minister that excessive hours are a 19th century practice, something that the Labour party was born to end? We should not be promoting excessive hours in our emergency services.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not know how many hours my hon. Friend works. It is certainly more than eight, but that is by choice, which is an important part of a democratic society. If someone wants to work overtime and get extra income, that is a choice for the individual worker. It is a common practice throughout industry. I know that it is sometimes said that we should work towards getting rid of overtime, but I do not think that she would include that in her manifesto at this stage. Let us get modern working practices in place. We need to work out the solution and provide a modern fire service that is flexible enough to meet all the demands placed on it.
Sir Michael Spicer: Yesterday I met a taxi driver for whom being a regular fireman was a second job. Does the Deputy Prime Minister know of anyone else in similar circumstances?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I note the point. Many firefighters would say that they take a second job. Sometimes that is because they do not get enough basic salary, and perhaps we should consider that problem. In some cases, however, it is to get a second income. If they do not want overtime in the fire service, why take extra work in the form of a second job?
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Some of us who have experienced a national dispute in which the Government stand firm against a trade union have been here before. I am not comfortable with seeing a union in conflict with my Government. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that I hold him in high regard and he is right to say that it is better to talk than walk. However, there is something farcical about a situation in which the Government have a veto on negotiations between employers and the trade union. Is it not time that we considered face-to-face negotiations between the Government and the Fire Brigades Union to settle the dispute? It is not just a case of people talking to each another; they have to listen as well.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not against face-to-face talks; indeed, I first met Andy Gilchrist and local authority representatives to try to find a way forward in August. I hope it is not proposed that the Government should negotiate with every public sector worker. In some cases, that is called an incomes policy, which always used to cause problems.
My hon. Friend refers to his own information about disputes with the Government. I found myself in conflict with the Government in 1966, following a dispute between seamen and ship owners, and our movement suffered another glorious defeat. I hope that Andy Gilchrist will not mind my giving him advice: he should be very careful not to get into a conflict with the Government about public pay. All Governments face those issues. My hon. Friend proposes that the Government should take over negotiations, but that
180
would not be a good move, although they are responsible for taxpayers' money and entitled to ask whether any deal fits certain requirements.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The appointment of the Minister for Pensions, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), shows that the Prime Minister has lost all confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister's handling of the issue. Will he now, for the third time of asking, tell the House how the Bain report can convert into increased pay for firefighters without immediate corresponding job losses, especially as it says nothing about overall manning levels?
The Deputy Prime Minister: No, it does not; the report made it clear that firefighters should first go through the gate of modernisation. Bain said that in the first four weeks of that process he could take a number of measures that would not affect jobs; however, they would affect the atmosphere within which the discussions would take place.
Bain went on to set out a four-year framework. We have heard the argument for a 16 per cent. pay increase in two years. Bain was not in favour of that; he proposed a rise of 11 per cent. in two years. He based that judgment on the changes that could he made, which the hon. Gentleman will see in the appendices to the report. Bain's fuller report would spell out the detail of those proposals.
Bain went on to say that many more savings could be made in the third and fourth years. Looking over the longer term, the programme would not only meet the needs of pay through modernisation, but change the fire service. I agree with the union that it has been a Cinderella service that we have never properly funded. Legislative changes are needed, and there must be an overall approach to modernisation. We are prepared to do what Bain set out, and it is possible to go through the first stages of his framework without having to find extra money.
Phil Sawford: I spoke to firemen in Kettering on Friday night and visited the fire station again on Monday morning. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the firefighters do not want to be out on strike, that they want a decent living wage and recognition for the professional work that they do and that they are willing to modernise? Before positions get further entrenched, creating a legacy of bitterness and mistrust, will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible in the best interests of the public and the firefighters?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have always had the public in mind. Every one of us has to bear it in mind that the dispute poses a threat to life, and I am sure that that is as true of the firefighters as it is of the Government.
I visited my fire station in Bransholme and had a chat with the firefighters, and I have no doubt that they do not want to be on strike. However, they are firmly convinced that they want changes to the industry and to their pay. They posed the question, "What is the worth of the firefighter?" We must address ourselves to precisely that question, but it has to be measured against all the other factors. This is not just about the firefighter.

181
We are recognising special conditions and we are saying that we will pay above the existing rate but firefighters have to modernise in return. We all know from visiting fire stations in our constituencies that firefighters are genuine guys who want to sort out the dispute and get on with their job. They like their job but they think that they need to be better rewarded and they want a modernised fire service. That should be uppermost in everybody's mind; I certainly intend to do all that I can to achieve it and I have set out the framework within which we all have to work.
David Burnside: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the Army is providing emergency cover in Northern Ireland during the firefighters' dispute. Is he aware also that the additional manpower back-up for the fire service is reducing troop numbers in Northern Ireland to a dangerously low level? That is due first, to the need for back-up for the low manpower in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and secondly, to low morale in the prison service caused by the release of personal security information to Sinn Fein-IRA through the spy ring in Stormont. Has the Deputy Prime Minister had any discussion with Northern Ireland Office Ministers about increasing troop levels?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are in touch with our Northern Ireland colleagues about those matters. He has raised some important matters—I shall raise them with my colleagues and write him a letter to that effect. I am careful not to get involved in the politics of Northern Ireland, which make the situation very different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point and write to him.
Ms Joan Walley: I really want to stand up for professional firefighters in Staffordshire. We are at a crossroads and have reached an impasse. My right hon. Friend and the Fire Brigades Union have to find a way through.
In Staffordshire, we have embraced modernisation, and part-time and full-time firefighters work alongside one another. The bids with the best savings submitted by Staffordshire to the Government have been turned down. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how, if we go down the modernisation route, extra money can be found within the agenda of joined-up government to make sure that we can fund the changes that everyone wants and that the public trust?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that I said in my statement that there are areas where we should begin discussions, and where it is likely that discussions can take place. I mentioned joint control rooms, but there are other areas. My hon. Friend said that full-time and part-time workers work together in firefighting. That is true when they arrive at a fire, but my understanding is that they cannot go in the same vehicle to that fire. It seems a bit odd that they cannot go in the same vehicle to a fire—that is the sort of thing that we want to talk about with the Fire Brigades Union and ask whether we can make an adjustment. If it can convince us that that
182
is not right, we shall have to take that into account. If it convinces us that it could create safety problems, we would not want to countenance that. However, everyone must get into discussions. The FBU representatives cannot stay out of them and say, "We won't do it" or stay out for 40 per cent., no strings attached. That is unacceptable—start talking, not walking.
Mr. Keith Simpson: May I draw the Deputy Prime Minister back to an earlier question about the likely impact of any settlement, even with efficiency savings, on council tax? His Department must have done some calculations, and he will accept that potentially there will be a major impact, certainly in the short term, on many county councils that are awaiting with trepidation the announcement of the local government finance formula in the next fortnight?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious matter. That has never been part of any negotiations that I have seen—it was a comment by, I think, the general secretary of the FBU, who said that 20p would be put on council tax. Quotes and estimates have been given, but they have not been part of our negotiations. We have said that all pay claims above 4 per cent. must be covered by modernisation. Seeking the easy way out, passing the increase on to council tax, is no more acceptable than passing it on to the national taxpayer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have the right to make judgments about what they buy with their council tax.
Mr. John MacDougall: My right hon. Friend made reference to the signed agreements reached with the FBU on the underground. Would he join me in welcoming the voluntary efforts of many FBU members throughout the country who, as is the case in my constituency, have turned up and supported other efforts to deal with emergency situations where lives were threatened? Does he agree that the current position is that every effort has been made but that further efforts must be made to resolve the issue, otherwise there will be no victors at the end of the day, only losers?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree. At the end of the day, however, we have to come to some agreement. I pay tribute to those firefighters—when faced with a decision where there is a threat to human life most of them will leave the picket line and go and help. There is a lot of evidence of that—it is the firefighters' nature. That is what they do—they do not have a conflict of conscience, and I think that the whole House would want to congratulate them on that. That kind of spirit, at the end of the day, will solve this. We have to sit down and find agreement between parties who respect one another and accept each other's negotiating position. It is called compromise, it is called negotiations, it is called talking. That is how we will settle this in the end.
Mr. John Burnett: If the Attorney-General is proposing to apply to the court, it is inconceivable that he will not tell the Deputy Prime Minister, so will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if he knows whether the Attorney-General is proposing to

183
apply to the court to invoke section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to declare that the strike is endangering public safety?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has a legal background—I suspect, from his bearing, that he probably does. He will know as well as I know that the Attorney-General does not have to tell me about any action that he could take. What he must do, and he has been to see me about it, is o make a judgment about the dispute—whether this dispute may end, as in the case of the 48-hour strike, and whether his intervention would inflame the situation and make the strike go on longer, with all the implications of that for public safety. He has to make that judgment, but he does not have to tell me or ask my position—properly so—about whether he takes an action.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he did not adequately answer the question from one of those Tory Back-Benchers, who asked him whether he knew any other group of people that had second jobs? The answer is loads of Tory MPs, including a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is making £100,000 a year selling fags to the third world. Will my right hon. Friend answer a question about a statutory incomes policy? Will he tell those people who are calling for public and Government intervention to be careful of their language? We all have the scars to prove what happened last time there was a statutory incomes policy. If he cannot get the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he look into his Department to find the pump-priming money to get the modernisation proposals on their way?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says on these matters. We have campaigned long and hard for Members of Parliament to have only one job in the House, and that is what I have done for the past 30 years since I have been a Member. As my hon. Friend reminds us, all the way through the operation of an incomes policy, all those Members who had second jobs were always exempt from the strictures of an incomes policy. Those strictures only ever applied to the ordinary worker, who received the normal payments. As to whether we will find extra resources, until the firefighters sit down and talk about where the resources will come from and how much of the total cost will be covered by modernisation, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. Let me be clear: no extra above 4 per cent. will be paid unless we are on course for modernisation and implementing it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When I spoke to—
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thought that statements were supposed to be for one hour.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister has come to the House. I will decide who I call and who I do not call.
Mr. McLoughlin: When I spoke to firemen in Matlock, it was made clear to me that the last thing that
184
they wanted to do was to go on strike. How can the Deputy Prime Minister, with all his vast experience in industrial relations, come to the House today and say, "This has got nothing to do with me"? He was the man who set up Bain. He is the man who is calling the tune. At the end of the day, whether the Deputy Prime Minister likes it or not, he and the Prime Minister are responsible.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I apologise for any insult or offence that I may have caused, Mr. Speaker, but you know that on the last occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am entitled to make a point, even in a modernised House. You know, Mr. Speaker, that there was a requirement that statements would be one hour, and you said to the House that we went longer than that on the last occasion. [Interruption.] I am only repeating what the Speaker said. There was a statement yesterday. As you know, I recognise your judgment in the matter. You said on the last occasion that we had gone over the time allowed after modernisation, and since there was a statement yesterday, I was expressing the thought that we were going well over the hour now. I do exactly as you tell me. I do not challenge you in any way, but I think it fair to point out that I have a grievance about it, and I am entitled—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As a former trade union officer, perhaps I can address the right hon. Gentleman's grievance. I agree that that was a recommendation of the Modernisation Committee, but of course I have discretion in the matter. There were a great many Members standing, and that is why I tested the right hon. Gentleman's patience. There may be other occasions when I have to go beyond the recommendations of the Committee. If the Deputy Prime Minister is patient, perhaps I will let him and the House know that the last hon. Gentleman whom I intended to call was the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
The Deputy Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, you clearly reflect your trade union experience, to which I immediately bow and which I fully accept.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to the trade union experience seems appropriate at this time. Of course the Government have a responsibility in these matters. When they negotiate their provisions for local authorities and public services, there should be an element relating to public pay. What we have said on this occasion about paying above that amount we have also said to the local authority workers, who settled only a few months ago. We told them that there could be no more and they observed that decision. In some cases, trade union officials are now advocating the view that more can be paid. In those circumstances, and where such payments are made, we have made it clear that we will want to look at any such agreement.
That automatically brings me to what Andy Gilchrist told me in August, when I first met him. He asked whether we were interfering as a Government and I made it clear that we were not doing so, but I also said "If you want a 40 per cent. increase and it has to come from the taxpayer, I am bound to ask how you are financing it." That is my obligation in this job, whether

185
I am a trade union representative or not, although in these circumstances, I happen to be an employer instead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Speaker's Statement
4.36 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make in response to a previous point of order.
I have investigated the point of order raised with me yesterday by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It appears that the Ministry of Defence released to the press a written ministerial statement of which prior notice had not been given to the House. The Minister for the Armed Forces has written to me to apologise for the incident, which he accepts was a serious oversight. He has assured me that it was a genuine administrative error and that no discourtesy to the House was intended.
I am satisfied that in this case a genuine mistake was made, and on behalf of the House, I accept the very proper apology that has been offered. No doubt, all Departments are still getting used to the new procedures for giving notice of written statements, but this occasion provides a useful opportunity for me again to reiterate that statements of Government policy should be made first to the House.

Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will accept the apology that was so promptly and graciously tendered by the Minister for the Armed Forces. May I also thank you for so readily and promptly investigating my complaint? I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to you for your robust response. It will reassure hon. Members on all Benches—save, possibly, the Treasury Bench—that you have again shown the robustness that you demonstrated a moment ago. The House will be grateful to you.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will no doubt be aware that two hours ago, the Government lost their case in the High Court on the challenge made with regard to consultation about airport capacity in the south-east. Have you been approached by a Minister seeking to make a statement today or tomorrow on that important matter? The decision may require the re-running of the whole consultation process, which is clearly significant for many hon. Members.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you more warning of this point of order; I was able to give you very short notice that we had learned that the Government had lost the court case.
The House will be aware that the consultation process on airport expansion in the foreseeable 30-year period is due to end on 30 November. In those circumstances, have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Transport with regard to his acceding to our earlier request, made on a number of occasions, that the consultation period be allowed a short extension of two months?
Mr. Spealker: No Minister has approached me. Of course, it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the appropriate Ministers will take note.
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you have an interest in protecting the House's reputation. It has been said inside and outside the House on several recent occasions that Members of Parliament received a 40 per cent. pay rise. Will you investigate the matter? If it is true, someone has their hand in my pay packet because I got only 6 per cent. That is true throughout the House. The 40 per cent. that is sometimes cited refers to the money that was provided for staffing Members' offices. It is right that we employ more people, not least because we have improved our working practices. However, the House's image is damaged when people wrongly claim that we received 40 per cent. increases. Ministers took a larger increase only because they had declined one for several years.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All joking and banter aside, do you accept that many hon. Members would infinitely prefer it if you, rather than Ministers, determined the length of time for Ministers' statements?
Mr. Speaker: I believe that that point has been made.

Orders of the Day

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.41 pm
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  When the Government came to power in 1997, we had one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world. It had no regional democratic accountability and ignored the needs and aspirations of the regions, where "Whitehall knew best." The system was unsuited to a diverse and changing society, and ill equipped for our modern economy. It allowed divisions between and in the regions to widen.
  In the past five years, we have achieved the most far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change in living memory. We have handed power back to the people and transformed our system of government through devolution to Scotland and Wales, reform of the House of Lords and modernising local government. The Conservative party opposed all those changes and quietly adopted them later.
  We have begun to reverse the years of neglect. We restored democratic city wide government to London and we have set up strong, business-led regional development agencies in the English regions. We have helped to create a network of eight voluntary regional chambers, and increased investment and employment in all regions to record levels. Our forthcoming planning Bill will strengthen regional planning.
  Today, we published a local government Bill and announced a significant package of freedoms and flexibilities. That will help to improve people's quality of life and their experience of public services. It will allow more decisions to be made locally and reduce bureaucracy. It will also give local councils greater freedom to shape the services that they provide. However, there is a devolution deficit in England. It is a democratic deficit that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill tries to tackle.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill after many decades of campaigning. It is dear to his heart and to those of many Labour Members. If pre-legislative scrutiny is not possible for the Bill, will he consider allowing a period of such scrutiny for similar measures in future so that our colleagues in all the regions and all those with an interest in them can present their views and thus make the Bills even better?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I shall consider my hon. Friend's point, but he appreciates that the forthcoming measures on local government and on housing are in draft form. Presenting draft Bills to pre-scrutiny Committees means that the House is better informed. I shall bear his point in mind.
  The Government gave the people of Scotland, Wales and London the chance to make more decisions for themselves, and the people of England and Wales the opportunity to have directly elected mayors. The forms of devolution and the structures are different, but they

  189
  are based on handing power back to the people and letting them decide. The Bill offers, for the first time in our history, opportunities to the English regions similar to those offered to Scotland, Wales and London. That is not before time.
  The Government believe in trusting people. We have no intention of forcing elected assemblies on any region, but we believe that, where people want it, regional government will make a difference. Nor did we force elected assemblies or their equivalent on the people of Scotland, Wales or London: all had a referendum.
  Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill offers the same opportunities to the English regions as were offered to Scotland and Wales. Given that the Scottish Parliament has tax-raising powers and a significant degree of devolution, has he amended the proposals in the White Paper to make those same powers available to the elected English regional assemblies?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I did not say that they were the same powers. The principle of decentralising decision making has found different forms of expression in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London. Other parts of the country are not exactly the same as, for example, the London area. We have made a judgment about what powers should be available and what decentralisation should take place in the English regions, and that is what we are putting before the House. It will help us to provide better public services and better decision making.
  Our White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", was published in May this year to set out our plans for elected regional assemblies in those regions in which people wish to have them. Elected assemblies will take functions down from central Government, not up to the local authorities. They will be fit and lean, with real powers to make a difference and form a strong partnership with both the public and private sectors. We want to bring democracy to the regions, to reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it, and, above all, to provide regional accountability.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I would like to return to the Deputy Prime Minister's comparisons between these proposals and the devolution in Scotland, Wales and London. Scotland, Wales and London have delineated boundaries. What will be the constituencies for the referendums to determine whether the people in a given region wish to have an elected assembly? In some cases, those regions correspond with people's sense of identity, but in others, such as the south-east, they certainly do not. It must worry the right hon. Gentleman, as a true democrat, that it will not be easy to take the feeling of the southeast, given that there is no real sense of identity in that region, either in terms of geography or of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Lady must be more concise in her interventions.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady was in the Government who established the regional offices.
  190
  They had no difficulty in determining the regional boundaries, which are the same as those designated in the Bill. We have done exactly the same. I do not see why she should feel differently in opposition from how she did in government. If we want to make progress on regional government, timetables are important. If we got into a debate about boundaries, it would take an awfully long time to make these decisions. That has been tried—we all know of debates about whether somewhere should be in the north-west or the northeast, for example. We intend to ensure that it is possible to introduce regional government, and to give the people in the regions the choice. We are not saying that they should have assemblies; we want to give them the choice. The measures will be based on the existing boundaries.
  Lawrie Quinn: Is not that the key point of this debate? Do not the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals stand in stark contrast to what happened in the metropolitan areas—North Yorkshire, Humberside and Cleveland, for example—which the Conservatives imposed on the country without any real consultation, involvement or participation of the local people?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that, for the Conservatives, the rhetoric of opposition is entirely different to what they did in government, but we must take that as part of the political game. After all, they are the people who opposed the devolution of powers to London, Scotland and Wales, then quietly came round to accepting it later. I presume that that might happen in this case as well.
  The Bill responds to the desires that many regions are already expressing.
  Andrew George (St. Ives): On that point—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Hang on, I have not even got started on this section.
  The Bill does not establish elected regional assemblies; that must come later. That was also the case for Scotland, Wales and London. It is not the case that people voting in a referendum will not know what they are voting for. The White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", sets out our proposals. The removal of one tier of local government is an integral part of the regional assembly package. We want government to remain streamlined, and once we have received the boundary committee's local government recommendations for a region, we will publish a statement that will be put to the electorate before any referendum. That statement will cover both the proposals for any local government reorganisation and a summary of what the assembly would do and how it would work.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I will not say which region I think Cumbria should be in, but the reality is that the area that I represent is crying out for single-tier local government, whether we get regional assemblies or not. Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider that proposal?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend well knows, the proposals in the Bill are for unitary

  191
  government. We believe that if any regions want regional government or want to take a step towards it, we should test opinion with a referendum. We will ensure that the boundary committee puts in the proposals for, on the one hand, regional government and, on the other, unitary government.
  The proportion of people covered by unitary government varies from area to area—it is large in the north-west—but I will not get into the argument about whether Cumbria is in the north-west or the north-east. Both have high populations under unitary government, but my hon. Friend will find that the figure for the eastern region is low. We are making it clear that we do not want three tiers of government in a region. Under regional government, where the people choose it themselves, there will be a unitary local government structure.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider the position that he has put my constituents in, although I speak as one who in principle favours the Bill that he is putting before the House? If the boundary committee decides to make local government more remote by providing single-tier county local government, people will be invited to vote against the local government system that they want to get the region that they want. To make matters worse, the decision will be taken by voters who are not affected by the proposals and who live in those parts of the region that already have single-tier government.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but we did not want people to be confused about what the local government structure should be. We could have a local government reorganisation recommending some kind of unitary authority and perhaps go on to a referendum on regions, but we have said that we will have the regions and that the boundary committee will take into account how the unitary structure is to work.
  The right hon. Gentleman is correct: people might vote against the regions if they do not like all that and if they do not like the local government structure, but they will have the choice. That is what we are providing. We have made our decision, and we did not want to leave any doubt as to whether there would be three-tier government. The House can imagine what this lot opposite would say if we agreed that the county structure was there—[Interruption.] Yes, this lot—that will do. The House can image what they would say about the county structure, so we have chosen to strike a balance in this way.
  Andrew George: I approve of the principle, and the Deputy Prime Minister's saying that he wants to challenge the "Whitehall knows best" philosophy reassures me, but he also said that the regions would be set up where people want them. On 16 October, I received an answer to a parliamentary question that states that more people from Cornwall showed support for a regional assembly than did the rest of the country put together. Surely, if he wants to deliver, he should respond to that demand now.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing our best to take account of the
  192
  Cornish interest and we recognised the Cornish language, which he welcomed. I have a long interest in regional development and I have visited the south-west many times. I must tell him that I expected considerable division there, because it always seemed to me that Cornwall hated Devon, they both hated Bristol and they all hated London. I did not think that they would get together to this extent, but, as he knows, the assemblies that they have set up—the chambers, as they are called in the south-west—have worked together. That includes Devon, Cornwall and the whole region. I am comforted by that, and I think that those areas are beginning to see themselves as the south-west region. From what I have seen in the polls, there is considerable demand for regional government, with or without the Cornish assembly.
  Sveral hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have given way enough. I want to make progress.
  Mr. Curry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has had one go.
  It might help the House if I set out the timetable that we envisage for the first referendum. Subject to parliamentary approval, we will decide whether the region or regions should undergo a local government review without delay. The relevant provisions of the Bill will be commenced on Royal Assent to allow that. We will then direct the boundary committee to conduct a review of the local government arrangements in the selected region or regions. Those reviews will take about a year to complete. We will lay an order for a referendum or referendums as soon as possible after that.
  I turn to the detail of the Bill. Part 1 enables referendums to be held, including setting out what the referendum question should be. As the House is aware, the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to comment on the intelligibility of any referendum question. This is the first time that it has been asked to do this, and I am pleased to say that it announced yesterday that the referendum question set out in the Bill meets its guidelines. The commission made some small but constructive suggestions for the wording of the preamble. We shall consider them carefully and respond in due course.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the average turnout on referendums for directly elected mayors was 29.2 per cent. If the first region to have a referendum votes for regional government with a turnout of 29 or 30 per cent., is that a legitimate vote to change the constitution of this country?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a little more than what the Tory party gets at the polls, is it not? I cannot avoid making that point, because it is a nice one to make. The votes on directly elected mayors have varied. Some have been higher than those for council elections, and some have been lower. It is right to quote the average, but some have been well over 50 per cent.,

  193
  which is higher than is achieved for council elections. The polls in Scotland, Wales and London were high, so there was a strong endorsement for those measures. We should wait until the debate in the communities has started, and see how people respond to it. I have to take this matter into account when I agree on whether a referendum should take place in a region. All the signs are that demand and support for regional government are a lot higher than most people predicted many years ago.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister on referendums. He is aware that any Minister who brings legislation to the House must have credibility. Would he care to reflect on the fact that the Minister in the Scottish Parliament whom the Deputy Prime Minister said was innocent of attacking the firefighters has resigned in the past few minutes? In the light of that, would the Deputy Prime Minister, for his own credibility, rephrase and rework his comment that the attack on firefighters was never said?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not in the context of this debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am struggling to find the right page, but I think that the Library brief reminds us that the percentage turnout for the referendum in London was in the mid-30s. I do not think that that is a ringing endorsement. The turnout in the Welsh referendum was just over 50 per cent., and the yes vote was won by 0.6 per cent. That was when the Government were actively campaigning for a yes vote. Why will not the Government put the neutrality to which I referred earlier to one side and actively campaign for a yes vote on the English regions?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not neutral. I am campaigning for this Bill.
  Part 2 provides a power to direct the boundary committee for England before any referendum to review the structure of the existing two-tier local authority areas in a region—that is, areas that have country and district councils. We intend to implement its recommendations if people vote for a regional assembly.
  Part 3 allows the Electoral Commission to give advice on the electoral areas for regional assemblies. Part 4 provides a power to make grants in respect of the activities of existing voluntary regional chambers. Part 5 covers general provisions, such as commencement and expenditure.
  Mr. Peter Pike: I support the concept of regional assemblies. If existing unitary authorities have a strong view that they would like to be part of a new wider authority, such as Blackburn wanting to be part of
  194
  East Lancashire under the regional concept, would my right hon. Friend allow that to be considered during this process?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I would be wise not to comment on any boundary changes between council and local authorities.
  Mr. Pike: But does my right hon. Friend want to?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I would still be wise not to comment at this stage.
  Before a referendum is held in a region, the independent boundary committee must have conducted a review of local government in that region and made its recommendations. That is what part 2 is about. Regional assemblies would add a third tier of elected government below the national level in areas that currently have both county and district councils. We believe that that is one tier too many. It is proposed that, if people want a regional assembly, we will move to a wholly unitary local government structure.
  Matthew Green: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am having difficulty getting on with my speech and answering questions. I shall give way in a few minutes, but I must make progress.
  Our proposal will ensure that government remains streamlined. As I said earlier, this is about bringing democracy to the regions and reducing bureaucracy, not increasing it. The review will recommend changes only to those parts of the region that currently have both a county and district council. Existing unitary authorities will not face any structural or boundary changes.
  I know that some Members are worried about the fate of counties. Let me emphasise that, contrary to some ill-founded speculation, we have no agenda for abolishing the counties—or, for that matter, the districts. It will be for the independent boundary committee to recommend the best wholly unitary local government structure for the regions.
  The Government will issue guidance to the boundary committee on the local government reviews. We will publish it in draft for consultation shortly. Proposals for local government changes will be published before any referendum. Voters will know the full implications for local government when they vote. We do not intend to go ahead with the proposed reorganisation if a region rejects the idea of an elected assembly.
  Matthew Green: The Deputy Prime Minister may or may not know that in Shropshire there is a growing demand, not just from Labour and the Liberal Democrats but from the Conservative party, for a single unitary authority. However, we do not want to have to wait for some referendum. There is quite a lot of opposition in Shropshire to becoming part of the West Midlands regional assembly. The Deputy Prime Minister may well find that people vote against an outcome that they actually want. Why can he not decouple the two processes?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: We have made a judgment, as I mentioned earlier. The boundary committee will make the decision. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gives the committee his views.

  195
  Which regions will go first? That is an important question. It is about choice: no region will be forced to have an elected regional assembly, or indeed a referendum. This will be the choice of the people. They will make the decision; I will merely provide the circumstances in which they can make it.
  We will sound out the level of public interest in a referendum in each region while the Bill is before Parliament. We want to hear the views of people in the regions. We also want to hear from existing regional chambers, local authorities, local MPs and MEPs and others. We look forward to the consultation. In some regions, the level of interest may be inconclusive—not high enough to clearly justify holding a referendum, but not low enough to rule it out definitely. Alternatively, so many regions may show a high level of interest that we may need to consider whether to ration the number of reviews conducted simultaneously. In such instances, we may want to take account of other factors, such as the effects on local government of conducting a review.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way at last. He said earlier that the county councils were not under threat from his proposals, or at least not under threat from the Government. I noticed that he had difficulty in keeping a straight face while he said it. What is his response to the leader of Hampshire county council, Councillor Ken Thornber, who has pointed out that eight of the 10 powers listed in the White Paper for regional government would overlap with existing county council powers? Does that not show that, far from powers being drawn down from central Government towards the people, they will be taken away from the people when they are removed from the counties which, no doubt, will then be abolished?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not agree. [Laughter.] That is my right.
  The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind exactly what he did when his party was in power. He supported an Administration who abolished the Greater London council, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Merseyside. There was no referendum. There was no consultation. They just abolished those councils. It is a cheek for him to stand up today and talk about what we might be doing. We have made it clear that the issue of regional government will be decided by the people in the regions. They will know what kind of local government structure they want: it will be their choice. That is why the White Paper is called "Your Region, Your Choice".
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that I have given way enough for now.
  Before I sum up, I want to say something about part 4, which creates a new power for the funding of the eight existing regional chambers. We helped to set up those chambers to contribute to the preparation of regional economic strategies by the regional development agencies. The chambers are made up of local representatives and key stakeholders—in some cases with a majority of Tory councillors, but we will
  196
  leave that aside—from the social, economic and environmental sectors in the regions. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is laughing. He knows that one of his party's chairmen is a member of an assembly. He has not heard that the party in London is against it.
  The chambers have been a success story. I take this opportunity to thank all those involved, from all political parties, for the hard work that they have put into getting the chambers up and running and working together for the benefit of their regions. They have taken on an increasingly significant role. All chambers now scrutinise the work of the RDAs, and many are involved in the production of regional sustainable development frameworks and the preparation of regional planning guidance.
  Tony Wright: Before my right hon. Friend sums up, may I ask him not to undersell this measure? He may remember that in 1945, Clement Attlee said that the referendum was a device alien to all our traditions. It has now become central to them. We used to make them up as we went along. Surely the importance of the Bill is that we now run referendums coherently and fairly. Is that not a great advance?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: It is. That is an important point. Knowing this to be a controversial measure on which people had strong views, I thought that it was right to have a referendum. It was in our manifesto. We have introduced the Bill to let the people make the choice. I personally would like to see regional government throughout the UK but I am prepared to let the people make the choice. I must advocate our case—I will in those circumstances—make clear what I believe is the best way forward, and then the decision will be made in a referendum.
  Five of the eight chambers have taken on the role of the regional planning body. In light of the positive responses that we have received to our planning Green Paper, we now believe that it is right for all eight regional chambers to carry out that role in the absence of an elected regional assembly.
  At present, the chambers get most of their funding from local authorities. As the role of the chambers expands, in particular on planning, a more general funding mechanism is needed. That is why the funding power provided by part 4 is required.
  The Bill is at the heart of our programme to modernise our constitution, to decentralise power and to deliver better public services. It is a crucial step towards establishing a democratic voice for the English regions—a voice that has been denied them for far too long. We want to give the people of our regions the right to choose—the ability to decide what is best for them. The Conservative party's amendment would deny the people in the regions that choice. It would deny them the opportunity for change.
  The Conservative party does not like devolution but it eventually comes on board. Remember that it opposed on Second Reading the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in May 1997, but later changed its mind. It opposed on Second Reading the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill in November 1997, but later changed its mind. It opposed

  197
  on Second Reading the Government of Wales Bill in December 1997, but later changed its mind. It opposed on Second Reading the Scotland Bill in January 1998, but later changed its mind, and it opposed on Second Reading the Greater London Authority Bill in December 1998, but later changed its mind. At least it is consistent in its opposition. First it opposes and then it changes its mind. I am sure, bearing in mind that track record, that it will not be too long before it has another rethink. I ask the House to reject the amendment and to support the Bill, which I commend to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind hon. Members that there will be a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.8 pm
  David Davis: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill because it is a centralising measure that will have the effect of undermining local democracy; it places too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State to determine the timing of each referendum in each region; it fails to protect the right of individual communities to determine the local government structure that suits them best; the arrangements for referenda are inadequate and insufficiently defined; it fails to recognise that unitary authorities are not an appropriate solution in all parts of the country; it fails to recognise the needs of rural areas; and it is incapable of protecting long-established county councils.
  The Deputy Prime Minister advances three main arguments for regional government. He claims that there are economic benefits, that people want to feel part of a region and that he is introducing democracy to existing regional bureaucracies. I will examine each of those claims in turn and pass by some of the constitutional theories that he seemed to invent during his speech.
  What are the economic benefits of regional government? The Deputy Prime Minister said in his White Paper:
  "Elected regional assemblies will develop a strategic vision"
  and that they will
  "improve economic performance".
  All available evidence suggests exactly the opposite. Let us consider what is happening abroad. Many European countries, generally those that are much larger than England, have existing layers of regional government, but it is striking that in those countries disparities between the regions are getting larger, not smaller.
  Let us consider what is happening here. In the past few years, existing regional quangos have lobbied for more taxpayers' money for their area—understandably—and since the quangos have been established, disparities have grown larger, not smaller, just as they have in Europe. Furthermore, the subsidies have largely funded inter-regional competition, rather than specialisation to the areas competitive advantage.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Germany. Of course, we
  198
  must differentiate between regions in the former East Germany and those in the west. Does he accept that there is far less variation in the old federal republic than we experience in this country? There is enormously less variation, and it is a much fairer system.
  Mr. Davis: I was talking about the trend in the difference between the regions. I am not comparing old East German regions with old West German ones. I am following the CBI, which said that the differences are getting worse.
  The same is true in Britain: where we have regional government things are getting worse. The Government's own preferred measure of unemployment, the labour force survey, reveals that the highest unemployment rate in the country is 7 per cent. Where? In London, where there is a new tier of government. The second highest rate is 6.5 per cent. Where? In Scotland, where there is a new tier of government.
  Let me offer a quotation:
  "Business is disappointed that the government is pushing ahead with Regional Assemblies. English regions do need to help improve economic development, but this is not the right way to do it. They will simply add complications to the decision-making process and undermine the efforts of the Regional Development Agencies."
  Those are not my words, but those of the CBI's deputy director general, Mr. John Cridland, who also said:
  "The Government needs to take action to improve economic performance and leadership skills in all regions rather than concentrating on establishing expensive talking shops in just a few areas."
  Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister believes that there is more support from business for regional government in the north-east. That is probably his best target.
  Joyce Quin: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned London and Scotland in support of his preposterous theory. I note that he did not mention Wales. Is that because the figures do not back up his case? Given that he is not now opposing the devolution settlement in Scotland, Wales and London, is he not for once tempted to get ahead of the game and accept the principle of devolution, rather than having to play catch-up with public opinion?
  Mr. Davis: I will return to the constitutional aspects of what the right hon. Lady said, because the Deputy Prime Minister was disingenuous in his comparison between these regional proposals and the arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For now, I am simply talking about the economic arguments, which do not support her case. She is a north-east Member, and business people in the north-east are worried that the proposals will hinder rather than help them and will over-politicise the RDAs regeneration work. That was said in The Economist not that long ago, quoting Stephen Rankin, director of the CBI in the north-east.
  Dr. John Pugh: The right hon. Gentleman has said first, that the new bodies have done untold economic damage, and secondly, that they are expensive talking shops. Either they are institutions that do damage, or they are talking shops—they cannot really be both.
  Mr. Davis: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that talking shops can do damage: over-regulation is one of

  199
  the most damaging things in Britain today, and it largely arises from talking shops. He seems to think that hyperbole will make his argument. The onus of proof is with the Government—they are the ones who say that the Bill is justified by the significant changes in productivity that will be wrought by it, which is sheer unmitigated nonsense. I am demonstrating that it has not worked before.
  Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been trawling the evidence, so would he like to comment on that produced by the Work Foundation, formerly the Industrial Society, on the contribution that decentralised Government structures can make to economic performance by boosting productivity and in the development of industrial clusters? If he has not seen that evidence, may I refer him to the foundation's submission to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry a few months ago?
  David Davis: I should be happy to see the evidence, as I used to be a director of the Industrial Society. However, all the major business organisations are against the hon. Gentleman's argument. The business clusters to which he refers do not require regional assemblies of any sort.
  What will be the next aspect of the economic impact of regional assemblies? How much will they cost? They will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. In his speech, the Deputy Prime Minister tried to dance around the proposed abolition of county councils, but that will entail sizeable, one-off local government reorganisation costs. He of all people should remember the abolition of Humberside county council, as both his constituency and mine are within the area that it used to cover. The one-off cost for the abolition of that council was £53 million. The council left behind relatively impoverished public services, as the right hon. Gentleman will know because we both suffer from them. The former Humberside police force had few assets, for example, so that £53 million represented only the visible cost. If the costs of regional government are in the same league, the abolition of the remaining 34 county councils could cost up to £1.8 billion in 1999 figures. The current equivalent would be about £2 billion.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Could there not be efficiency savings? At present, for example, one authority might be responsible for roads while another is responsible for road calming; or one authority might be responsible for pavements, while another is responsible for shrubbery and trees. Would not unitary authorities be able to make savings?
  David Davis: The hon. Gentleman confuses agencies with local authorities, but, in any event, such economies of scale do not work well in government. What matters more is that there should be a reflection of local opinion and local democracy.
  In London, the Greater London Authority spends £34 million a year on administration. Based on its per capita cost, regional assemblies in England outside London would cost more than £300 million a year. That excludes programme expenditure, which would involve additional waste.
  200
  The total long-term cost of the lease of the GLA building is £120 million. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly buildings are both over budget and it is estimated that they will cost about £210 million and £50 million respectively—although no doubt the final amounts will be much more.
  Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us today that if the north-east or the south-west took the regional option, they would not want new assembly buildings, just like those in Wales or Scotland? Of course he cannot, because it is certain that they will want those buildings—at massive extra cost to the taxpayer.
  The Deputy Prime Minister will remember the following pledge from Labour's 1997 manifesto. He may even have been its author. The manifesto stated that regional assemblies would be established only following
  "confirmation by an independent auditor that no additional public expenditure overall would be involved".
  However, many regions will believe that they would receive more money from the Treasury to fund regional government, so can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House that the pledge still stands? I shall allow him to intervene if he wants to do so—obviously he does not. There is no economic reason to introduce regional government.
  Matthew Green: In Shropshire, the Conservative party supports the unitary principle, which would involve the abolition of five district councils and setting up a unitary Shropshire authority. That would make savings such as those described by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservatives are wrong to support a unitary authority in Shropshire?
  David Davis: That decision is for Shropshire, not for this place. The hon. Gentleman made the same point 20 minutes ago and it carries no more weight now than it did then.
  Let us move on to the Deputy Prime Minister's next point. He claims that people want to feel part of a region, but regional government will do nothing to give power to local people; instead, it will take it further away. Decisions currently made by county councils, which are close to local communities, will be transferred to regional assemblies, which are further from local communities. A body of about 35 to 40 people will take decisions that have huge ramifications for thousands of people, and what is right for one part of the region may not necessarily be right for another part. Regions will be unable to square the circle of interests between urban and rural areas.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's plans threaten to set region against region—each one fighting for economic advantage over the other. The most successful regions could do well, just as in Europe, but the less successful will lose the young and the ambitious to the more successful. At the same time, regional government will force the abolition of the one unit with which people identify—the county. Under the proposals, planning decisions now made in Hereford will be taken 60 miles away in Birmingham. Decisions now made in Kendal

  201
  will be taken 75 miles away in Manchester, and those now made in Truro will be taken 90 miles away in Exeter. Why?
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of decision making from county councils to regional bodies will be accompanied by a dilution of democratic accountability? I have calculated that in the east of England, whereas 6,000 or 7,000 electors are represented by each county councillor in my constituency, about 160,000 electors would be represented by each of the directly elected members of a regional assembly. The electors would never see those people or know anything about them.
  David Davis: My hon. Friend hits the point exactly. The areas involved would be at least three times the size of parliamentary constituencies.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about the democratic deficit, but why does he want to introduce the proposals? Could it be because the counties tend to vote Conservative, so they will be gerrymandered into what the Government hope will be Labour-run regions instead?

  Our counties have legitimacy because they are organic communities, established by tradition, history and custom. Regions will be nothing more than lines on a map drawn by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. They will have no legitimacy whatever, especially if they are imposed on counties against the will of those who live in them.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: What legitimacy does the county of Lancashire have since being denuded of Blackpool and Blackburn under the previous Conservative Government's legislation?
  David Davis: I should think that the county of Lancashire has much more legitimacy in the eyes of those who live in it than the new north-western region will have if it ever comes into being.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: This is all about choice.
  David Davis: Let us deal with the major problem with the Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister says the Bill will bring about more democracy, but, in a democracy, voters have to know what they are voting for. They need to know what the choice is, to use his own word. For that to happen, the proposition has to come before the vote, but with the Bill, it will be vote first, proposition afterwards. The Bill proposes that referendums should be held without voters knowing the structure or powers of the assemblies for which they are asked to vote. Even the Deputy Prime Minister would have a hard job to convince anyone that that is democratic. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the exchanges across the Chamber are not helping the debate.
  David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is
  202
  not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
  Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
  We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.
  Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has described the importance of Members of Parliament debating matters so that electors can make a choice. Is not it more important in this context that people in the regions are able to debate the issue, think about the kind of institutions that they want to create and be able to vote on that? Is not that precisely what is being suggested, not just in the referendum proposal but in the proposal for regional chambers and other initiatives?
  David Davis: That would apply only if people could create their own regions in the way that their argument leads them to do. What is being said to them, however, is "You vote, and we'll decide what sort of region you will have."
  As it stands, the Bill is an affront to those principles. It asks people to vote for proposals that are unspecified, untried and untested. I would have relished the opportunity to debate the details of regional assemblies, but, clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister is not ready to have that debate. It is simply wrong for the Government to come to the House and act in this way. If they do, how can we trust them when it comes to the referendum? Major constitutional changes justify the use of referendums because the constitutional rights of our citizens are owned by the people and not by politicians. However, it is important that referendums are not misused simply as a snapshot of volatile changes of opinion, perhaps as a result of pressure of Government propaganda. That is why Donald Dewar and John Smith used to talk about the settled will of the population.
  The concept of settled will is that of an idea that has taken root in the minds of the people, has resonance in their daily lives and is a stable part of the way in which they think the country should be run. Because

  203
  referendums are supposed to reflect the settled will of the people, we need to have thresholds below which they do not carry the day.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: As I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, he claims so little legitimacy for what the Government suggest in the Bill that I imagine that he would want to abolish any regional assemblies created by the procedure as soon as a Conservative Government, were one to be elected, came to power. Would he abolish any regional assemblies elected by this method? What would he do with the money that had been transferred from the unelected sphere to the elected sphere? Would he set up new patronage bodies to administer that money?
  David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening even to the last few words that I said. I have been describing the grounds on which a referendum provides an acceptable and democratic outcome. Our view is that a reasonable level for the threshold that determines a settled will is that at least half the people vote, and a majority are in favour of the change proposed. That is a reasonable measure of the popular will. If the proposal receives the support of at least 25 per cent. of the total electorate, it should carry the day. That is pretty reasonable. Let us consider the result of the Scottish referendum. That exceeded the 25 per cent. threshold by 49 per cent. The Welsh referendum—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: What my right hon. Friend is saying is that, on a free election, if only 25 per cent., or one in four people, supported the proposal, and 75 per cent. of the population does not come out to vote for it, that is an authority by which one proceeds with profound constitutional change. That has never been so in our history previously, until we had new Labour and its contorted and distorted referendums rejigging our constitution. Will not he accept that for our party to have accepted the Welsh outcome, in which 75 per cent. of a free people in a free election did not support an assembly, is an extraordinary turnabout?
  David Davis: My hon. Friend deserves a proper answer and I shall endeavour to give it. I know that he views these matters with a passion that is probably unequalled anywhere in this Chamber. We live in a time when referendums are used for constitutional amendment. I take the view that that is correct for the reason that I gave earlier. The constitutional rights of the people belong to the people and not to the politicians whom they temporarily elect. Therefore, we must determine at what level of support a referendum becomes valid.
  I do not want to set the threshold too high as that could rightly be dressed up as a bogus argument. I want to make an argument that is appropriate to the level of constitutional change. If this issue carried as much force as the proposals for the Scottish Parliament, I would set the threshold a little higher, but I grant my hon. Friend that it is a matter of judgment. We are now talking about bodies that will hold the powers partly of central Government but mostly those currently held by county councils. On that basis, the level that I have suggested is
  204
  acceptable. I take his point that it is a fine judgment to determine what makes a referendum an acceptable basis for a decision.
  Mr. Dhanda rose—
  Mr. George Osborne rose—
  David Davis: I will not give way as I am coming to the end of my remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the point that the figure of 25.2 per cent., which was the one obtained in the Welsh referendum, would have just passed the test. However, there was a great deal of controversy about whether the referendum was appropriate, and I accept that. However, the point that I want to make is that there is no threshold in the Bill. It should not be passed. It contains too many unanswered questions, and the Government have used up their quota of trust.
  We reject regional assemblies not because we oppose devolution, but because we support it. We reject them not because we oppose economic development, but because we support it. We reject this Bill not because we oppose democracy, but because we support it. Any Member of the House who claims to support democracy will reject the Bill.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) was a thin attempt to belittle what many Labour Members consider to be one of the most exciting proposals for change that we will see in our political lifetimes. I know that some Labour Members and some from my region of the north-west disagree with me, but I have believed passionately in regional government for many years. Although my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been accused of being too bold, many of us know that he has had to strike a compromise that he himself recognises as too timid. Nevertheless, I congratulate him from the bottom of my political heart on what he has already achieved in the regions.
  This country is probably the most centralised in western Europe, but we have had regional government for all my political lifetime. The problem with that regional government is that it has been government for the south-east by a system of governance that favours that region. That shows up in every facet of our national life. It is shown in the increasing concentration over the years of resources in the south-east, and it is shown in the way in which decisions are taken centrally. In recent times, when there have been degrees of decentralisation, the process has been more equivalent to the system of colonial governors in the former British empire than to the type of modern democratic structure that we would expect. The case for the redistribution of power is overwhelming. We are debating how we democratise the huge numbers of decisions taken by government on a daily basis.
  There are different estimates of the resources spent by quangos or non-departmental governmental bodies in the north-west. A low estimate is that the figure is about £1 billion, but massively higher estimates suggest that the spending of as much as £7 billion is determined by

  205
  bodies that operate regionally but that are not accountable to local people. Everyone must face up to a profound democratic challenge if we are to take control of that layer of decision-making. Although it suits the Opposition to oppose the measure as an attack on the power structure of local government, the rationalisation of local government in unitary authorities, which we have had in urban areas for a political generation, makes a great deal of sense. The creation of a regional dimension at last allows the people of our regions, not those outside them, to decide how to allocate their resources.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman knows that I, too, am from the north-west. The democratic challenge is that although Manchester, which he represents, might want the regional assembly, Cheshire might not. If every person in Cheshire votes against it, it can still be imposed on us and we will lose our county council, which is not what we want.
  Mr. Lloyd: Cheshire is certainly part of the north-west regional identity. That phenomenon goes beyond the boundaries of local government institutions. I do not cease to be a Lancastrian because the county of Lancashire did not have a role in the city of Manchester during my lifetime. Lancashire has not even been the administrative unit for parts of Greater Manchester for more than a generation. That does not stop me, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) or my hon. Friends from other parts of the north-west being proud to be profoundly Lancastrian as part of our birthright. We are talking not about inventing emotion for a county identity, but about the efficiency and accountability of structures of governance.
  I have a criticism that is relevant to all Governments. Manufacturing is much more important in the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside than elsewhere. That industry has suffered disproportionately in the system of governance of modern Britain. Decisions on the British economy have tended to favour the service economy, not manufacturing, and have a differential impact on the north. The House of Commons has allowed successive Governments to get away with failing to reflect different regional interests. It is vital that the regions have another layer of interest and influence. They need to be able to tell the Government that they must reflect the increasingly different interests of the regions. Scotland, Wales and Greater London have that ability. It is time for the influence and interests of the northern regions and elsewhere to catch up.
  My region has been disadvantaged in many ways. Hon. Members will remember the fairly recent debate on the Daresbury site. It seems to me that a decision on that was made on the advice of people with a south-eastern, or near south-eastern, outlook. They could not understand that it was possible to have world-class science in the north-west of England.
  One of the major decisions for the Government will be on the merger of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology—UMIST—and Manchester university. I hope that the merger takes place because it will create a university that offers world-class science. That process would be more straightforward, however,
  206
  if the new university were supported by a region that recognised the essential nature of the science-base to its long-term future.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the synchrotron investment. The Government, whom he supports, chose to give a £500 million investment to Oxfordshire, not the north-west, which was patently the wrong decision. However, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a north-west regional assembly would have had a greater influence on the decision by railing against it. The decision was always going to be made by central Government. It was the task of the House and hon. Members to stand up for our region.
  Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, north-west MPs, certainly on the Labour Benches, fought a long campaign, but alas we lost. I recognise the action taken by the Department of Trade and Industry to make that pill less bitter; nevertheless it was still a bitter pill for the north-west to swallow. North-west MPs, supported by a strong regional assembly speaking with a coherent and consistent voice for the north-west, would be massively emboldened in breaking the stranglehold of the southern thinking which has dominated this country for as long as I can remember.
  There is very little to fear from the Bill in the north-west. I say to the doubters among Conservative Members that the beauty of the Bill is that it offers choice. It will allow people to campaign, as I will do strongly, for regional government for the north-west, and it will allow those who oppose it to campaign against it. That is exactly how things should be in a democracy. The advantage of the Bill is that it will give the choice to the people who will be affected rather than to bureaucrats in central Government, or even, at that point, to the House of Commons. This House will give the people of the regions the opportunity to choose. If other regions do not want to do as I hope mine will, that is their choice, although I think that regions throughout England will be making a mistake if they do not opt for regional government.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that regions that do not want to follow his line should be compensated for not choosing regional government, which would result in extremely costly local government reorganisation and the estalblishment of regional assemblies?
  Mr. Lloyd: Applying the same logic, if it is demonstrated that, by choosing regional government and establishing efficient unitary authorities and a regional assembly, my region saves money, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to say to his voters that on the basis of those savings, money should be transferred to the north-west from other regions? If we are prepared to look at the total deal, his point may be interesting.
  The issue here is that the choice will be made by the people of the different regions, and the hon. Gentleman tempts me to turn to important regional matters. Over the years, the northern regions have suffered in the allocation of local government funding, which has advantaged the south-east and, in particular, London. That would have to be considered in the context of a new constitutional formula.

  207
  Even more importantly, the Barnett formula will inevitably raise its head. It will do so whether or not we choose regional government, but if we are to examine the viability of new regions in the north-west and north-east, parity of funding will become important. Looking at all the indicators, we see that the north-west has many advantages, and I have enormous confidence that, liberated from its present constraints, it will be able to fast-forward to a better future. However, it is undeniable that many areas of the region have been as profoundly affected by poverty, deprivation and de-industrialisation as Scotland, where the Barnett formula is applied advantageously.
  I know that this will be an uncomfortable issue for the Government, but I want to state that although setting up a north-west region is important, we will want to consider parity and fairness of funding within any new regional settlement. In the final analysis, we will want a successful north-west region to make further constitutional reforms so that its powers grow as it demonstrates its ability to use them.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made a passionate and powerful case for regional government and elected regional assemblies. He will not be surprised to hear that Liberal Democrat Members agree with him. My party and our predecessor parties going back to Gladstone have long argued for devolution, and in manifesto after manifesto we have argued for elected regional assemblies, so we will support the Bill tonight. It is right that Britain's existing form of regional government is made accountable to the people.
  Our vision of regional government is very different from the Deputy Prime Minister's, however. We have two main criticisms of the Bill, which we shall make tonight and as the Bill proceeds through the House. First, we need more regional devolution than is on offer in the Bill and the White Paper linked to it. Secondly, the Bill does not offer the best way of making preparations for regional assemblies, and I am afraid that it may turn out to kill the idea of regional assemblies. Too often, we see No. 10's hand imprint on the Bill. It is not keen on elected regional assemblies. The Deputy Prime Minister has fought long and hard for his achievements, but I know that he believes in his heart of hearts that this measure should go much further.
  Regional democracy, for which the Deputy Prime Minister has made a case, is the reason why we shall vote for the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) did not spend much time talking about democracy, which is at the heart of the Bill and its proposals, but it is a key argument. In both this and the last Parliament we have advocated constitutional reform, in which there has been a great experiment—not least in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and so on. The Bill is linked to that experiment, and tries to get decisions closer to the people, which we support.
  The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden failed to say whether or not the Conservatives are happy with the current state of regional government. We have far too much regional government. If one starts to add up all the quangos, one loses count very soon. It is
  208
  difficult to keep track of all the different Government offices and quangos in the regions. I have looked for myself, and tried to read the Government document. It is difficult to keep track of numbers. Some national quangos, such as the Environment Agency, have regional offices. There are regional quangos such as regional development agencies. Some central Government agencies, such as the Highways Agency, have regional offices. Some central Government programmes have local or regional aspects, and some local organisations have regional aspects. It is a complete maze, and the key thing is that it is not democratic.
  Those organisations, quangos and Government offices are non-elected bodies and exercise wide-ranging powers in policy areas including education, health, economic development, the environment, transport, culture and sport. Why are the Conservatives against giving democracy to our regional government? If you start trying to count those quangos, a key problem is trying to define a quango and what fits neatly into elected regional government—one person's quango is another person's ministerial fiefdom. Often, boundaries are not coterminous, so it is difficult to offer precise definitions. I am grateful to Councillor Chris Foote-Wood, who tried to count the quangos in north-east England. Earlier this year, he published a pamphlet called "Land of the 100 Quangos". He used evidence published by the Deputy Prime Minister in November 2001, which found 12 regional strategies in the north-east and 70 regional and sub-regional quangos. Councillor Foote-Wood has managed to find a few more. The Deputy Prime Minister may be interested in them.
  Councillor Foote-Wood entitled his pamphlet "Land of the 100 Quangos", but he found 172 regional and sub-regional quangos. I am tempted to list every single one, but I am sure that you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Departments that operate quangos in the north-east include the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has the north-east regional office of the Community Fund and Culture North East. There are six health authorities in the north-east region and 17 NHS trusts. The former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions had the north rent assessment panel and the north-eastern traffic area authority. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has 71 Government office north-east partnerships, including the "Don't Choke Britain" north-east planning group and the north-east centre for change steering group—I am not quite sure what that does—the northern arts advisers panel, the regional foresight steering committee, the regional round table on sustainable development and so on. Those bodies are not democratic.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: And nor will they be.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman says that under the Government's proposals, those bodies will not become democratic. That is part of the problem with the proposals: the Government need to go much further to reduce the quango state. But the hon. Gentleman should be careful—it was his party that set up large tracts of the

  209
  quango state. It was disappointing that we did not hear the Conservative spokesman arguing the case for democracy.
  There is another key argument in principle for elected regional assemblies, and it concerns efficiency. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden argued that if the new organisations were set up, they would create more bureaucracy. If one starts looking at the quango state, one sees bureaucracy writ large. The quangos are chaotic, having been up by Government after Government and Minister after Minister, with no co-ordination among them at all. The quangos duplicate each other's bureaucracies and are ineffective because there are so many of them. When one adds up the expense of setting them up, their offices, their management boards, their non-executive directors, their staff, their pension funds and so on, the cost is huge. There can be no doubt that democratising and rationalising the position under regional assemblies makes huge financial sense.
  Mr. Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman knows that even if we have regional assemblies, there will still be a tier of quangos, which will simply report to Bristol or Exeter rather than London. That will not improve the situation.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Many of those organisations could become part of the regional assembly, just as Government Departments and agencies are answerable to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State is answerable to the House. We can de-quangoise Britain's polity through the process.
  The Conservatives often speak—rightly—about accountability. The point of elected regional assemblies is to make those bodies accountable and to use accountability to drive through value for money. I have been disappointed by some of the ways in which the House tries to hold the Government to account on financial matters. We have almost no ex-ante scrutiny of the Budget. We have three days on the estimates, during which we do not actually debate them—something I have always found rather odd. We do better on ex-post scrutiny, but even our audit processes in the House leave a lot to be desired.
  Part of the problem is that across the whole United Kingdom the public sector is too large for Whitehall and Parliament to get to grips with it. If we make sure that elected regional assemblies and the members who serve in them have real powers to scrutinise the way in which the money is spent and to make sure that there is proper audit and accountability, we can get much better value for money for the taxpayer.
  There is another way in which elected regional assemblies could promote efficiency. In their fullest form, they are about better policy delivery. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches see the assemblies as key to deep, meaningful reform of the public services. At our recent conference we passed a document that envisaged many aspects of the public services being run and funded by regional assemblies. I shall come to that in due course.
  The Government's proposals for the key policy area for elected regional assemblies relate to economic development. Although I have some problems with their
  210
  proposals, the Government are right to see assemblies as key to promoting economic development in the regions. I say that as a London MP. One of our problems is that the capital is overheating. In Scotland and Wales, devolution has acted as an economic spur. It has led to development, and to organisations getting better advice and working more closely together. Devolution to the English regions could be part of the solution to London's overheating problem—obviously, only part of it, but hopefully it could ensure that there is more managed economic development across the country.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify what he just said. Is he proposing that there should be a recession in London? I am sure that that would go down well with his electorate and others. What is happening with the London assembly and Ken Livingstone is that he is damaging London, not helping it.
  Mr. Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Mr. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London. I am no supporter of his strategies. However, if people reread my remarks, they will not take from them the meaning that the hon. Gentleman took. We have a huge problem in London. The population forecasts, even adjusted for the latest census figures, will pose a huge challenge for public sector investment in our infrastructure and our public services. I hope that as the London economy goes from strength to strength, it will be able to meet some of that. We must rise to the challenge. I believe that Londoners support the idea of spreading economic prosperity across the country. Let us not forget that many Londoners come from the regions and the nations of the British Isles, and they support devolution and economic prosperity in their home regions.
  Mr. Iain Luke: With regard to Scottish devolution, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Edinburgh is becoming overheated? The real issue for regional government in England and devolution in Scotland is the decentralisation of the civil service, to allow the refocusing of the civil service from London and Edinburgh to the regions of England and the various areas of Scotland.
  Mr. Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made my point rather more eloquently than I managed to.
  Although we agree with elected regional assemblies and will support the Bill, I want to make it clear to the Deputy Prime Minister that his version of elected regional assemblies is rather weak and timid. For a start, the Government's vision is far too centralist. They want to keep far too much power for Whitehall and Westminster. They are giving away far too few powers and dismantling far too few quangos. They are putting planning up to regional chambers, even before those regional chambers are accountable to anyone or are elected. That is a bizarre way of going on. As power is given away, it is already gradually being brought back: the Government are proposing centrally imposed targets—public service agreement regimes and so on. That is not devolution. If they intend to trust the people, they should not trust them a little; they should trust them fully. I do not understand why the Government are so timid.

  211
  When we examine the details of the White Paper and the powers that regional assemblies will have, we begin to see how the Government sometimes speak with forked tongue. On page 39 of the White Paper, in the section on economic development, under the heading "Training and skills", the Government proudly state:
  "Developing the skills of the workforce plays a vital role in economic development. So improving the skills base and equipping people to take up the opportunities being created in a region will be an important component of delivering an elected assembly's objectives."
  From such a ringing declaration, we think that we are about to see numerous powers relating to training and skills being devolved to regional assemblies—but no. Further down, we read:
  "Specifically this will mean that … the national LSC"—
  that is, Learning and Skills Council—
  "will be under a statutory duty to consult assemblies on its guidance to the local LSCs"
  and that
  "local LSCs will be obliged to have regard to assembly strategies".
  There is no control over learning and skills councils or over the policy that is going to elected regional assemblies. It is all right for them to be consulted, but that is froth. It is meaningless. They ought to have control. The national Learning and Skills Council should be abolished and real power over an important aspect of economic development given to the regional assemblies.
  A similar problem arises in respect of transport. The White Paper proudly states:
  "Good transport is essential for sustainable economic success … To achieve this, transport needs to he integrated with policy on economic development, planning and housing.
  Elected regional assemblies will be responsible for a regional transport strategy".
  What does that mean? It means responsibility for advising central Government on the allocation of funds. We in the House and people outside advise the Government about the spending of money, so elected regional assemblies do not seem to have many responsibilities in that regard.
  Mr. Beith: I can give my hon. Friend a vivid illustration. On the Scottish side of the border, the Scottish Executive can decide whether to concentrate resources on dualling the A1. On the English side of the border, London is still answerable for that decision and it will not be in the region's power to make it. Surely, that is one of the ways in which the regional institution needs to be strengthened.
  Mr. Davey: That is a very vivid example. I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on that issue for some time and must be very disappointed about the lack of powers specified in the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Lansley: We must not understate the Government's proposals. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that page 45 of the White Paper sets out an indicative expenditure budget for the regional assembly in the north-east. It has a transport budget in the form of £1 million for the rail passenger partnership. Given the importance of transport in
  212
  regional economic development for the north-east, that is an indication of how little influence an assembly would have over the major issues.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point very well. The problem that the Government will have when people are being asked to vote on the regional assemblies is that when they read the White Paper, they will see the lack of powers that are being given to them. Many people who would usually be huge advocates of regional devolution will say, "This is not what we wanted or asked for." They might vote no and some will certainly abstain. The Government are shooting themselves in the foot.
  That returns me to one of my original remarks. It may be a little unfair to the Deputy Prime Minister to say so, but I think that he has lost the argument in the Cabinet and that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have overruled real devolution because they are scared of it. We have therefore been given paper tiger elected regional assemblies. Yes, we may be able to build on them in future, but they are not impressive and certainly do not live up to the rhetoric.
  Norman Baker (Lewes): Does my hon. Friend accept that, if assemblies are to work, as I hope they will, people must feel affinity with the regions in which they are placed? The south-east is a huge economic engine encircling London. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a case for splitting it into two so that people feel affinity with their areas? People in Lewes feel no affinity with Milton Keynes.
  Mr. Davey: There is a very strong argument for such an approach, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I shall deal later with the fact that one of the problems of the Government's proposals is that they have taken the boundaries from the Office for National Statistics and indeed from the Conservatives, and set them in stone for no obvious reason.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that one of the biggest holes in the plethora of powers that are not going to the regional assemblies is the fact that national health service responsibilities are not being devolved. Looking around the regions, it is the NHS that has the largest number of quangos and bodies without any regional representation. At a time when we are having so many problems in trying to run the NHS from the centre and to micro-manage an organisation with so many employees and other organisations inside it, surely we should start learning from experience in other countries. Countries such as Canada and countries as small as Denmark have devolved their health services to their regions and below, trusting the people so that those in the lower tiers of government run their whole health systems. Unsurprisingly, places such as Canada and Denmark have much better health systems as a result and people are far more satisfied with them than with the NHS.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the NHS were to be balkanised in that way, would there not be regional differences in the standard of health care? Would the Liberal Democrats embrace such differences?
  Mr. Davey: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment. He clearly thinks that, after

  213
  almost 60 years of the NHS, complete uniformity has been achieved and everyone gets exactly the same service. Of course, they do not get such a service and that is a nonsensical argument.
  The importance of devolution is that it would allow local people choice to set their own priorities in their regions. As we believe that tax-raising powers should accompany devolution of powers over the NHS, we also think that people should decide how much they want to spend on it. That is a major hole in the provisions and a major difference between our approach to regional devolution and the Government's.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman confirms that the Liberal Democrats want regional government to be able to raise taxes. Does he see that as unlimited tax-raising power or would he cap it?
  Mr. Davey: In the early stages of elected regional assemblies, there would be limits on that power. However, we believe that in due course—the hon. Gentleman will like this answer—they should be free to raise taxes as they choose, although they will be accountable to the people and the decision will be a democratic one taken by the people in the area. Again, I wonder why the Tories are so against democracy.
  I should like to turn now to the details of the Bill and deal with why it is flawed and why the Liberal Democrats will table many amendments in Committee. Besides the powers outlined in the White Paper, no details on powers have been published for people to see before the first referendum, so they will be asked to answer a question without knowing all the full facts. That cannot be sensible. Okay, the Minister may say that that happened in Wales and Scotland, but it created many problems for those campaigning for devolution. The Welsh vote was almost lost. I am not saying that that was due only to the factor that I have mentioned, but I am sure that it had some impact. The Government are shooting themselves in the foot by not being clearer about the powers before the first referendum takes place.
  Will the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and the Deputy Prime Minister publish a draft Bill? If the Government are not prepared to legislate before the first referendum, why do they not put a draft Bill before the House? We could then at least give the measures some pre-legislative scrutiny and the voters in the referendum would have a clearer idea of exactly what powers the Government were talking about.
  Possibly the worst aspect of the Bill is the fact that the Government are confusing voting for an elected regional assembly with local government reform. I do not understand—I do not think the voters will either—why the Government have put those two issues together. They should be decoupled. If the Government are right and this is a case of "Your Region, Your Choice," surely it could also be a case of "Your council, your choice." People should be given a chance to vote on the issue, but the Government are not making such a proposal. The reason why they are not doing so is that they are running scared—the Deputy Prime Minister almost admitted it—of criticism that there might be more than three tiers
  214
  of government. In many other countries, there are more than three tiers of government and that means that there is a bit more democracy. Perhaps if people were given the chance to vote against that and to vote for unitary structures that were separate from regional assemblies, they would choose to do so. That is their right, but surely such an approach is the more democratic and grown-up way of going about it. I should be interested to know whether, in trying to find out whether there is any great interest in holding a referendum for an elected regional assembly, the Minister will bother to find out whether there is any interest in local government restructuring.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about efficiency, but he is now talking about maintaining district councils and county councils while allowing the establishment of regional assemblies. Where does efficiency come in?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman will also remember that I spoke about democracy, which is very important. There is always a trade-off between democracy and efficiency. I am sure that a country could have a very efficient form of government under a dictatorship. I am sure that Pinochet thought that his civil service was working terribly well when he centralised all the powers. There is a trade-off and I find it odd that the hon. Gentleman does not want to give his constituents or voters in various other regions the chance to vote on that issue.
  Mr. Dhanda: It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats are talking about introducing some form of local income tax and a tax-raising power for the regional assemblies. Are they also talking about introducing a third income tax if people do not opt for a unitary structure but choose a district, county and regional structure—a sort of Lib Dem triple whammy?
  Mr. Davey: As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, council tax already does that. He fails to understand that the issue is about democratic choice. I think that cutting national taxes and giving power to raise them at a local and regional level is a sensible way forward.
  One of the other problems with the Bill is that no boundary review was conducted before its introduction. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, we have inherited the regional boundaries from the Conservatives. I do not think that it is to the Government's credit that they have merely said, "Me too," in respect of the boundaries. They could have instituted a one-year, one-off review to find out what people in the regions felt were the right boundaries. It is a great shame that they have not done so.
  Matthew Green: There is time.
  Mr. Davey: Indeed, there is time if the Government get their act together. I wanted to raise one or two issues that we shall doubtless debate in detail in Committee, but I shall focus on only one before I conclude my remarks. I want to consider the ballot paper and the question. The Electoral Commission ruled that the preamble was not sufficiently clear, and the Deputy Prime Minister said that that would be taken into account.

  215
  When we debated the Greater London Authority Bill, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that the relevant question had been determined through focus group research. What research has been conducted into the question for which the Bill provides? Have people in the focus groups told the Government whether they understand that the proposed question implicitly refers to local government reform? I am surprised that the Electoral Commission did not rule that the question was unintelligible. Although it did not, hon. Members should complain about it because it is unclear and does not tell people for what they are voting.
  We welcome the Bill. Regional government and democracy should have been introduced many years ago. We have wasted years and millions of pounds on the quango state. The Government are therefore right to introduce the Bill.
  Dr. Pugh: My hon. Friend eloquently described the Bill as a paper tiger. Liberal Democrats can support the Bill only on the assumption that it will turn out to be a Trojan horse and lead to something more.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right that we shall try to strengthen the Government's proposals in the Bill and in the accompanying enabling legislation. I am looking forward to debating with the Minister. We spent three months in Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, which we amended more times than the India Act. I warn him that we shall table many amendments.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made a long speech. I can present my position more crisply—I shall not need 12 minutes.
  I do not believe that regional assemblies will happen. We will not persuade people in the regions that another tier of government will deliver measurable improvements to their lives. I am therefore a sceptic. I believe that the Government are introducing the Bill because we have always had an asymmetrical constitution and some people want to make the United Kingdom symmetrical. In Northern Ireland, we have a devolved institution with specific legislative powers. In Wales, we created a halfway house hybrid, which has no primary legislative powers. In Scotland, we have a new devolved Administration. For reasons of symmetry, we need to impose regional devolution in England.
  The proposal constitutes a halfway house. If the Labour party believes in a symmetrical constitution, it should go the whole hog and federalise the United Kingdom. That is the canoe that the Liberal Democrats, who are great federalists, paddle. However, my Government claim that we can satisfy aspirations by introducing the regional devolution for which the Bill provides.
  I oppose such devolution. As I said in an earlier intervention about the national health service, I believe in a strong central state that irons out imbalances between the regions, considers their needs and contributes resources to the neediest areas. I do not support a fractured, dismembered United Kingdom, where regional differences are magnified. Liberal
  216
  Democrats would celebrate such differences, even in the crucial matter of health. They said that there would no longer be a national health service but a regional service, with regional postcode lotteries. What a ridiculous idea.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the closure of the accident and emergency department at Kidderminster hospital was a big issue in the midlands during the last election campaign. It resulted in the domination of Wyre Forest district council by a party called Health Concern, which also holds the balance of power on Worcestershire county council. It was instrumental in the election of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who has one of the biggest majorities in the House, and it is probably one of the reasons for my presence here. However, none of that could change a decision that was made in London. There was no local accountability. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to make any such changes without regional government?
  Mr. Prentice: I understand the point. A national health service should mean simply that. Perhaps that is an aspiration, but I hold to it and so should the Labour party. I support common standards in so far as they are possible throughout the United Kingdom.
  Matthew Green: Tell that to the people of Wyre Forest. They have no accident and emergency department.
  Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman should discuss the matter with the district council. I have made the point as clearly as I can.
  The White Paper includes innumerable references to regional assemblies "planning", "drawing up strategies" and "targets". People in north-east Lancashire are not interested in that. We have the worst housing in the United Kingdom and we do not need a new assembly to tell us to plan and form strategies to deal with it. We need money from a central Labour Government to knock down crummy, crumbling housing. That would do more to transform the lives of my constituents in Pendle than setting up a regional assembly in, for example, Lancaster or Wigan.
  I have pressed the Deputy Prime Minister on several occasions about why the Government will not come off the fence. If they believe that regionalising England is a good idea, why do not they advocate regional assemblies positively? They did that for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and in London. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government are not telling Labour Members of Parliament and members of the party outside the House that we must campaign for English regional devolution, because the Prime Minister does not believe in it. I shall tell him that when I meet him tomorrow. I have never heard him publicly advocating English regional devolution. However, the Deputy Prime Minister has been wedded to it for his whole political life. We are therefore in our current position.
  Many phoney claims have been made for regional assemblies. A colleague in my area said that a regional assembly would mean no more problems with the west coast main line. That is like saying that a south-east

  217
  regional assembly on its own could finance a channel tunnel rail link. That is ludicrous. People are making claims that regional assemblies cannot effect without extra help from central Government, but it is not forthcoming. How do I know that? Page 45 of the White Paper makes it clear that regions that do not opt for an assembly would not be disadvantaged. People who believe that voting for a regional assembly in the north-west or the north-east will mean barrels of money are dreaming.
  We must be honest with people and not dress up the proposal as something that it is not.
  Mr. Beith: I am just a bit worried that the hon. Gentleman will go to his meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow in ignorance of the Prime Minister's words on the opening page of the very White Paper that he is quoting from. The Prime Minister says that the Government's proposal
  "builds on the success of devolution elsewhere in the UK—offering people more accountable, more streamlined, and more joined-up government."
  Mr. Prentice: The Prime Minister did not write that, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.
  Mr. Beith: He has signed it.
  Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has been around for a long time. To imagine that the Prime Minister's own hand signs off all these documents—what fantasy! What a Liberal Democrat statement that was!
  In the few moments that are left to me, I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two other things that have been troubling me. [Interruption.]Yes, there are many such things, but it is great to be able to unburden myself of them. It is very therapeutic. On the cost of the proposals, we have just gone through a major local government reorganisation, and we were promised that it would save—no pun intended—an arm and a leg. It has not. Our whole experience of local government reorganisation tells us that it always costs much more than people imagine.
  The Library paper, which has been very helpful, tells us that the Heseltine review of local government in the early 1990s cost £669 million, and that involved only a partial reform. Looking at the legislation proposed by my own Government, I shiver when I think about all the residuary bodies and staffing commissions that will have to be set up. It is going to cost an absolute fortune. The police authorities might have to be reconfigured as well, because they are linked to the counties. The cost could spiral out of control. The Library paper also talks about the cost of devolution to Scotland, Wales and London, which is now estimated to have been between 25 and 40 per cent. higher than anticipated. Case made.
  Mr. Dawson: My hon. Friend has been one of the most trenchant critics of Lancashire county council over its recent policy on services for older people. Is it not therefore absolutely essential, and in the best interest of his constituents, that we get a much more devolved form
  218
  of local government that is able to integrate fully with health and social care, and with private and voluntary sector providers?
  Mr. Prentice: It would not be much of a local government if we got rid of the county tiers in the north-west and brought in a new assembly with a membership of between 25 and 35. Even if we take the upper figure, each assembly person would have a constituency of something like 240,000 people. That is not very local. In so far as there are problems with Lancashire county council, those problems have been identified by the voters. The voters therefore have the remedy in their own hands, if they wish to use it.
  On resources, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) spoke earlier about the injustices and inequities of the Barnett formula. But we have had a Labour Government for six years. If the Barnett formula is so iniquitous—and I think it is—why do not my own Government do something about it? They could do something about it tomorrow—literally. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the House, he could announce a review of the formula that could put resources into regions such as mine which have lost out over the years.
  A lot of the people campaigning in my area keep banging on about European funds. A regional assembly in the north-west would have access to such funds. To put this into perspective, however, £200 million of European structural funding goes into the north-west, but the total Government spending in the north-west is £33.7 billion. So we are talking about something that is de minimis.
  Perhaps the answer is to strengthen our existing system of local government and to give MPs like me the opportunity to serve on a regional Select Committee. At present, we have a Regional Affairs Committee, which is supposed to have oversight of all the English regions. Why can we not introduce a system of regional Select Committees, so that MPs like me could meet in Lancaster, Wigan or Manchester—in public and televised—to bring the quangos that we keep hearing about to account? That is a question not for this Minister but for the Leader of the House and others.
  I shall vote for the Bill this evening. [Laughter.]I shall do so because I am seeing the Prime Minister tomorrow. He will know my views, and he will appreciate my candour in expressing them.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): I suppose that it is ironic that we have just heard two speeches from people who have said what a ghastly Bill this is, and then, declared that they are going to vote for it. I, too, am going to say that it is a pretty ghastly Bill, but I am going to vote against it. In that sense, I shall be consistent and, perhaps, break with my recent seditious tradition as far as my relationship with my party is concerned.
  I would like to begin on a seditious note. There is actually a case for regional devolution, and it is silly to pretend that that case does not exist. There are two arguments in favour of regional devolution. One is that there is a serious problem with representative democracy in Britain today. We have passed power out of the hands of people who are accountable. To some

  219
  extent, we have passed it upwards to international organisations, most of which I support. We have also passed it down, sometimes into the hands of the citizen—the school board member, the school governor—for very good reasons. We have also passed it down to a whole series of quangos, the most recent of which are the patient care trusts, which are very large organisations indeed. All the people to whom we have passed down that power have a responsibility to look after the members of their own organisation, but they are not enjoined by any accountability to the wider community. That is what I mean by a problem of representative democracy. The first test is: does the Bill deal with that problem?
  The second argument for regional devolution is that, at some stage, we have to address the problem of the government of England. I happen to be passionately opposed to the idea of an English Government. I can think of nothing more destructive for the United Kingdom than a wholly imbalanced power centred in an English Government, faced with the powers of the much smaller nationalities in the United Kingdom. Devolution to regions of the United Kingdom can provide an answer to this problem. Does the Bill fulfil that purpose?
  When I stack up this measure against those two possible needs, I have to ask myself: is this the answer—this mewling, puking, piddling, miserable little milk-and-water Bill? This is the sort of Bill that comes from people who put water in their red wine. It is barely worth having at all. If it is supposed to be a Trojan horse—made, I think, out of papier-mâché, if the analogy of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) is going to be correct—I have to say that it is going to take an awfully long time to disgorge its hidden contents.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to say that this is a puny Bill, compared with what is necessary, but many forms of life start out mewling and puking. Even he did! Sometimes they grow up to be Conservative MPs. Why should not we give the Bill the right to live, to see how it develops?
  Mr. Curry: Because I had no choice but to begin life in that microscopic form. The Government do, however, have a choice about whether to begin with something more important. There is a choice in front of us, whereas my parents had no choice. There was only one way of begetting me. We may evolve in due course, but, for the moment, I am afraid that that is a restriction that is enjoined on both the hon. Gentleman and on me.
  What claims are made for the Bill? The first is that it will help with economic regeneration. I recall the debate on Second Reading of the Bill that introduced regional development agencies, when the Minister in charge, who is now, improbably, Minister for Sport, said that the Government would have failed if the measure did not narrow the differential among the regions. As those differentials are widening rapidly, I wait for them to draw that particular conclusion.
  Secondly, it is claimed that the Bill will help with accountability. Let us consider the problem of economic regeneration. I support economic regeneration and, perhaps unusually, I think that the Yorkshire Forward
  220
  RDA has not done a bad job in Yorkshire and Humberside, but we should compare what it has with public spending in the region. Incidentally, part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) used to be in North Yorkshire and a reunification movement aims to get it back, because, understandably, being in Lancashire is a bit of a comedown after being in Yorkshire. If we are to take such figures as an indicator, the funds available are puny.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is no longer here, but he said that there is an enormous black hole at the heart of the Government's proposals—that is, there is no proposal whatever to redress the balance of public expenditure among the regions. So the dear old north-east of England, which is alleged to be the region that most wants regional government, will go in to bat against the Scots. The rationale, of course, is that it has to compete with the gravitational field of Edinburgh with puny per capita public expenditure compared with what the Scots enjoy.
  The Barnett formula has been mentioned, and it is inescapable that the regions will want more power and more money if we introduce regional devolution. I look forward to seeing the Minister for Local Government and the Regions sorting that one out. Indeed, I am tempted to campaign throughout the south-west in favour of devolution just to see him handle the local government reorganisation that would necessarily ensue if devolution were introduced there.
  Lawrie Quinn: On the point about more power and more money, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Yorkshire would not want either of those?
  Mr. Curry: All I am saying is that we will not get them; people are not being offered that choice. Of course, anybody would want more power and more money. If we get a devolved assembly, the first thing it will do is engage in competition for public funds. That, inevitably, will happen.
  I always enjoy listening to the Deputy Prime Minister, as it is like having presented to one for Christmas a brand new thesaurus containing all sorts of meanings of words that one never dreamed existed. He said that the Bill will give the regions opportunities similar to those in Scotland and Wales, but either the word "similar" has entirely changed its meaning or there is a curious elasticity in the language, which is no doubt particular. That is a reflection either on new Labour as a philosophy or on the hon. Gentleman as a grammarian. Perhaps a combination of those problems is involved.
  Let us consider what is being proposed on the question of accountability, and let me make my local point. North Yorkshire is the only part of Yorkshire and Humberside that does not have a unitary authority. If there is a vote on a regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside, 86 per cent. of those who determine local government reform in North Yorkshire will have nothing at stake as regards the change of structure.
  If we get regional government, I shall not be afraid of three tiers. I see no reason for North Yorkshire not to be given the choice, should it wish to keep the regional and county tiers, although it should not be able to retain all

  221
  the others as well. That is a fallacy of logic in the Government's argument—the search for such uniformity is wholly unnecessary and I hope that the Minister backs off in Committee or we shall be overwhelmed.
  The assemblies are a terrible charade, and we should consider the electoral system and the size of the constituencies. The proposal is to abolish one tier of government—it may be good, bad or indifferent, but it at least represents a limited number of people—and to replace it with another that will represent over 250,000 people, topped up by proportional representation. If turnout in the European elections is an indicator of the success of that system of government, I must say that the Government are in for some rapid disillusionment.
  We should consider the powers in the Bill. I refer to the Local Government Chronicle—an estimable journal that pays me a modest sum to write for it each month. George Jones, professor of government at the London school of economics, and John Stewart, professor of local government at Birmingham university's Inlogov, have a regular column in which they have disembowelled the Bill. Under the headline "Toothless Wonder", they point out all the issues on which a regional assembly will be able to
  "advise … make proposals … request … support".
  The only thing they will not be able to do is decide. The assemblies will be able to decide nothing. There will be nothing on which they can draw up a strategy and execute it. They will spend their time importuning others to do things. If that is a recipe for achieving a good turnout, I am astonished.
  When people go to the polls, they ask themselves, "What is at stake?" If the answer is nothing, they will not vote. The new system in London has not necessarily given us such astonishing confidence in the transformation of the quality of our public life—says he, having just applied for his congestion charge licence—that we should be confident about its roll-out, to use a word that the Government love, to the rest of the country.
  We must also consider the trigger: what will decide that there is to be a referendum? Are we to test the crowd as they come out of St. James's Park, the Stadium of Light or Tesco, or will the usual clutch of councillors, parsons and academics get together to say that the proposals are a good wheeze? In Committee, we need to be told on what basis that test will be undertaken, as it is important. The powers will rest entirely with the Secretary of State. It is all very well saying that the people will decide, but they will not decide whether they want a referendum. There will be lobbies, and the groups that bay the loudest will get the referendums, because, increasingly, that is how our society works.
  I am obliged to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this is a new dawn, it is a misty, clammy, foggy, chilly November dawn with extremely limited visibility, not merely on the motorways, but on the side roads. The Bill seeks to address a genuine problem—the lack of representative accountability—but the way to do that, which, across the Chamber, we have been reluctant to use, is to give powers back to existing local government, consider the funding, trust people and give them a stake
  222
  in their local government. We should see whether that will bring a renaissance in the process of accountability and representative democracy in Britain, which we have all conspired to remove and to which the Bill will bring no improvement whatever.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer: Everybody on the Labour Benches recognises that this country is massively over-centralised. That over-centralisation gives some cause and effect to the wealth, income and health disparities between the regions and the south-east and among the regions. Those problems should be solved, but we will not find the solution in the Bill, which, as previous speakers have said, is quite weak.
  I shall come to what should happen, but I must say first that I think the Government believe that the Bill is quite weak. They would be much stronger advocates for it if they were more open about the subjective tests that the Deputy Prime Minister will go through in deciding whether there is to be a referendum, and the Bill would be much clearer if it contained a definite threshold on democratic support. It would also be clearer, and may well get more support, if we were not on such a one-way street, as we often are with referendums. We are not told of the powers that will exist. Quite simply, the Government look shifty in making their case, as they will not tell us those things, or what is in the Deputy Prime Minister's mind or what support they consider appropriate to determining whether there should be a referendum on establishing a regional assembly.
  Elected regional assemblies and regional government are not the solution because they run counter to the grain of the history of this country, which is distinguished from its European counterparts by its demography, the history of its local government and its urban areas, towns and shire counties. We should be supporting those cities and making them work.
  It is always interesting to hear Conservative Members talk about how much power should be in the hands of local government, as they spent 18 years taking powers from it. They should be returned.
  Mr. Dawson: If we truly went with the grain of history, Manchester would be part of the county of Lancashire, whose county town is Lancaster.
  Mr. Stringer: Three hundred years ago, Manchester was a small market town, but I am talking about its post-industrial position. Manchester has had local government for 150 years, so that is going with the grain.
  Mr. David Borrow: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the Commonwealth games that were held in the City of Manchester stadium this summer? Many of us in the north-west outside Manchester felt that it was a regional event in that a sense of regional pride was very much evident. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a sense of regional pride in the rest of the north-west outside Manchester?
  Mr. Stringer: I viewed the Commonwealth games as a national event. It had a lot of support throughout the country. There was a great deal of support locally, and I

  223
  was grateful for that, but if my hon. Friend is asking whether there is a north-western identity, no I do not think there is. I think that there is a Merseyside-Liverpool identity and a Manchester-Preston-Lancashire identity, but I do not believe that there is a north-west identity. When I watched television in the 1960s, we were in the north. As Granada diminished in size and the structure of the BBC changed, we were suddenly in the north-west. The north-west is a relatively recent concept. The regions are an artificial construct. Manchester does not have close cultural or sporting ties with Leeds or Liverpool, but because they are tied by the M62, it is economically at least as close to Leeds as it is to Liverpool.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister alluded to the fact that in 1993 the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said which regions there would be when he launched the Government offices for the regions. I served on many of Labour's working parties examining regional government, and the one problem that we could never solve was where the boundaries should be, because there are no natural regions. Salisbury and Southampton, amalgamated in the same chamber of commerce, are in two completely different regions. There are no natural regions in this country, but the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal solved that problem.
  One of the more bizarre claims that is made for regional government is that decision making will be better. My experience—I am talking mainly about the north-west, but I do not believe that it would be different in the south-east—is that we will end up with lowest common denominator politics, especially given the democratic system that will be used.
  The greatest economic generator in the north-west is Manchester airport. It creates more jobs and brings more wealth to the area than anything else. When I was the director of Manchester airport and leader of Manchester city council, I was involved in the scheme to build a second runway at the airport. I went all over the region trying to get support, but because of local pride, especially on Merseyside which put in planning objections that were supported elsewhere in the northwest, we could not get it. I suspect that in regions where there is no natural majority we will get lowest common denominator politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) said that the university of Manchester institute of science and technology and Manchester university should be amalgamated, and I agree, but I am not convinced that that would come about more easily with regional government than under the current structures.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I cannot let my hon. Friend get away with saying that there are no natural regions. There is no doubt that the north-east of England is a natural region. We have our own culture, and we require a Bill such as this so that we can get on and make the decisions that need to be made in the north-east, instead of their being made in central London.
  Mr. Stringer: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the north-east, but I have heard my hon. Friend the
  224
  Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) give a completely different view of the nature of the north-east from that of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Perhaps I could give the hon. Gentleman another view of the north-east. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was right: people who live on the south side of the Tees believe that they come from North Yorkshire, and people in Cumbria would like to be part of the north-east.
  Mr. Stringer: Other hon. Members have referred to the voting system for the proposed regional assemblies. I cannot think of anything more likely to put people off voting than constituencies of a quarter of a million, a list of representatives whom they will probably never see and a system that in the north-west and possibly in other regions will almost guarantee a British National party representative on the regional assembly. We must think about that when we set up electoral systems. Our electoral system has kept extremist parties out of Parliament by fair means. It seems strange to set up a system for regional government that will give the BNP and other racist and extreme groups a platform.
  I said that one of the bizarre claims was that decision making would be clearer under a regional system. Another claim concerns the core issue of how we deal with regional disparities. It is claimed that regional assemblies and regional development agencies will be the drivers of economic performance. In the north-west, which I know best, the major economic regenerative budget is the single regeneration budget. Why did it drop by £100 million? That is a measure of the commitment to devolution at the centre. It dropped by that much because there was to be no increase in costs to the Government and some of the regions that were created had to have new budgets, so there was a transfer from those areas of need to areas that had not required those resources before because a regional structure was to be established. I do not believe that this measure will be a driver of change. There simply is not enough money.
  The amount of money in Scottish Enterprise and the similar body that deals with the Scottish islands is equivalent to that for three RDAs. Even if that money were put into those regional structures, I doubt whether they would relate to commerce and industry.
  I do not want to be completely negative about the Bill.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Is the hon. Gentleman intending to vote for it?
  Mr. Stringer: Of course I shall vote for it, if only to give people the opportunity to reject the idea. That is one of the good things about the Bill. The people whom I represent are looking forward to the measures promised in the Queen's Speech to deal with bad private landlords and terraced property. I would much prefer to be dealing with a measure that my constituents are desperate for, because their lives are being made miserable from hour to hour and day to day. That would have a direct impact.
  What would a real regional policy look like? We would recognise it because central Government would not allow the synchrotron at Daresbury to be moved to

  225
  Oxford on the basis of poor reasons. We would recognise it because 80 per cent. of transport spending would not be directed at London as at present. That would make a real difference to the regions. We would recognise it if it got rid of the Barnett formula, and if the surplus of highly paid civil servants and others who do not need to be in London were dispersed to the regions. We would recognise a regional policy that made the London cost adjustment fairer. And we would recognise a real regional policy—a policy that took account of democracy, giving local democracy power as well as responsibility. That would mean ending the system whereby 80 per cent. of local government income is determined by central Government grant, and allowing local authorities to collect it directly in the form of taxes so that they could make real decisions on what happened in their communities.
  I am sad about the Bill. The House needs to get to grips with the problem of regional disparities—why we have them, why there is so much poverty in the regions and why gross domestic product per head is not as high as it is elsewhere—but I am afraid the Bill does not deal with that problem. It will not help anyone.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not envy the Minister the job of piloting the Bill through Committee. He will have a really difficult time.
  My tutor at university, K.B.S. Smellie, wrote the then seminal textbook "100 Years of English Local Government". It was a fairly short book; but the Deputy Prime Minister has told us of years of neglect. We have had the Local Government Acts 1963, 1972, 1985 and 1992, as well as the Greater London Authority Act 1999. We have, in fact, experienced an extremely unsettling series of changes. It has been a case of for and against, round about and over the hill.
  I am puzzled by all this. The Deputy Prime Minister tries to elevate his plans to the status of a grand programme of constitutional reform; but, in truth, does it consist of any more than yet another reorganisation of local government, providing even fewer powers than those held by the existing institutions—some of which have endured for a very long time, and command considerable sentiment in our nation? I do not represent a county constituency, but the counties are among the oldest political units in western Europe. They have a remarkable history.
  Mr. Dawson: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the history of counties, but are they not a form of local government that simply does not work any more? Should not some of their functions be devolved to a lower level, and are not others—connected with planning, transport and economic development—meaningful only at regional level?
  Mr. Shepherd: I was reflecting on the constant change that we have experienced over the past quarter of a century or so, and on whether it has established any of what the Governments involved wanted to initiate. This is what puzzles me. If the Bill represents no more than a stab at some form of local government reform, why does
  226
  it not follow the normal statutory process? We do not need referendums; we have all the Acts that I mentioned earlier. Important arrangements, which in some measure are constitutions, have been established by a simple Act of Parliament. What Parliament made, it can unmake.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said something that, in a sense, was very important. He wanted a strong central state because it could end what he saw as a disparity. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said that he wanted the regions to be able to perform certain functions, but who can best do that? This is why new Labour is constantly denigrated. The House of Commons is the central institution in the land, and if we have a will it can return to the institutions of local government the powers that it historically gained. I am thinking of the history identified by K.B.S. Smellie—the gradual great municipal developments of the 19th century that brought about the life and standards of our people.
  Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent much time studying these matters. He says that the House of Commons is the appropriate place to effect such scrutiny. I agree with him, but, as a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs for England, may I ask him how effective that Committee has been in scrutinising the matters that he says we should be scrutinising?
  Mr. Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman really wants to know, I think it is an absurdity. The Modernisation Committee looked at it. The Government do not want it. I do not know what it is about. But it could be given life if the House had a will.
  The ability to make settlements and adjustments, and to revitalise local government, lies in our hands. There is a great hunger out there among the existing local authorities, whose members ask what is their purpose. There has been a regional attempt at a constitutional convention, whose research papers have identified important findings. Other Members may cite their own areas, but I can say that the west midlands—whatever they may be—receive £1,000 per head less than Scotland. That central point was made, in part, by the hon. Member for Pendle.
  I know as well as the Minister that the west midlands have not a chance in hell of suddenly having £5 billion or so cast in their direction. What is being set up is fanciful and, in a sense, phoney. Do people want it? The Deputy Prime Minister speaks of democracy, but it lies in his hands to determine whether there is a local interest and whether the vote will be for or against.
  I can conjure up any number of possible tests. Two people wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, and on that basis he knows there is a groundswell. Well, the tests cannot be quite as fanciful as that. We in the west midlands had always assumed that we did not want this, until the BBC commissioned a poll. Apparently, not one region in England and Wales does not want regional government, and in the west midlands the figure is no less than 73 per cent. On that basis, the Deputy Prime Minister should be signing the documents that will bring about a referendum almost immediately.
  Once the Deputy Prime Minister has his referendum, what is the test? There is no test. We do not believe in thresholds any more. I understand why new Labour

  227
  does not believe in them: it would not have secured any of its supposed constitutional changes with them. There was once a body corporate. Something that affected one part of this island affected us all. The flow of money to Scotland affects the flow of money to Cornwall and Wales; no one can doubt that. There is only one pot, and it is we who give legitimacy to the system. The regional authorities that are envisaged will not raise the money to support the ambitions that are dangled before the people of this country.
  I reflect on what we have experienced already. As I observed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), when a free people have been asked whether they want change, in no case has the figure been anywhere near 50 per cent. except in Scotland, where it was just under 50 per cent. Does that demonstrate a real will? Are we not just creating yet another political class?
  Huge costs will be involved. People should realise that. What about the ambitions of Wales? Is it to have an overarching county council? If only 25.2 per cent. voted for change in Wales, where a free people were urged to go out and express their will for change, that means that 74.8 per cent. did not want change. It is on such a slender basis that the Government trumpet that this is what Wales wants. Never has a minority of votes cast among the electorate been construed as an authority for the introduction of change.
  Why do I say that? Let us consider the rules of any club. I know of no club in my constituency that would permit fundamental rule changes on the basis that one in four members wanted them. The Government have put no threshold in the Bill, which is why they could not secure—as the hon. Member for Pendle said—their ambitions for one important, powerful Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, in respect of this nonsense.
  The Liberal Democrats say that they want regional government, but it is currently incoherent. Scotland is different from Wales, which in turn is different from other areas. This was once a symmetrical country; to that extent, I disagree with the hon. Member for Pendle. What was so for a man or woman in Cumbria was so for us in what was once Staffordshire. Aldridge-Brownhills never wanted to be in Walsall. It is a nightmare. Such misalliances are repeated across the country. The Government are dedicated to casting those misalliances of arrangements against the grain, so to speak. We have to forget our history to accept measures such as this.
  7 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I want to try to redress the balance in the debate, which has been far too dominated by Lancastrians and by quibblers arguing against what could and, I hope, will be the basis of a very good and necessary decentralisation in this country. It is a small step to what has been a lifetime's ambition of mine: to have greater decentralisation, and to give more power to the regions and to the people where they live, interact and function in a modern society.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He has fought for that over the years in the Labour party against a good deal of opposition and now he is fighting for it in government. When we get these regional assemblies—and, I hope, eventually regional governments based on them—it will he his monument in modern Britain.
  228
  I have to make a confession: I started on this journey believing in home rule for Yorkshire. It is a simple proposition. When I became MP for Great Grimsby, I included Humberside in that rubric, otherwise I would have been executed. There is no love lost between Tykes and Grimbarians.
  It seemed that Yorkshire had had a bum deal from the nation. It was said of President Hoover that in four years he drained, damned and ditched the United States and it seemed that London had done the same with Yorkshire and the great industrial regions of the north that created this modern society. I wanted to give Yorkshire the ability to fight back and control its own destiny.
  Like the Deputy Prime Minister, we all get more moderate as we get older. I duly resiled from that enthusiasm for home rule, but I still believe in the basic principle of the Bill, which is bringing government closer to the people. It is creating not a new level of bureaucracy but a new level of democracy. We already have regional institutions and they are not accountable; a long list of them has been given in the debate. The Bill is dedicated to making them accountable to the people in that region. As I said, it is a first step to regional government. Why do we need it? This country is manifestly over-centralised. It is more dominated and controlled by central Government than any other society I know. Even France, where Paris is supposedly dominant, has gone in for regionalism and decentralisation on a scale that we have not thought of in this country.
  All career ladders seem to finish in London. Most of the best and brightest sixth formers in my children's school in Grimsby have gone to London. Industries in the north have been damaged, or ruined in many cases by economic policies dictated by London. Even now it is going on. London house prices are rocketing, so the rest of the country has to bear higher interest rates than are appropriate to a manufacturing area. London is dominant.
  Local government has been shackled by London. The greatest skill in local government now is to transport begging bowls up and down the railways to London or, increasingly, to Brussels. No wonder we complain that local government does not attract ability: its basic job is the handing round of begging bowls. The media are dominated from London. House prices are dominated from London. Think of the kind of wealth that will be inherited in London when the houses are sold and people go to live in Grimsby more economically with a great bonus. People from Grimsby cannot go the opposite way.
  Devolution and the Bill are about taking power back to the people to help them to get a better deal and not to be dependent—to get them off their knees. In this nation, there should not be a political class as a dominant group in London, with the rest living on handouts and increasingly dependent on London. People should be equal and have the same power over their destinies everywhere.
  Complaints have been made about the direction of public spending. Yorkshire and Humberside gets £926 a head less a year than Scotland gets for devolved services, and £850 less a head a year than London.

  229
  We need regional government not only to give people the power to fight back but because we now live regionally: regions are the basis of life now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) said, they are the basis of identity in the north-east, the Geordie nation. It is not as good as in Yorkshire. Perhaps we are more xenophobic, although that is now a crime in Europe and Yorkshire, but there is a feeling of pride and identity.
  Look too at travel to work. My dad used to walk down the road to the mill but now people travel considerable distances. The M62, which I use a lot, is choked with people travelling to work from east and west Yorkshire to Leeds, or they take the M1 to Sheffield. Those motorways are imposing a new pattern of life based on regions, a new scale in people's thinking.
  Our culture is becoming increasingly regional. People go to the West Yorkshire playhouse, the Crucible in Sheffield, the theatre in Hull. We have Opera North in Leeds and the Northern Ballet. All those are regional cultural institutions. Even the multiplex cinemas serve bigger regions than the locality. There are great regional shopping centres such as Meadow Hall, the Metro Centre or Trafford Park, which is the newest and best; I am afraid to say that as a Yorkshireman. They have given a new focus to economic activity.
  Most organisations have regional structures. The TUC, the CBI, the parties and sport are all run regionally. I am glad to say that, since 1997, we have had a proliferation of regional bodies, for which we need to provide coherence through measures such as this. The problems include planning, development and promoting the region. There are important institutions such as Manchester airport. Transport and housing need to be treated regionally and on a regional scale; those problems are regional rather than strictly local.
  We need accountable institutions to deal with all that. The way to make them accountable is to have regional assemblies and eventually a regional government. I welcome the measure because it transfers power to our people where they live, and the people want it. Much has been said about the BBC poll, but it showed strong support for regions, particularly in the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the west midlands, which is also pushing for regional government.
  The Economist poll in April 1999 asked people what they most identified with. Forty-four per cent. said local government but 49 per cent. said the region and only 41 per cent. said England: more people identify with the region than with the country. We must have regional institutions, or the constitution would be unstable. We have devolution for Scotland and for Wales. Why should England be treated as one great lump? We cannot have an English parliament—it would be an elephant in a cuckoo's nest—so we have to have regions developing towards equality of status and power. The Conservatives are against it, but then they are against all change until it actually happens. It reminds me of the old definition in the 1950s, when it was said that the Republicans believed that nothing should be done for the first time, but the new Republicans believed that it should be done, but not now.
  230
  That is precisely the Conservative position on regional government, as it was on devolution to Wales and on regional development agencies. They accept the regional institutions that are already running. The regional assemblies—the re-named chambers of the development agencies—have many Conservatives on them: the south-east assembly has 34, dominating it; east of England, 13; south-west, 20; and west midlands, 23. They are using regional institutions, and no doubt they will play their part on the new bodies.
  Why not let the people decide, as the Bill does? It is true that the south is less enthusiastic than the north, but we could have variable geometry institutions, as in Spain, where the system works very well, with regions choosing how many powers they want, some taking a lot and some having only minimal powers. That is a perfectly feasible future for us.
  The ballot should certainly say "directly elected", because we already have elected assemblies, in the sense that many of the councillors on the existing regional assemblies are elected. The suggested preamble for the ballot is far too long. It is incomprehensible, and people would die of boredom by the time they got to the end of it.
  The Liberals argued for including abolition of the counties in the requirement for regional government. I know that the Tories wax lyrical about the counties as traditional institutions, although they waxed slightly less lyrical when they abolished the metropolitan counties. They abolished Humberside for party political reasons, because Labour was in power there, and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.12 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will be very disappointed if regional government ever happens, because his idea that there will be some kind of new exciting democracy is a load of rubbish. If he reads the Bill, the White Paper and the guidance, he will see that there is to be an organisation with a single block grant, with very limited powers other than general powers about making some kind of observation about the region. The power simply will not be there.
  I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). It was a joy to listen to him. I would be happier, as he would be, if he came over to the Conservative Benches, with all the sound sense that he has, just as I would suggest that some of my hon. Friends would be far happier where he is. We would welcome someone like him, who believes in a sensible way of spending public money and in the retention of democracy.
  What worries me is the extent to which local government has already happened without people being aware of it. I was horrified when I had to inquire into the possibility of getting all these ridiculous Euro-grants for my constituency—although it worked out very well, because we are the only place in the whole of Essex to get objective 2 money. I was told always to remember a place called Hertfordshire, which got substantial sums for unemployment and deprivation, even though there was little unemployment or deprivation there.

  231
  I had to find out about regional government in my quest for funding. It horrified me to discover how much there was, and how much was being spent. I spoke to a gentleman called Mr. Riddell, a very nice man, who was the regional director of the Government office for the east of England, which is located in Cambridge and Bedford and was formed from regional council officers from Departments such as the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Department of Trade and Industry. He told me that the running costs of the organisation were £6.5 million and the programme budget £330 million, which involved regional selective assistance, smart grants and other funds, and that the single regeneration budget money had now gone to the RDA.
  Then there was something called the East of England Development Agency, which I was told was an NDPB. Clearly, if I had been living in the real world, I would have known what that was—but I still do not know. I found out that its offices were in Norwich, Bury St. Edmonds and Bedford, that it had 12 board members appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that it had a budget of £4.4 million and a programme budget of £27 million, and that its primary task was to produce a regional economic development strategy.
  Then there was the East of England Investment Agency.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the proposals in the White Paper for the directly elected regional assemblies would give them specific powers over the regional development agencies for general economic development as well as for the allocation of European funding? Would not that deal with some of the problems that he identifies?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If the hon. Lady investigates further, she will find that that is not the case. The assemblies do not allocate European money. They simply tell people to send in six application forms, which I did. They do not make the determinations. To believe that we are going to have elected people doing what people who are appointed to the boards by the Government do is living in cloud cuckoo land.
  I discovered that the East of England Investment Agency was based in Cambridge. Its budget was only £900,000. Then there was the East of England assembly, which was just about to appoint a full-time secretary. There were also two regional planning organisations in the east of England, apparently called SERPLAN and SCEALA, and there was a possibility that they might merge.
  There is a huge amount of regional government already, and the idea that we are simply planning for the future should worry us. Is it right to be moving towards more regional governments, when the sense that we get from the people of Britain is that they want to move away from larger organisations to smaller ones? That is what I found in my constituency, when it was part of a county called Essex. People felt that Chelmsford was too far away and that they were neglected until we became a unitary authority. The idea of saying to my people that, now they have escaped from Chelmsford, they would be better off being run by Cambridge is ridiculous.
  232
  There is no enthusiasm for regional government in England, except perhaps in the north-east and in Cornwall, where people are rather unusual. The sole reason that people in the north-east have for supporting more regional government is that they think it will mean getting some of the huge amounts of extra money that people get in Scotland.
  Joyce Quin: As a north-east Member, I know that that is not the sole reason why we support regional government. We believe that it gives us an opportunity to influence events in our region, and a single pot of money, whether limited or not, allows a region to decide priorities for itself in a way that we cannot do at present.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not know the area as well as the right hon. Lady, but I visit it often. I go to a place called Durham and other places, and the impression that I get is that people are not interested in having more politicians or more government and simply want to know whether they will get more money.
  The Government should make it abundantly clear in the referendums what the actual position is. Do not let us mislead people into thinking that there will be extra money if there will not. The Government should also think carefully about the ridiculous electoral system that they are proposing, which is exactly the same as the one used for the Scottish Parliament. If people think that regional government is a great idea, they should go up to Glasgow and ask what people think about the devolved Government there.
  Under the proposals, there will be some directly elected people and others who are there simply on the basis of a party list. There will be the ridiculous situation that obtains in Edinburgh, where the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament have constituents who keep them busy, sending them letters and invitations, but there is another group—sadly, an awful lot of them Conservatives, as we have only one elected Member there—with no constituents and no answerability to anyone. All they have to do is to keep their party happy, so that they stay high on the list. It is ridiculous to have a group of MSPs with no constituency responsibilities, to whom no one phones or writes. That does not create equality, and it is not the type of democracy that we want.
  I hope that, during these referendums, the Government will tell people what is to happen to unitary authorities. In Southend-on-Sea, people are happy with their unitary authority. We think that a great deal of money has been saved and that we are providing better services—although only time will tell.
  Under the new arrangements, it is proposed to set up even larger unitary authorities. I am told that one plan under consideration is to merge some of the district councils with unitary authorities. It would be extremely dangerous to put people under unitary authorities that they do not want without giving them information about them. For example, I know that Rochford district council, which is in my constituency, certainly does not want to join with any other authority and the last council that it would want to join is Southend-on-Sea. It is dangerous to develop such ideas before thinking them through.

  233
  Under the Government's proposals, what will happen to the EU Committee of the Regions? Will only countries with elected regional authorities have the right to send representatives to the Committee? I have always been suspicious about this ridiculous Bill, whose proposals are not wanted by anyone. Indeed, part of the pressure may come from Europe where most countries have regional government.
  The thing that should worry politicians most of all is the fact that the public are switching off from politics. I recently had the pleasure of speaking at a university in Scotland, but I was horrified when only one person in an audience of 300 said that they were actively involved in politics. When I was at university, everyone was involved in politics, either as a member of a political party or some other organisation.
  There is a terrible danger that people in Britain, especially young people, are switching off. They are not interested because there are too many elections and too many public representatives. The Government seem to be planning to offer people not merely elections for the House of Commons, but for the House of Lords and for regional councils, but instead of getting better democracy we shall no longer have any democracy at all. It is not democracy when only 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the people vote.
  Our democracy would be far more effective if we had effective councils with real powers answerable directly to the people. The Bill will not proceed because the people will reject it. They do not want more government or more politicians; they simply want to hold on to our basic democracy.
  It is sad to be talking about how we can spread the powers of this Parliament down to regional authorities when a huge quantity of power is going away from this place already. Almost every day, more power goes to Europe because of decisions taken there. There are so many issues that we should be discussing in the House of Commons—sometimes we do—but in respect of which our powers have gone, so what is the point of setting up more assemblies and councils and handing around more democratic rights when our democracy is largely dying because our decision-making powers are being taken away?
  I would love the Government to take a real interest in fighting for democracy, but this Bill is not the way. It will not help anyone. It will cost a lot of money and people do not want it.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: I greatly welcome the Bill. I have campaigned for many years for regional government, so it gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate.
  When I became a Member in 1997, I mentioned my enthusiasm for regional government to one or two longstanding Members. They told me that it would not last long and that after a few years I would go native, as many regional government enthusiasts had done in the past. There is something about this place that makes us feel important and weakens our belief that decisions should not be made only in Parliament.
  234
  I have always argued strongly in favour of regional government. One of the best ways to explain my reason for doing so is to describe what happens when I talk to top juniors in schools in my constituency about what an MP does. I tell them that we sit around in Parliament and discuss laws; we talk about where we get money from and what it should be spent on and decide on the priorities. From my perspective in the north-west of England, the key question is whether many of the decisions made in this place and in Whitehall would be better made by men and women who live and work in the north-west, represent people in the north-west and go back every night to their homes in the north-west. My answer has to he yes.
  I do not necessarily want to remove huge tranches of work from this place, but much of our necessary scrutiny and decision making is not done very well because it involves complex detail, such as whether a bit of money should be spent in one local area or another or whether a particular road scheme should go ahead. During the past few months, I have chaired a couple of meetings in my constituency about a road scheme. They have included representatives from Lancashire county council, South Ribble borough council, the residents group and the Highways Agency in Manchester—although it is a national body. We discuss what is, in essence, a regional and local issue: whether a road scheme should go ahead and the priorities involved. That is not a national issue. It should be perfectly possible for decisions to be made by men and women based in the north-west, riot by people in London. I should not have to discuss the details of the scheme with the Minister for Transport—they should be sorted out in the north-west. That is why I am in favour of regional government.
  The Bill would not give us regional government; it sets up the mechanism by which regional government can be established. Much of the debate has focused on what is in the White Paper, and I shall deal with that later. However, at some point in the future, the proposals in the White Paper need to be turned into a Bill that will set up regional assemblies. This Bill does not do that; it deals with some constitutional issues relating to the referendums on regional assemblies.
  I am not sure that unitary authorities need to be dealt with in the Bill. I represent an area where there is two-tier local government. I am strongly in favour of both the abolition of Lancashire county council and the establishment of unitary authorities. When Lancashire was being considered in the review of the early 1990s, I was the leader of Preston council. I vigorously opposed unitary status for Preston because I thought that the town was too small and that unitary areas should be larger. That remains my view, although we still need unitary authorities in Lancashire. That is my perspective both as an MP and as someone who has been politically active in Lancashire for a long time. People in other parts of the country may have a different view on whether the abolition of two tiers is right.
  Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend welcome the principle in the measure that there should be independent assessment of the needs of local government, so that in North Yorkshire, for example, we could put right the wrongs perpetrated after so-

  235
  called commissions such as the Banham review, when councils were abolished with no reference to local people?
  Mr. Borrow: I agree with my hon. Friend in many ways. One of the difficulties of previous local government reorganisations was that Parliament decided that Parliament could decide, and that such decisions were not really a matter for local communities.
  One can argue that the Bill is not perfect, but it is a damn sight better than a lot of the previous legislation that has dealt with the abolition of local government and the creation of new local authorities. I have concerns about Lancashire and wonder whether the commission should consider how the existing boundaries of Blackpool and Blackburn would fit, but we may need to consider those issues in more detail in Committee.
  I want briefly to tackle the thresholds issue. Previous generations of hon. Members have taken many decisions that affect the constitutional position of this country's citizens without even asking them. The House voted to take us into the Common Market and to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils without asking the British people. So it is a bit rich for those hon. Members who were involved in that to claim that it is democratically important to set a threshold for the referendums to set up regional assemblies.
  We made it clear in the Labour party manifesto last year that we were in favour of setting up this mechanism to establish regional assemblies. We could have included in the manifesto a promise to establish regional assemblies without holding referendums, but simply by pushing the legislation through. The fact that we agreed to hold referendums is a sign of our belief in asking people in each area whether they want such constitutional change.
  The argument to make that move even more difficult by stepping in and saying that there should be a high threshold often comes from those who have often ignored the wishes of the electorate in making constitutional changes in the past, so I seriously question their motives.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1978 a Labour Government instigated a referendum in Scotland with the threshold of 40 per cent. saying yes?
  Mr. Borrow: There are occasions when the Labour party gets things wrong. The 1997 election was won overwhelmingly and the parties that were in favour of devolution won every seat in Scotland, so it was clearly the will of the people in Scotland that they should be given a referendum without a threshold to establish the Scottish Parliament, which is what they did. Despite their concerns about that Parliament's performance in some areas, all the signs are that they would not wish to see it abolished and to go back to where they were.
  The second part of the debate is not about the Bill, but about the constitutional Bill that would need to be introduced shortly after the first successful referendum campaign. The powers in the White Paper and implemented in the constitutional Bill leave a lot to be
  236
  desired. Before the first referendum takes place, it is absolutely crucial to have at the very minimum a draft constitutional Bill that lays down the powers that the people can expect if they vote in favour of a regional assembly.
  We should look fairly closely at the number of members of a regional assembly. In a region such as mine—the north-west—to start by talking about having only 25 or 35 members is total nonsense. The scale of the constituencies is totally over the top, and it will take the regional assembly away from people, rather than making it locally accountable.
  We also need to look at the powers that exist. Transport has been mentioned, and I certainly question why the Highways Agency should come to my constituency, as in the example that I cited. That would still happen under the White Paper because the regional assembly would have no power over the Highways Agency, so transport needs to be considered. If employment and economic policies are important, why should all the skills and learning matters still be largely governed centrally rather than regionally? Those issues need to be re-examined to find out whether we can get them right.
  I shall try to be a bit optimistic. One of the things that I have learned about politics is that institutions can have certain powers. They can spend money, take certain decisions and make certain appointments, but successful politicians and institutions use that as the springboard to develop leadership in their communities. What I want to see in the north-west is an elected assembly that operates not along narrow party lines, but reaches out to the broader community, gives leadership to the north-west and provides a vision for the region.
  We should recognise that the idea of a party operating on the basis of 50 per cent. plus one, which often happened in local government—it still happens now in certain places—is nonsense because it is not civic leadership. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) is not in his place. He mentioned a whole list of things in opposing the principle of regional government, but I should have thought that Manchester city council under his leadership epitomised that civic leadership. As an authority and institution, it accepted a wider responsibility than simply delivering services; it accepted a role in the broader community to make things happen.
  If the politicians elected to regional assemblies do not have that wider vision and the ability to bring a broad range of people with them, they will fail. If they can do that, they succeed and will be seen to succeed. They will encourage those parts of the country that do not get regional assemblies early on to follow their example, and I certainly hope that my region will be in the first tranche.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) made a thoughtful speech. He and a number of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), set out the vision of the people who have long been committed to creating regional assemblies in those regions that want them.

  237
  That is very distant from the carping, narrow and limiting approach of the people who try to deny us the opportunity to make decisions in our own region and produce the kind of political leadership from all parties that can make a real difference to the lives of the people in the regions.
  I do not want to dwell too much on that general case, which has been so very well made, but instead to contribute some points from the perspective of the northernmost part of the northernmost region in England. By definition, it is the furthest region from London—it seems further from London than many parts of Scotland—and it has a very strong regional identity, to which my constituency contributes a great deal. The region has a very strong cultural identity, expressed in music, dialect and drama, and my constituency contributes enormously to those things.
  There is a great sense of pride in the Newcastle-Gateshead bid to be the capital of culture and in other things that are going on in the centre of the region. It is interesting that it is a Newcastle-Gateshead bid because, for years, the two communities on opposite sides of the river were nothing but rivals and ignored each other to an extraordinary extent, but we now have co-operation in what is recognised as the main urban centre of the region. It is not the only urban centre in the region, but it is the largest and some very exciting developments are happening there.
  Those who represent an area so far from London as the one that I represent are immediately conscious of the feeling that people have that decisions are taken too far away from them to reflect their own concerns, by people who do not understand or know about their area and problems. It is almost impossible to visit those people in a day's journey, in the way that people in areas closer to London can. It is rare for me to get large parties of people or school children to come to the House of Commons because they have to come for several days to accomplish such a visit. London is a long way from the area that I represent, so there is a genuine interest in taking decisions closer to home.
  Of course my constituency covers a large area and the northern part of it is on the Scottish border. There are two different perceptions of the regional issue in my constituency. People close to the Scottish border ask, "Why can't we have what they have got?" They look over the border and they see a lot more money—I shall come to that in a moment—and the Scottish Executive can make decisions about where its priorities lie. It can make decisions about the A1 and other matters because it has the power in its own region. My constituents want that sort of power to be exercised in our own region and at a place that is a reasonable distance away, so that they can make effective representations. So the sense in the northern part of the region is that Scotland has something that we are being denied.
  To the southern part of my constituency, however, many more people travel to Newcastle or Tyneside to work because they must look for employment opportunities there. They make extensive use of what are essentially regional facilities based in Tyneside, and are particularly conscious of being located within a north-eastern region. That is a region in which regional government clearly already exists. The idea that the Bill
  238
  will create regional government is misleading—we have had it for years. Currently, it takes the form of the Government office for the north-east, the regional development agency and the plethora of quangos and other bodies that were described earlier. It is there but it is not accountable to the region. When I or others go to the Government office for the north-east we are always conscious that however helpful the individual servants are, and however much they want to advance the interests of the region, their paymasters are in London, and they are looking over their shoulders to decisions that are taken in London. They will put a case to London, where the decision will be made.
  Lawrie Quinn: I recognise that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman serves on the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. Can he reflect briefly on his experiences, which may be shared, of that attempt to scrutinise and hold to account the current state of affairs?
  Mr. Beith: My memory goes back further to the first attempt to set up a regional affairs Committee, which once had a debate about the north-east of England. First, no Conservative Members could be found to attend the Committee, until my good friend Lord Elliott was eventually found—he was usually the only Conservative who could be induced to appear on such occasions. Subsequently, not enough Labour Members could be found to get a quorum for the Committee. Even in its more recent incarnation, it is a virtually nonexistent body. I cannot remember when I was last summoned to it, or when it ever did anything. Manifestly, it is the wrong sort of body even to oversee decisions, which should be overseen within the region. Many Members have argued—I do not want to add to those arguments in my limited time—that we need to develop the powers of a regional assembly so that it can fulfil those functions and satisfy those aspirations. We will not get that unless we create the body and build from there. As critical as I am of the limitations of these proposals, we must start, put the body into existence and demonstrate that it needs more power and can make good use of more power.
  Although I believe that it is worth creating even a limited regional assembly and building on its powers, I also want to win the referendum. If Ministers also want to win the referendum, and want to be in a position to say to people in the region who have looked closely at these matters that they are offering something worthwhile, they must understand this point. Business people in the north-east are not intrinsically hostile, but their first question is: can the assembly deliver things that will help us in our business in the region? Can it provide better infrastructure or ensure that that is provided? Can it make decisions nearer to us? If Ministers cannot give positive answers to that, they will not get backing from sections of the community who are prepared to be sympathetic if they see that a regional assembly is capable of delivering things that matter to them.
  Of course, people in the region also feel strongly about. Government finance and the whole issue of the Barnett formula. That issue will not go away, because it is clearly recognised in the north-east that we are not given the same financial opportunities to tackle

  239
  problems that have been available to Scotland to tackle the very same problems: the decline of major industries, rural depopulation and so on. We have not had a comparable basis for dealing with those problems.
  The other issue that I want to address is local government, which many Members have mentioned. If we go into a referendum campaign having been offered a single-tier Northumberland covering the whole current area of Northumberland as the only local government body, that will make it extremely difficult to persuade people in my part of the region to accept and vote for the regional assembly that they might otherwise want. That is a separate question. At the very least, people should be able to make that decision separately on the voting paper. The only votes that should count on that question should be those of the people who live in the area affected. People in Newcastle and Redcar do not want to decide what the local government system in Northumberland should be, and they should not be given the opportunity to do so. That is a decision for people in Northumberland. If the Government want to demonstrate that they feel that the two issues are related, they should at least give people the opportunity of a second question. Ideally, however, the matter should be decoupled completely. That will be felt most strongly in Northumberland—I refer only to our position—if we are offered a local government unit that is simply too large to deal with local housing questions, too large for people to identify with, and dominated by its south-eastern urban corner to the detriment of rural areas.
  When Conservative Members talk about our historic counties, their argument is often bogus. Who can claim that a County Durham that does not contain Darlington, Gateshead, South Shields or Hartlepool is the historic County Durham? That is simply not so. Indeed, my constituency, which is a long way from Durham, contained outposts of the historic county of Durham—Islandshire in the north of Northumberland was part of County Durham. That suited the prince bishops of Durham, and it survived long after they had gone, but it did not make administrative sense. A number of the historic counties simply did not make administrative sense. Some of them were ruthlessly abolished regardless of their administrative merits. Hereford and Worcester was bundled together by a previous Conservative Government. The royal county of Berkshire was totally removed by a Conservative Government—it does not exist in administrative terms. In some areas, the case was strong; in other areas, it was weak. The idea that the counties can be erected as the alternative to a system that recognises and makes accountable the regional government that already exists, however, is unreal.
  These issues should be decoupled. The region in which I live, part of which I represent, would benefit from being able to make decisions through an elected regional assembly. I want people to vote for that regional assembly, and I do not want us to be handicapped in that process by Ministers offering less to the region than they could do, or by confusing the issue with a vote about local government, which is a wholly different matter.
  7.47 pm
  Joyce Quin: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I must say that I strongly agreed with his speech. Perhaps it is a surprise that I should be in such strong agreement with a Liberal Democrat, but I am comforted in that thought by the fact that we are both part of the north-east constitutional convention and of the embryonic yes coalition—yes to regional government—that is under way in our part of the world. I strongly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the sense of identity in the north-east, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) also made the point that, in England, and within Britain, we can identify strongly with our region. Growing up in the north-east of England, I always felt that I was part of the region as well as being British. All of us have different levels of identity that can sit comfortably together. That is an important part of the debate on regional government.
  Opinion polls in the north-east of England show a strong sense of identity with the region, although I concede that they currently show a less strong feeling in support of formalised regional government. That is simply because much of the argument is still to be made, and much of it is still to be won, in terms of the powers and responsibilities that regional government will have, and the real difference that I firmly believe it will be able to make.
  The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made much today, as he did in the debate on the Gracious Speech, of the fact that people are being asked to vote without a precise formulation of the powers of the regional authorities. The process is identical, however, to that which was followed in Scotland, Wales and London. To make so much of it in relation to regional government in England does not therefore seem justified. In addition, the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice" describes in detail the powers that the Government expect the regional authorities to have.
  Although there are shortcomings in the powers outlined in the White Paper, they make a good start in launching the regional government process in England. Page 12 of the White Paper says that regional government is a process. Once it is set up, it will be possible to consider whether new powers should be devolved to the organisations that have been created. I very much accept the starting point for regional government that is outlined in the White Paper. It provides us with a positive message that we can take to the people of the regions when we fight the referendum.
  Mr. Brady: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Liberal Democrats have been very clear. They see these proposals as a starting point for regional government and they believe that the process will end up with regional government having tax-raising powers of its own and powers over expenditure. Does the right hon. Lady share that vision?
  Joyce Quin: We obviously need to discuss where we think the end point of the process could be. It is probably too soon to say exactly where regional

  241
  government will end up. It will have to prove itself. I very much hope that, on the basis of the Government's proposals, it will do that. Modest powers to raise tax exist already, given that is possible to raise extra money from the council tax. We can argue about whether that is the best approach, but a tax-raising element already exists. We should not get too exercised about that issue at this stage.
  If everything is to be based on people's consent—this process is, and I approve of the fact that it gives choice to people in the regions—we will be able to respect people's ultimate decision. In Scotland, people were given a two-part question that gave them a say in the finance-raising possibilities of the Scottish Parliament.
  Much has been made in the debate of the views of business. I accept that there is much scepticism on the part of business, and those of us who are enthusiastic about the process need to discuss it with business. However, I hope that it will seize the opportunities available to it in the White Paper proposals and get involved. There are a number of ways in which business can make its voice heard. It is interesting that the submission that many of us received from the TUC shows that it has seen the possibilities of taking part in the civic forums, in the committee work and in the policy council work of the regions. It wants to make its voice heard. I urge business to do the same.
  Several of the business community's worries about red tape are exaggerated. Red tape tends to emanate from national and European regulations. There is a real need to ensure that it is simplified and reviewed wherever possible, but the powers for regional assemblies proposed in the White Paper are unlikely to be a source of red tape. In any event, the process is inclusive enough to offer business a real opportunity to make its voice heard. Again, I urge it to do that.
  Many contributions have focused on the link with local government reform. On that, I agree with some of my hon. Friends and with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is unfortunate that the two issues are linked, partly because that sends out the message that regional government has something to do with local government when it does not. Regional government is about decentralising from the centre. That is the essence of the message that we should seek to convey.
  Mr. Dhanda: Some of us who live in areas that do not have as strong a regional identity as the north-east wish that they had it. We see the mechanism as an opportunity to move towards unitary authorities. What does my right hon. Friend think of the idea of having unitary authorities in regions that will not even vote for a regional assembly?
  Joyce Quin: It is important to give people the opportunity to move to unitary authorities. I understand the rationale behind that. However, I believe these proposals could mean that unitary areas—most of my area is unitary already—impose a solution on areas that are two-tier at present. I would much rather that the people in those areas could choose for themselves. However, there is a strong argument in favour of unitary
  242
  authorities, and I wish my hon. Friend well in his attempts to establish a good structure in his region that will provide a successful way forward for the future.
  How we engage people in the vote is another important issue. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), have lamented the low turnouts in elections. Although that may sometimes have something to do with people's disinterest in elections, I was very struck by what happened in my local authority area of Gateshead. In a local election in which there were no particular burning issues and in which there was an all-postal ballot, the turnout went from the normal average of 25 per cent. to 60 per cent, which is higher than the general election turnout in my area. I spoke to people about postal ballots and they said that they fitted in very well with today's lifestyles and, particularly, with those of people who work long hours. It might also be worth considering moving elections from Thursdays to the weekend, but people thought that the postal ballot system that was operated allowed them to cast their vote without the pressure of trying to fit it into their working Thursday. Many people find that difficult. We should consider full postal ballots for the regional election.
  We should also consider ways of combining the regional election with other elections. People would not have to vote on different occasions, and combining elections that were important to people would create more interest. I also urge the Government to consider the submissions made by organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Mencap, which have said that, whatever system we use for electing regional government, it should be as widely accessible as possible.
  There are many ways in which we can make a positive case for regional government. I do not accept the argument that regional government has not been an economic success. For example, the history of Germany since the second world war shows that extremely successful efforts on technology have been made in areas such as Baden-Würrtemberg. Furthermore, the way in which North Rhine Westphalia managed the transition from older to newer industries shows that economic successes have taken place. Interestingly, the areas that I have mentioned did not have great historic identities; they were largely created by the allies after the second world war. None the less, they have been economically very successful.
  The Bill is an important step forward for the economy and our political system. I welcome the fact that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are firmly grasping the opportunities for the people of our regions. I hope that we will make a success of devolution not just for the benefit of the regions but for the health of the democracy of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I shall not vote for the English regions smoke-and-mirrors Bill. This has been a remarkable debate, because everyone who has spoken has had something important to say. Many of them have a great deal of experience, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) spoke with great authority. I worked closely with him when he was the leader of a city council and I was a local government finance Minister. We addressed jointly many of the issues that he described.

  243
  One issue that we had to address was that of the Government offices for the regions. Michael Heseltine and I, as his junior Minister, had a good reason for deciding that that should go ahead in principle. It was implemented later by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). We decided that there had to be joined-up government with those Departments that had a regional presence, but less than half of them had a regional presence and the others, such as the Home Office, probably never would. There was never any suggestion that establishing the Government offices was a precursor to regional government. That is the myth that is being put about and it needs to be scotched.
  I referred to the legislation disparagingly as the smoke-and-mirrors Bill, and I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister has read his White Paper, let alone his Bill. When he said that people in the English regions would have opportunities similar to those available to the people of Scotland and Wales, he was extremely wide of the mark, because no such thing is mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we have made a judgment of what powers will be available. He may have made a judgment, but he has not told us about it. It is not in the White Paper or the Bill. We want to know what it is. I agree wholeheartedly with those hon. Members who said that it is absurd to go into a referendum without knowing for what one is voting. I hope that that will be addressed.
  I recognise the strength of the argument made by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). I recall a Friday debate in the House a decade ago when I stood at the Dispatch Box as the Minister and she was on the Opposition Benches. We were on the same sides of the argument then. Although more progress has been made down her route, we shall have to wait and see what happens.
  As a local government Minister and someone who presided over both the council of the Isles of Scilly and Warkworth parish council, I am in no doubt of the important differences in our region. The problem is how those are to be recognised. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) is right to champion the cause of a Cornish assembly. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Cornwall is very different. It needs special treatment and special opportunities to meet the challenges.
  Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is in the same Government zone—I cannot call it a region—as I occupy. Indeed, my constituency includes the Isles of Scilly. As the hon. Gentleman has experience of setting up Government zones, does he agree that the purpose of a region is to have an area with internal integrity, shared interests and shared identity? The Government zones do not.
  Mr. Key: Yes, that is the point. It is about the delivery of Government services from the centre to local people, and about the voice of individual local people being heard and acted on. Government by focus groups is the most phoney thing we have seen in this country for many years.
  What do we do about it? Last Saturday I went to a meeting of the south-west constitutional convention, which hon. Members know is a pressure group designed
  244
  to encourage everyone to vote in favour of regional assemblies. It was a remarkable experience. I think that I was the first Conservative MP to have set foot in that viper's nest. It was disrupted by a lot of unpleasant people who decided that the meeting was part of a conspiracy. They did not want to debate the issue properly and wandered around with placards saying that we were quislings and traitors and other charming epithets. Nevertheless, the meeting was brilliantly chaired by the Bishop of Exeter, who I am glad to say took a great deal of flak and abuse—as did his staff, which was unjustified. The bishops must be part of the process. They are part of the constitution. They vote and speak in the other place and should be part of the debate. I have no difficulty with that.
  As someone who was born in war-ravaged Plymouth; who moved to Salisbury in 1947 at the age of two; who went to Truro in 1960; and who relocated back to Wiltshire, I have a deep love and understanding of regions, especially my region. One problem we face is whether we have a democratic deficit or voter fatigue. I think we have voter fatigue, and creating another tier will not help. Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the representation that would result from that, with elected assembly men and women looking after, in theory, about 200,000 electors each. What would they be for? This place engages us in policy making, in the legislative process, in voting on a range of issues, including tax and spending, and in holding the Government to account.
  Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Key: Of course. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on everyone else, so why not me?
  Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman has made an extensive study of the proceedings of the House and has experience as a Minister. Does the Regional Affairs Committee do a good job? Is it effective and does it meet the demands of scrutiny, which is the high test that he places on it?
  Mr. Key: I have no view on that because I had forgotten that the Committee existed.
  Let us consider the financial problem. The Government tell us that an elected assembly will cost about £25 million a year to run and the direct budget responsibility of a regional assembly will be about £300 million. The rest of the annual public spend for the south-west is about £20 billion. That would remain with central Government. The pocket assembly that we would create would increase the potential for party strife, institutional inertia, delay in decision making, departmental and local government turf wars and paralysis of good government. It would add in spades to the very problem that we are trying to solve. The notes of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister say that there will be no new bureaucracy, stating that, "By providing stronger scrutiny and improving co-ordination between existing bodies, elected regional assemblies should reduce bureaucracy." Believe that and you'll believe anything.
  What we actually have here are scrutiny, influence, patronage, consultation and co-ordination, but no new regional policy making, no new power and no new

  245
  money from London, although there may be a rise in the council tax—just the functions that already belong to the indirectly elected south-west regional assembly, minus its social and economic partners, plus endless duplication and second-guessing of existing delivery systems in, for instance, health and culture. The Bill does not offer us regional government. I accept that it is merely an enabling Bill, as the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) explained. Nevertheless, it is hugely important that we recognise that we are not being offered regional government on the same terms as Scotland or Wales.
  It is no good thinking that the experiment will work if we do not have cohesive regions in which people believe. The south-west is not a region. Cornwall is, and it should have its own assembly. Wiltshire, my county, is part of Wessex. Bristol is a city state, ranking with its neighbour Birmingham. But all the other counties are just that.
  The south-west was created during the second world war as a convenient administrative unit. It is a creature designed by committee. It has no heart and no soul, and people down the ages would not have risked their lives for it. It would not have done Henry V much good at Agincourt if he had cried, "God for Harry, the south-west region and St. George"—or even St. Endellion.
  We have to face the English question, which has been touched on. The creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly stripped Scots and Welsh Members of Parliament of their responsibility for devolved issues. Yet they still come to Westminster and vote on issues that affect my constituents on which they have no responsibility to their electors. That is widely seen as unfair, unjustified and undemocratic. It is accelerating the disintegration of the United Kingdom and fragments good government. We do not need a regional assembly. Instead, we need a Parliament at Westminster which works for England and the English regions. I do not believe for one moment that we need a separate English Parliament.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: As I argued earlier, that would be an elephant in the cuckoo's nest. It would also increase the dominance and overweening power of London in what will be a smaller population when Scotland and Wales do not count as part of it.
  Mr. Key: That would not be the case if the rest of my argument is applied. It is important for us to look through the correct end of the telescope, which we are not doing at the moment. Our constituents are not impressed by the Government rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. We need to strengthen local democracy and restore faith in the work of our parish councils, district councils and county councils. We need to ensure that they are properly funded, which in the south-west they are most certainly not compared to everywhere else. The Barnett formula is also part of the problem.
  We should strengthen our democracy and we should recognise the shift that has taken place in the burden of taxation from central to local. If we measured council tax against the retail prices index, fuel prices or
  246
  electricity prices, we would be amazed at the shift that has taken place over 15 years. A local income tax is certainly not the answer.
  We need to give the Government renewed confidence to deliver what their citizens want. As we know, local authorities are judged against more than 200 annual targets and performance indicators. They have to agree up to 46 plans from Whitehall and they are monitored by four different inspection regimes. That is death by red tape and it is mad. The answer is certainly not another tier of bureaucracy.
  We have to consider other ways of strengthening local democracy. I take great interest in the proposition that we should consider electing more public officials, not only mayors. Perhaps we need to consider education—I do not know; I am speaking for myself.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) spoke of the importance of having a regional Select Committee. I suggest instead having elected senators in an upper House to replace the existing House of Lords, and I would give them regional responsibilities. That would provide a regional aspect independent of this House which would be worth having.
  I finish by simply pointing out that democratic institutions must have legitimacy. Our counties have legitimacy because they are organic communities; they are part of the geography and the geology, the dialect and the architecture, and the customs, practices and traditions of our country. Local government, in district councils such as Salisbury, is built on the rock of our nationhood. My fear is that since regions are lines drawn on a map, regional governments as proposed would be castles in the sand which would be washed away as the first tide of history rose up the ancient shores of the west of England.
  8.11 pm
  Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak after such a clear reference to the beauty of the coastline and the seaside.
  As the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Many people in my part of the world remember his role as a former Minister. He was the man from Whitehall who came to Malton and scotched, probably for a generation or more, the possibility of improving the key transport link in the area, the A64 from the A1 to the Yorkshire coast, thereby denying us something that central Government had promised us. I mention that to demonstrate why we need to take a regional and more strategic approach in key areas such as transportation. I am sure that my local newspapers will remember that the key—if I may use that word—to our failure was the man from Whitehall.
  I have said that I agree with the Bill in principle. It is an enabling Bill for an important process; it does not achieve the end but it begins to will the end. Like many Labour Members, my first acquaintance with this policy goes back to my involvement in the regional Labour party in Yorkshire. I recall that in the late 1980s, when there was a centralising Government down in London, we realised that we were disconnected from the decisions that would affect our locality.

  247
  I shall concentrate my remarks on what I am pleased to refer to as Yorkshire and the Humber because it has become a clearly identified region. If we compare it with a European nation state, such as Denmark, we find that there are clear parallels in the size of the population and in the economy, except that Yorkshire, as usual, comes out on top. Yet we do not have a mechanism for determining our future prosperity.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that for his region, as for the other English regions, the Bill and the legislation that hopefully will follow concerns economic regeneration and the introduction of accountability to the regional organisations, the quangos, which already exist in every region?
  Lawrie Quinn: I strongly agree. My hon. Friend gives the lie to some of the contributions by Conservative Members. They talk about extra money and extra costs, but we already have this stream of government. Earlier we almost had an acceptance by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that we already have a form of regional government. However, it is not accountable and it cannot be influenced by the feelings and contributions of local people, particularly in my area, which is on the very periphery of the region.
  Mr. Key: The argument about regional chambers, or in our case the south-west regional assembly, not being representative is wrong. Every tier of local authority, including unitary authorities, is represented on that body by councillors, who make up some three quarters of the membership, in addition to the social and economic partners. It is an indirectly representative body, and those councillors, as elected representatives, are working their socks off for us.
  Lawrie Quinn: I do not deny that those individuals are making a contribution to the life of the region, but the key point for Labour Members is that they are not accountable. They do not face the key test of the ballot box. All of us in the Chamber have been elected on an equal basis in a pure and simple form of democracy. That is the acid test. I know that when I go before the people of Scarborough and Whitby, representing my party and my propositions, I stand the chance of being sacked if they do not agree with me. That is democracy, and people want that umbilical cord link between representatives and significant public expenditure. At the moment, there is no ballot box to test whether they are representing the view of communities, and without that acid test our system is not accountable.
  I turn now to concerns about the Bill, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to deal with them in Committee. I agreed with many of the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, most notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). They pointed out that we need draft legislation to indicate what will follow the test of the referendum. I hope that Ministers will give further consideration to that during, if not before, the Bill goes into Committee.
  Many hon. Members have referred to unitary local government, and I decided to test the proposition that they put forward not only in relation to my parish
  248
  councils and my borough council, but among the many North Yorkshire county councillors who represent Scarborough and Whitby. The clear message is that it is unnecessary to separate the two arguments because that would lead to confusion. The wreckage left in North Yorkshire by the Banham commission proposals was forced on the people without any test, any referendum or any consultation. I remember spending many nights in a room in the Shambles in York trying to argue the case for the Labour party in North Yorkshire to the commission. On one occasion, Sir John and the rest of us were locked in the room, and we had to escape by ladder. However, there was no escape from the horrendous piece of legislation forced on the people of North Yorkshire. To this day, the people of Whitby remember the early 1970s, when rural district councils lost the right to decide what was appropriate for an area. I almost received a grudging acceptance of that point in the debate on the Gracious Speech from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who has great experience of North Yorkshire affairs. The people of Whitby would like a big apology from the Conservatives for what they perpetrated for many years.
  The people of Whitby would like a say in their destiny and what happens to them, particularly as the town is one of the most peripheral communities in our region. To many people in Whitby, Northallerton is the other side of the moon and London is a quantum distance away.
  Mr. Lansley: I am rather confused. Is it not the Government's intention in clause 2 to impose unitary status where it does not currently exist in regions that vote that way? The people of Whitby will be so heavily outvoted by the unitary authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside that they will have no say in the matter.
  Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to visit Whitby any time. I am sure that the people who frequent Baxtergate would tell him that they were most offended by the fact that the Conservative Government did exactly what he has just suggested. At least this time, the people of Whitby, Scarborough and Yorkshire will have an opportunity to have a say in resolving that important question and will have the right to determine their future. The Bill makes that proposition and is a piece of enabling legislation.
  There is a feeling that the number of regions allowed to hold a referendum would be restricted by the resources of the boundary committee. I hope that that would not be an unnecessary stumbling block, preventing regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber from having an early opportunity to test the question.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible for the north-west, Yorkshire and the north-east to go together as the proud north in one referendum?
  Lawrie Quinn: That proposition is very attractive. In Yorkshire and the Humber, 89 per cent. of people already live in unitary authority areas. The 11 per cent. in the rump of North Yorkshire, forced on us by previous Conservative Administrations, would have an opportunity to sort out that mess.

  249
  Finally, I hope that in Committee we can spend some time considering the wording of the ballot paper, especially the preamble. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) covered that in his speech. The preamble sounds long, complex and perhaps even rambling—some Members may think that it is similar to my speech—but we should pay close attention to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about the great cultural reputation of Yorkshire and the Humber, but in his list of theatres he failed to mention the Stephen Joseph theatre, the pre-eminent theatre in our region, and Sir Alan Ayckbourn.
  I hope that the Bill receives a fair wind on Second Reading, and I wish to express my willingness to serve in Committee.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I tell the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) that his speech was by no means rambling? We listened to it with interest but, sadly, he is plain wrong about the people of Whitby having a say. They will not—they will be so heavily outnumbered by people in unitary authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside that their vote will be totally irrelevant. That also applies to my constituency, where the same situation arises.
  I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). I am sorry that she has just left the Chamber, as I wanted to pay her a compliment. No doubt if she reads Hansard she will pick it up. I can let Members into a secret which, as I am mentioning it in the Chamber, will doubtless remain a secret. If there is to be an independent regional assembly in north-east England, the right hon. Lady is tipped to be First Minister. I hope that there will be no regional assembly in the north-east, but if there is—and if there is not a Conservative First Minister, and if there is not a monkey which we would like to elect in the north-east—I hope that the right hon. Lady will be the Labour First Minister. Her interest in regional government goes back many years and although I completely disagree with her, we should all compliment her on her long-term pursuit of regional government for the north-east.
  We would all agree with the Bill much more if the Government proposed real devolution, but that is not on offer. If it suggested giving more power back to local authorities, I would be more inclined to support it. If it proposed to give much more power back to individual schools and hospitals, I would certainly support it. If it proposed getting rid of the dreaded Barnett formula, which discriminates against the north-east of England and, now I hear, the south-west, I would support it, but that is simply not on offer. Speaker after speaker on both sides of the House has said that the proposals are for a pygmy assembly with no real power. Those such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and others who say, "Vote for what is on offer tonight, because it is only a small beginning, and it will be a beginning", should have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). He made clear the Government's true agenda.
  250
  If one is a socialist—I take it that there are one or two socialists left on the Government Benches—one believes fundamentally that whether one gets good treatment in hospital or adequate benefits should not depend on where one lives. The welfare state should be based on need, not area. I think I am right in saying that that is what Labour Members believe. The very idea of regional assemblies being given full powers over health and education, as the Liberal Democrats want, will mean disparities between one region and another. I am sure that that is what the Prime Minister believes. That is why nothing more will happen. If we have some regional assemblies in this country, that is as far as it will go. The Bill will not be the start of a process that will lead to anything like proper devolution.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should not slur the new Labour party with the taint of socialism. That is a shocking attack, particularly when he misinterprets what socialism is about. Socialism is about democracy, which requires the provision of good universal standards, and the freedom for regions and the authorities accountable to the people to vary and improve the standards that they choose for their purposes.
  Mr. Atkinson: The term "universal standards" is the clue. That is what the hon. Gentleman wants. On this side, we believe in competition. I would favour competing regions with independent hospitals and independent schools, all trying to provide the best service for their people. That is what I believe should happen. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he believes in the universality of services and benefits and the welfare state, a fully devolved regional system in this country would work contrary to that.
  I believe that the Bill will go no further. Hon. Members should have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Pendle, and they should read carefully what he said, because he was telling the truth about what will happen. I believe, too, that the reason there is to be a question about local government reform in the referendum is that it was inserted by the Prime Minister. We know, and it has been confirmed again tonight, that the Prime Minister is not in favour of regional assemblies. The Deputy Prime Minister might be, but we suspect that the question about local government reform was intended to sabotage the proposal.
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions points to the Prime Minister's preface to the White Paper, but the Minister was not in the Chamber when that was mentioned to the hon. Member for Pendle, and he should hear the response from the hon. Member for Pendle—"If you think the Prime Minister wrote that, you must be joking—he probably never even read it." I agree again with the hon. Member for Pendle. It is essential that hon. Members do not think that by voting for what is on offer tonight, they are opening the door to something more. It will not happen.
  I shall deal with one point that affects my part of the United Kingdom, the north-east of England, particularly the county of Northumberland, which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned. Perversely, if there is to be a Boundary Committee review in that area, it is not the county that will be abolished, but the district councils.

  251
  In 1994 the Boundary Commission on Northumberland, after much argument, came down in favour of the two-tier status quo. One of the proposals at the time was that there should be three unitary authorities in the county of Northumberland. The Boundary Commission considered that, and concluded that because the total population of Northumberland is just over 300,000—apart from the Scilly Isles, it has the smallest population, although it is huge in area—and about 200,000 of those live in the urban south-east of the county, the remainder of the county would have too small a population and too small a rate base to support unitary authorities.
  What will happen if the boundary committee is forced to introduce a unitary authority there? The only conclusion is that there will be county government in that area. At present there are six district councils that cover vast areas—my own district council is the biggest in England, with over 800 square miles. Decision making will be taken away from that local level. Some of it will be moved to county level, and in the case of Northumberland, that will mean that county hall is many miles away from many of my constituents. Some decision making will be moved up even further, to the regional level.
  What the people of Northumberland will gain from that is decisions being made far, far away from where they count. How is local democracy served by that? I suspect that when the matter is put to the people of Northumberland and they realise that they will lose their district councils, they will have a very different attitude. That is why support for regionalism in the north-east of England is beginning to decline.
  The Deputy Prime Minister made the point that the reason why the Government are choosing the regions for referendums as they are now is that that was a legacy left by the last Conservative Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned that. The regions were designed for administrative convenience. The north-east region has nothing to do with an area for which people feel an affection. Regions can exist only if people have a cultural affinity with them, or an emotional or historical attachment to them, as in counties. People go on about Germany, Italy and other devolved countries, but they are largely made up of traditional former states. There is a cultural and historic connection.
  The north-east of England does not have that. It is not a unified area. The people up in Berwick on the Scottish border have nothing in common with the people down on Teesside. The people on Teesside do not want to be ruled by a Geordie parliament based in Newcastle. The people south of the Tees want to be in north Yorkshire. Perversely, the people of north Cumberland, who were traditionally part of the northern region, want to be part of the north. If there were a northern region, they would like to be included in it and not placed alongside Manchester.
  I hope that more Labour Members who have spoken against the Bill will join the Opposition in the Lobby. The Bill will not help local democracy, but damage it, so it is right that the House should reject it.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in what has been a very good debate, especially as a Northumbrian following a
  252
  Northumberland MP and a fellow Northumbrian. I must ask the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), but I would like to be known as an adopted Lancastrian as well. As a strong supporter of the mighty Sunderland in the premier league and the almost as mighty Lancaster City in the UniBond premier league, I am a strong supporter of the idea of north-east and north-west going hand in hand in the first phase of a referendum on regional government.
  I strongly support the Bill because I think that regional government is in the interests of the people whom we represent. We have heard some extraordinary arguments against it, one of the most peculiar of which was the suggestion that people do not want regional government or understand what it is about. People who come to my surgeries and contact me speak about issues of democracy, powerlessness and strategic planning and the feeling that they have no effective voice. They also speak about transport and economic development, and complain that the county council, which I think is an archaic form of local government, is remote from their lives. The county council cannot properly engage with crucial functions at a district level or with the health service because of its size and the weight of bureaucracy that is present in all such councils, and it does not properly engage with the voluntary, private or community sectors, which are vital to the development and reconstruction of our democracy.
  The issue is about democracy and the people whom we represent having genuine involvement in the powers that are currently devolved at a regional level, but are operated by people who are unelected, even though they are doing a good job in many cases. In the city of Lancaster, we are seeing the tremendous work of the North West Development Agency coming to some fruition. Only last week, the Infolab development at Lancaster university was approved. That will provide a sustainable base for the science-based business of the future in the northern half of the north-west region. Major efforts have been made at regeneration, including the development of brownfield and riverside sites and the reconstruction and re-use of old buildings for new forms of business, housing and development that are fit for the 21st century.
  I think that regional government is government for the 21st century. It will not merely be government in which county councils are writ large or the sort of municipal local government that developed during the 19th and 20th centuries. I believe absolutely the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that it would be a lean and fit form of government. It will focus on specific, vital functions. It is essential that it be allowed to do that before we consider the further development of the regional assembly. We are at the beginning of a profoundly important, democratic, developmental and inclusive process.
  People who weave a fantasy about regional government being a vast, overweening bureaucracy in large regions, and those who complain that there will not be many more elected members or powers overlook some crucial factors. Regional government must engage positively and creatively with the business community and work flexibly with the voluntary and the private sectors. It must engage positively with existing forms of

  253
  democracy such as parish councils, which are developing powers over planning and transport, and unitary authorities.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of engaging positively with the business community. Why did the north-west CBI become so disenchanted with the regional assembly that it withdrew from it?
  Mr. Dawson: I cannot speculate about that. We do not currently have an elected regional assembly. I have held several discussions with the business community and I am sometimes surprised at the scepticism that it displays. I am also surprised by the Opposition's scepticism. It has already been said that we can confidently expect the Conservative party to fall into line with the democratic structures of regional government in time. We are considering democracy and it is vital to have a democratic voice in powerful and important functions such as planning, transport and economic development.
  Mr. Lansley: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's argument. How is it more democratic for planning, transport and the structure plan or the local transport plan of a county council to be taken out of the hands of those who were elected by several thousand people and given to members of a regional assembly who will be elected by 250,000 people? That is distant and undemocratic, not democratic and accessible.
  Mr. Dawson: I am delighted to answer that. The regional assembly is democratic because the functions of remote county councils—I mean no disrespect to those who work for them—will be devolved to unitary authorities that operate on a smaller geographical scale and use the flexibility that the Government introduced in health and social care to engage properly with vital functions outside such bodies. It will also bring the regional powers on planning guidance and transport strategy, and the functions of regional development agencies, within a democratic remit. The proposals will do away with county structure plans and transfer some of those powers. However, I firmly believe that such powers are not currently effective at county council level. The crucial, meaningful level at which to intervene is regional and very local.
  Mr. Dhanda: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) needs to be more familiar with the planning process? All complex planning applications are currently decided by central Government and take a long time to determine. It would be far better to determine them locally or regionally.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dawson: No. This is my speech. I shall continue to make it, if I may.
  Regional government is profoundly important, and by using the opportunity that the Bill gives us, we can strengthen and refresh democracy. We have
  254
  encountered a number of red herrings tonight, the most notable of which was that the form of government to be used in regional assemblies would allow obnoxious bodies such as the British National party to hold sway. We defeat fascism on the streets and fight it through campaigning. We should not deny ourselves the opportunity for new democratic institutions and new forms of government because of the threat of fascism. We must take those racists and fascists on.
  We have a tremendous opportunity here to affect 6.9 million people in the north-west, and regional government can be a unifying factor for those people. It will ensure that power is used throughout these very large regions, and give an effective voice to both urban and rural communities. It will also ensure that we have a pluralistic democracy in which we are not competing with other regions or with fine towns and cities within the region. Rather, we shall be co-operating and working together effectively for the whole region, and redressing the historic imbalance in terms of powers that have been taken to the centre, and of the economic success that has come to regions such as the south-east and been lost to the north-west.
  I shall be here tonight firmly supporting the Bill, and I very much want to see it go through. As a Northumbrian who is now an adopted Lancastrian, I would like to see the home of the regional assembly of the north-east in the city of Durham, where my father and daughter were both educated. There is a real parallel between Durham and the city that is at the historic heart and geographical centre of the north-west. That is, of course, the city of Lancaster.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I am, however, astonished that we are talking about this matter at all, on a day on which the fire brigade is on strike—and we may be facing that industrial action for several months to come—and on which school teachers across London have been on strike and schools have been closed. Yet here we are, talking about something that is not of the faintest interest to any of our constituents.
  I have never heard from a single constituent who supports regional government for the north-west. It simply is not an issue. It is not something that my constituents want, nor is there any demand for it across the rest of the region. My constituents are interested in the state of the health service and the quality of schools. They are desperately interested in whether the Government are about to slap top-up fees on young people going through higher education. They are also concerned about the transport infrastructure, which is grinding to a halt. They are not keen to see the establishment of a new tier of government, a new set of politicians or a new regional bureaucracy. There is simply no demand for that.
  Only 18 months or so ago, we went through a general election in which there was a dramatic collapse of interest among the British public. Politicians from both sides of the House returned saying that the fact that so few people wanted to vote had provided them with a salutary lesson and that we had to learn to talk about

  255
  what matters to the British people, yet here we are on another frolic—a constitutional fancy that is of no interest to anybody.
  Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman says that his constituents are not at all interested in regional government and he may be right. We may have a referendum in the north-east, but the proposal may be rejected—who knows? However, we are not afraid of the test of a referendum in the north-east. What is he afraid of?
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as he has exposed one of the Bill's most basic flaws: even if it receives a Second Reading—Labour Members who properly opposed the whole principle this evening none the less suggested that they will be loyal Back Benchers and troop through the Lobby—and completes its parliamentary progress, we shall not know whether there will be a referendum in the north-west of England, as the Deputy Prime Minister has not been good enough to explain to us how he will judge the demand for it. We have a bizarre proposal before us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is not in the Chamber, and I would be careful in making this remark if he were: there may be some interest in the proposal in the part of the country represented by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), but there certainly is not in mine.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made a point about the synchrotron investment decision, which was made a couple of years ago. That was the biggest scientific investment in this country, involving £500 million, but this is the acid test for the north-west: would that £500 million have been more likely to come to Cheshire, rather than go to Oxfordshire, which is where the Labour Government chose to send it, had there been north-west regional government? The answer, simply, is no. Such government would have made no difference. The decision was for central Government and it was taken on central grounds involving strategic planning, economic interests and various ideas about agglomeration of scientific facilities. It had nothing to do with the voice from the region.
  Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman understand why people feel that the Conservative party has so little to offer? He is promoting a strategy of hopelessness.
  Mr. Brady: Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because I am the north-west Member who brought the synchrotron issue before the House for debate. That was done not by one of his colleagues, but by a Conservative Member. I believe passionately that Members of Parliament are sent to Westminster to represent their constituents and the interests of their regions. That is what we should be doing, not considering silly tinkering with the constitution and setting up new tiers of government in which there is no interest.
  The hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the Opposition are less than enthusiastic about the Bill, but I wonder whether he shares the assessment of his colleague, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). He is referred to in yesterday's Manchester Evening News, which says that
  256
  "only a minority of Labour MPs support an elected north west assembly and that there is little enthusiasm among the region's local councils. Most were choosing 'to keep their powder dry.'"
  There, it quotes the hon. Gentleman directly and, following my conversations with Labour colleagues from the region, I think he is probably right.
  As far as I can see, regional government is a minority interest among Labour north-west Members and not a single Conservative north-west Member supports the idea. If the Deputy Prime Minister is serious about consulting the elected representatives of the people of the north-west about whether there is sufficient demand for regional government there, the idea will not get off the ground. I very much hope that that is the case. Why? As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, there is no real support for it. There is no support from the business community.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: That is not true.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman apparently now has a great knowledge of these matters in the north-west. He says that that is not true, but I would rather listen to the north-west director of the CBI, Mr. Chris Clifford, who is also quoted in the Manchester Evening News. He says:
  "Our members are very sceptical about the whole process. It would create extra costs, create jobs only for bureaucrats and do nothing in terms of the economic well being of the region. All major issues will be conditional on the agreement of the secretary of state.
  It is not the right way forward. It will not add any value to existing arrangements and will increase the political baggage business has to contend with rather than sort it out."
  The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre would not speculate on why business is not interested in having regional government in the north-west. I do not think that anyone could encapsulate the reason better than Mr. Clifford. Business knows that it will involve more costs and more bureaucracy, and will add no value for those who are trying to run effective, efficient, profitable businesses in the north-west.
  There is also the question of regional identity. We do not have a north-west regional identity. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley rightly made the point that before the ITV franchise was split no one used to talk about the north-west. Perhaps we should amend the Bill and dub the north-west "Granadaland", as that may be a more accurate reflection of the region. No regional identity unifies Manchester, Cheshire, Liverpool and the part of the north-west represented by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
  Mr. Dawson: Tomorrow is Lancashire day, and people will declare their allegiance to the real county of Lancashire.
  Mr. Brady: As a Lancastrian by birth, I welcome that enormously. It may be one of the few occasions on which I permit myself to wear a red rose in celebration of that fact. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there is a real affinity with the county of Lancashire. There is no affinity with the north-west as a geographical region, which is entirely artificial.
  If we went down the road that the hon. Gentleman and one or two others would like us to go down the costs would be huge. The cost of the referendum would be the

  257
  smallest part. There would be the massive cost of reorganisation: the costs of a new bureaucracy, new buildings, new politicians—that is surely the last thing people want-secretaries, researchers, press officers and a whole bureaucracy to support the regional structure. Nothing positive would be added for the people whom we represent. There would be only a huge cost and a huge extra bureaucracy.
  Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the possible constitutional and financial imbalance if one region voted for an elected regional assembly and others did not? Would that not create a nightmare that would far outweigh the unfairness of the Barnett formula?
  Mr. Brady: Indeed, and it could do so in a number of ways. If we had the arrangement to which the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) referred, or a tax-raising regional assembly in one part of the country, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested, that could work in my hon. Friend's favour. If we had an assembly in the north-west of England that raised higher levels of taxation, all our businesses would flock down to the south-west to get away from it. Perhaps he should not be too concerned, as it could work either way.
  My hon. Friend is right, except that there is an assurance in the White Paper that significant resources would not be provided even if regional government were to proceed. That point was raised at the outset of the debate. In the first instance, there would be more costs with no benefit and no real change. If regional government were to develop, my hon. Friend's point would be valid.
  I should like the Minister to deal with the issue of the use of public funds in this process, because I do not think there is any direct reference to it in the Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he is not neutral on this matter and will campaign strongly for regional government to be adopted as we go through one or more referendums. We know that there are at present various regional conventions or assemblies that combine local authorities. I would like a clear assurance from the Minister that public resources could not be used to promote the idea that there should be a referendum or to campaign on one side or the other in a referendum. I hope that he will make it clear that that would not be allowed, and that strict action would be taken to prevent that.
  Let me end by returning to the central point. I do not think the Bill has any real support in my region or from my constituents, and according to comments attributed to Labour Members representing Manchester in yesterday's local press they do not believe it is even supported by most of their colleagues with seats in the north-west.
  I hope that when the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has his tête-à-tête with the Prime Minister tomorrow—which he advertised in his speech—he will make it clear that the Bill has no support from Conservative Members representing the north-west, no support from the majority of Labour Members
  258
  representing the north-west, or so we are told, and certainly no support from the people whom we represent.
  9 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I think that there is one thing that we might have got right constitutionally five years ago. Surely, if we create Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish Parliaments or Assemblies, the least we can do is create an English Parliament, and make the upper House a House of representatives of the four constituency Parliaments. We missed a trick there.
  A case that I encountered illustrates all the problems and confusions raised by what we are debating. A steel mill went broke. It was partly in Cardiff and partly in Sheerness. The part located in Cardiff had the support of Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State for Wales. We in the south-east of England have no Assembly, no Parliament, no Minister for the south-east and not even a Select Committee dealing with the south-east. My constituents, therefore, are not treated as fairly as they ought to be.
  I was going to make the point made by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). Let us assume that the north-east or the north-west has a referendum first. I note that I am the only Member present who represents a constituency in the south-east. This issue is of no interest in the south-east, because no one in Milton Keynes connects with anyone in Margate or Portsmouth. The south-east is a complete fallacy of an area, and we will never vote for this proposal.
  If a regional assembly is set up, who will my constituents go to? They cannot go to the north-east. There is no south-east parliament or assembly. There will be no Minister or Select Committee for the southeast. They will come here, and that is absolutely wrong. It is unfair and unreasonable. The whole constitutional issue is brought into question. As I have said, we missed a trick by not having four constituency bodies with an overarching House of representatives connecting them.
  Fortunately, my favourite saint is St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes. I feel passionately that we have got this completely wrong. Why has not government for the south-east worked? Why has the South East England Development Agency not worked? It is because it is not accountable here. It is not accountable to a Select Committee for the south-east, or even to a Minister for the south-east—and if such institutions are not accountable, they will create more and more quangos and spend more and more of our money, quite obscene amounts. It is a pity that the Bill is not stronger.
  Even if I have to vote with the Government this evening, there is an issue that I cannot resolve. My constituency has no unitary authorities. There is one unitary authority in Medway, which is too small. It does not work. It was approved on the basis of a single vote at a meeting. If we want a unitary system, my constituency will have to decide whether to go up the river to Dartford, Medway and Sittingbourne. But how will that be done? We cannot possibly have a vote, because we have no unitary authority. There are no unitary authorities in Kent apart from Medway, although Kent is the largest county council in England.
  I am thinking of all the things that we believe in, such as local democracy. I want local democracy. I am sick of the system of centralisation. Nothing will change for us,

  259
  though, because we will not vote for a regional assembly. My constituents will be worse off in every way.
  I repeat that this is a constitutional problem with which we have not really wrestled. I leave it with the House.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) in making a similar point about the regions. During the referendum in Scotland, there was no debate about what was or was not Scotland. It was the same with Wales. In Northern Ireland, the whole debate is about what is Northern Ireland, where the boundary is and where people's allegiances lie.
  We have regions in our country, some of which have some affinity but many of which, particularly those in the south-west and south-east, have very little in common. That is a great difficulty. People have a sense of community and of allegiance. I do not believe that most of my constituents have any feeling for the south-west.
  Under the Bill, the Secretary of State must consider the level of interest in a region before he sets the process in motion, yet there has been no way of setting out what that means, how it is weighted or what the tests for a level of interest are. Is it Members of Parliament or local authorities making representations, petitions, a letter-writing campaign, or a self-selecting group that has a particular role in lobbying a Minister? It would help the debate if the Minister, who I know is a details man—I have served with him on several Committees that considered Bills—set out a little more about how the level of interest in a region will be defined.
  The Secretary of State must consider under clause 1(6) whether there is interest to start the process but subsection (8) says:
  "If subsection (6) does not apply … the Secretary of State must consider—
  (a) views expressed and information and evidence provided to him;
  (b) such published material"
  As I read that, it means that the Secretary of State must publish why he is not going to proceed with a referendum but not why he is going to proceed with one. Nothing in the Bill says that he must publish information that has been sent to the Ministry if he proceeds.
  I notice that the Bill contains provision for the Secretary of State to change his mind. I suspect that the Secretary of State will get lobbied, he will say that there is interest in a region, he will announce it, and all hell will break loose as people suddenly start to say that they are not interested and make further representations to him, so it is important for the Minister to make clear what the tests are. Will it be a formalised procedure with a beginning and an end where everyone knows consultation has taken place, or will it be informal—just letters, petitions or whatever coming in on an ad hoc basis? We need to know. That will be critical, as will how the Government weigh up the competing claims of regions in terms of referendums. How will the interest in the south-west, say, be weighed against the interest in
  260
  the north-east? A lot of that is not in the Bill. Since it is not, it will largely be up to the Secretary of State to state the position, which is a pity.
  It is important that we know what the tests are and what the Secretary of State defines as a level of interest. Whether we have referendums or not, it is important that the information that goes to the Secretary of State is published.
  The regions are not natural areas. I hope that, where referendums are held, votes will be counted on a local authority basis, not on a total regional basis, so that one can see, whatever the overall result in the region, what the level of support is in the constituent parts. Some concern has been expressed on behalf of people in Northumberland, people on the fringes of conurbations that have single unitary authorities at the moment and those on the fringes that have a two-tier system. It will be interesting to see the different levels of support for changes as they are proposed.
  Under clause 5, if there is a referendum and it is lost, another referendum cannot be held for five years and a day. If one were being fair, there would be a provision saying that, if a referendum were won, those who lost the referendum would have the opportunity to have a rerun after five years. It is rather like those European referendums where, if the referendum is lost, they keep having a vote until they get the right answer.
  I have some concerns about the Electoral Commission under clause 8. It seems to be required to give information, but one person's information is another's propaganda. The concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) about what public moneys are going into the process and what the overall cost will be is entirely appropriate. Several of my hon. Friends have spoken about the cost of reorganisation into new tiers of local government and of the assemblies themselves. Experience in Scotland and Wales has shown that the costs of devolved government often end up much greater than originally anticipated.
  My constituents bring local issues to me. We have problems in Poole with social services, which is overspent by £1 million. A centre used by disabled and disadvantaged groups is about to be closed. My constituents would be far better pleased if the resources were given to the local authority to undertake its important tasks rather than being used to create a new class of politician or bureaucrat at some remote regional centre with which they feel no affinity.
  The electoral system is not the brightest, given that having 25 to 35 members for regions of such a size will mean having vast constituencies. I remember the debate here when we abolished first-past-the-post European constituencies because, apparently, they were too large for one person to do anything with, and it was much nicer to have a list. When we moved to the list system, the argument was made almost immediately that the Euro constituencies were too large. Then we had London regional government with large twin-borough constituencies. Now we seem to be setting up very large constituencies in the regions, with populations of 200,000 or 250,000, and a list.
  My main concern is about the level of interest. In the Bill and the notes on clauses, the Government have not provided answers about what will be considered

  261
  sufficient to trigger this whole process. Perhaps the Minister will fill in some detail about the procedure, especially because, given that the Secretary of State has to gather the information and start the process rolling, and the review of local government may take a year, circumstances may change in the meantime. If a process is started and it is clear that it does not have public support, it is wrong that the Government should not have an opportunity to think again.
  I cannot support the Bill. We have spoken about the regions not being natural. A few years ago, I went as a guest of the Federal Republic of Germany to study its federal system. Of course, the Länder are not ancient. They are amalgamations, and they were amalgamated by military occupation—they could not have been amalgamated without it. I suspect that the Government, who sometimes display some of the characteristics of a government of military occupation, will not wish to open up the question of the boundaries of regions, because frankly, we would never get agreement. I see the Minister nodding at that.
  The proposals are a mistake. I was at school in the city and county of Bristol when it became Avon, and people never reconciled themselves to being in that new county. We have heard a lot about Conservative Governments getting rid of Humberside and Avon without much debate, but the real reason was that people had no real affection for those counties. They had an affection for Somerset, Gloucestershire and the city and county of Bristol. Governments who tamper with ancient loyalties and affections do so at their peril. I rather suspect that, if the Government get this wrong, major campaigns to reverse the changes will bedevil politics for a long time to come.
  We are a very conservative nation and we still argue about what was wrong or right about local government reorganisations that took place 20 or 30 years ago. It is easy to propose constitutional change and to institute referendums, but if we get it wrong, it can cause endless misery and campaigns.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I very much welcome the Bill, although it is not without its difficulties.
  Regional assemblies can do much to reduce the democratic deficit. They will also speed up the planning process, on which I shall elaborate. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will be interested in my comments on that.
  The greatest single benefit of the Bill will be for the many of us who are fed up with the two-tier structure of local government. It is time to move on from that and the ultimate benefit of the Bill will be unitary status for local authorities, although there is a downside. Although a recent Mori poll showed that 61 per cent. of people in the south-west of England favour a regional assembly, I must have spent much of my time talking to the 39 people in every hundred who are not in favour of it.
  The hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) both represent south-western constituencies and they hit the nail on the head. Some
  262
  parts of the country have a much stronger regional identity than others—much to my annoyance, because I support a regional assembly for the south-west.
  When people in my constituency turn to the BBC regional news, they will see "BBC Midlands". If they switch over to ITV, some of them will be watching HTV West while others will be watching Central. That is one of the regional identity problems for areas such as Gloucester that are on the cusp—on the edge of several regions.
  My constituency is an hour away from Birmingham and equidistant from the two national capitals, Cardiff and London, yet it is only half an hour away from Bristol, which is the heart of the south-west. Oxfordshire is the next county along, but it falls into the south-east region, so we are very much on the cusp.
  That may be one of the many reasons that the Conservatives did so badly at the general election in Gloucester. Their campaign slogan was "Gloucester born and bred", but most people in Gloucester nowadays were not born and bred there. They come from a wide range of areas, including the big cities that I have mentioned. The Conservatives are so local that they have moved from Gloucester to Cheltenham, so perhaps they will not be using that slogan at the next election.
  The restructuring of local government that will accompany the Bill will be a major benefit. It is high time that we undertook that restructuring. That is not an attack either on county or district councils, but it is difficult to explain to our constituents that they have to approach one local authority about housing and another about education. Similarly, why should roads be dealt with by one authority, yet road-calming measures, pavements, or the trees and shrubs that border the pavements are all dealt with by separate bodies?.
  I ask the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to consider the referendum questions. In many areas, such as the south-west, where unfortunately we may not get a yes vote in a referendum, people should still have the opportunity to decide whether local authorities should have a unitary structure. In Gloucestershire, there is a feeling that we could have two unitary authorities, one based in the east and one in the west of the county. Such proposals should not be ruled out during the process.
  A regional assembly would bring many advantages to a constituency such as mine. For example, I hope that it would speed up the planning process. St. Oswald's park, a former cattle market in my constituency, is the subject of a mixed site proposal worth a couple of hundred million pounds and will include retail, leisure and housing. The proposal has the support of the city council, the county council, the MP and local residents. The local newspaper has run a vocal campaign in support of the development. There was little or no objection to the scheme, yet it was called in by central Government. We would still expect to go through the inquiry process—we have done so with St. Oswald's park—but the application has had move on to the Government, the wheels of Government have to turn and it then comes back to the local authority before we can get on with the development. If the planning process

  263
  were carried out at a more local, regional level, perhaps we could speed it up and help developments such as those in my constituency.
  Matthew Green rose—
  Mr. Lansley: I fear that the hon. Gentleman slightly blundered into the subject of whether I had any experience of the planning system as he will not know that, in the past two weeks, I have spent three days at the public examination of the Cambridge structure plan, discussing the green belt and new settlements. One thing that has emerged from those discussions is that the Government have told the regional planning conference that they will determine sub-regional strategies, but we have received a consultation document from the regional planning conference that says that the sub-regional strategy for Cambridge will be determined in the Cambridge structure plan. So, in fact, without the county structure plan, the region would have no idea at all what it was doing.
  Mr. Dhanda: Different regions will find different solutions. That is what democracy is all about. We cannot expect to have exactly the same solution in every part of the country. My point is that big plans for developments often get kicked to central Government, and the Government have to deal with a great number of plans. If we could streamline that process, with more plans going through the regional process, we would be better off.
  I was about to give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), but he is now quite happy.
  The key thing is not just regional accountability and addressing the democratic deficit, but doing away with the present two-tier system. Our constituents and many local councillors—I was a councillor for four years—do not understand why we have the current system. This is a fantastic opportunity for us to move to a unitary structure, and I hope that we can do so whether or not people vote for a regional assembly.
  9.22 pm
  Andrew George (St. Ives): I nearly had a déjà vu experience, having bobbed up and down last week during the debate on the Queen's Speech and not having got in, so I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I hope that the many contributions made today will encourage the Government to think again about the Bill, which needs some serious further scrutiny before being allowed to proceed.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Members for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and for Poole (Mr. Syms), both of whose constituencies are apparently in my region, although they are about 200 or so miles away from my constituency. I probably share about as much affinity with Poole as I would with Preston or Prestatyn, but such is the nature of this process, which needs to be reconsidered.

  I agree with the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Every aspect of his criticism of the Bill was absolutely right. I am sorry to say that I will not join him in the Lobby this evening to vote for the Bill because it is not just
  264
  flawed, it is fatally flawed to such an extent that I cannot support it. I cannot vote against it because I am in favour of the principle of devolution, but this is not devolution; it is, frankly, nonsense. It is called the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, but I fear that it is, in fact, a recipe for chaos throughout the country.
  The Deputy Prime Minister criticised the "Whitehall knows best" attitude, and it is certainly true that although the Bill is poorly conceived, inadequate and timid, at least the Government should be congratulated on attempting to make an important development. The Bill really represents two contradictory cultures within the Government: one is confident enough to believe that it can let go of power; the other does not share that confidence, still has a fundamental control-freak tendency, and is not prepared to let go of power in the way that is needed to make this piece of legislation work.
  I am pleased that there are many regions—the north-east and others—in which there is some kind of internal integrity and the issue does not arise, but there is such an obsession with boundaries that the policy is at risk of being derailed. I would rename the Bill the emperor's new clothes Bill, as it is propped up on a web of flimsy tautology. Clause 26 says that a region is a region on the basis of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. I remember the debate on that Act, and the then Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), said that he would debate anything but the number of the regions or their boundaries, and that we could wait for the Bill on regional assemblies to debate that issue. We now have the basis of that Bill.
  The Bill is based on this tautology: a region is a region because it is a region. That is like saying that the emperor's clothes are his clothes because they are the clothes. The issue in the referendum will therefore be whether people like the clothes, not whether they think that the clothes exist. The quicksand on which the palace of regional government will be built will ultimately lead to it sinking. It is undeliverable. As many Members have pointed out, we agree with what the Government are trying to do, but the Bill is fundamentally flawed. A region is a region because it has common identity, shared interests and internal integrity.
  If the Deputy Prime Minister means what he says, and we shall have those regions in places where people want them, I can tell him one place that wants one: Cornwall. As has been established, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was at the south-west convention explaining what he found good and bad in its approach. That same morning, I was at the Cornish constitutional convention, and I think that more people attended that than the south-west constitutional convention. Usually, when I ask what we do if we find that the region does not exist, the question is met with stunned incomprehension, as though one is asking to redefine the boundaries of God. The fact is that we must allow a debate on the issue. Instead of running away from it, and feeling that it will unleash powers that result in a derailing of the project, we must recognise that some of the so-called government zones—they are certainly not regions—need to be redefined to allow the project to go ahead.
  Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that at the south-west convention, the head of the

  265
  Government office for the south-west, when asked whether it would be possible to have a Cornish assembly, smiled sweetly and made it clear that Ministers had decided that under no circumstances would there be one.
  Andrew George: It will be found that the south-west is undeliverable—people have prayed in aid the BBC poll, which, having looked at it, would make a statistician's eyes water—as there is no basis for the belief that people will vote for something that is based on a synthetic place that has been created purely for administrative convenience. The Government need to recognise that. In Cornwall, more people have demonstrated in response to the White Paper that they support a Cornish assembly than in the whole of the rest of the country put together. Fifty thousand people signed a declaration that was delivered to Downing street and to the Minister, demonstrating that they support a Cornish assembly. It is not a Trojan horse for Cornish nationalism, and it is not about cutting Cornwall off. It is about cutting Cornwall in to the celebration of diversity. People understand that in Cornwall, and I am sure that they understand it in all other places, too.
  It is not that I am opposed to the development of assemblies in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire. Where there is support for regional assemblies, we should allow them to go ahead. However, they are undeliverable in much of the rest of the country. If the Government think that they can get away with this, it will be the triumph of "placelessness" over place and identity. If they and their control-freak tendency are not sufficiently constrained and they do not understand that devolution is about letting go rather than hanging on, they could become seriously unstuck. They will succeed only if they chill out a bit, let go and perhaps get out a bit more.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). He is most robust on the issue of regional assemblies, but he pulled his punches today. I have a quote from him that appeared in the Western Morning News on 8 June 2000. He dubbed those pushing for the idea of a regional assembly as
  "minor empire-builders and anoraks behind this mindless nonsense."
  I do not know what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is—a minor empire builder or an anorak. Perhaps, on occasions, he is both.
  The Government have managed to achieve what many would have thought impossible at the beginning of the debate. They have managed to obtain a degree of consensus in the Chamber. Whether we vote for or against the Bill, there appears to be unanimity that it is a load of pusillanimous nonsense. A couple of speeches were made in favour of the Bill, but as those speeches developed it became pretty clear that they were about an entirely different Bill.
  If the Bill is taken to its logical conclusion, it will commit the spending of £2 billion, which is a lot of money in anyone's terms. Two billion pounds make the
  266
  sums needed from the Government by the employer's side to settle the firefighters' strike seem small beer. Two billion pounds makes the mobilisation of our armed forces for war seem cheap. One would expect considerable benefits from the commitment of £2 billion of the public's hard-earned cash—perhaps more teachers, more nurses or more police officers. But no, regional government will create not a single new teacher, nurse or police officer. If the Government get their way, the remaining 34 county councils will be abolished. Two billion pounds seems a lot of money to provide a cosy bolthole for regional politicians who did not make it to this Chamber or Strasbourg or who have grown weary of the inconvenience of being responsible to their local electorate.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said at the beginning of the debate, there is a crisis right across Europe on regional policy. He produced figures that demonstrated the increase in the disparities between the prosperous and the poor. A regional assembly would be a toothless commentator on those events. There is a clear need for a regional policy from the Government to address those disparities, but a regional assembly would not do that. A bit of window dressing is no substitute for a policy and a collection of gimmicks do not make a single policy.
  As the Confederation of British Industry said in a brief prepared for the debate, its members believe that regional assemblies will not improve decision making in the regions, enjoy the business community's confidence, strengthen democracy or be value for money. The British Chambers of Commerce has said:
  "Business frankly wonders why the Government is wasting its time on something that few people want and even fewer people need."
  As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation put it:
  "The link between democratic decision-making at regional level and economic competitiveness is uncertain".
  We have already heard from the hon. Member for St. Ives about his "anoraks". Little wonder that the business community has withdrawn from the unelected regional assemblies in the north-west and the east of England. It was not the assemblies' lack of a direct mandate that made the business community walk away, but the fact that they were a complete waste of time.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend and I come from what is termed the east of England. Did he observe that no one on the Labour Benches from the east of England cared to speak up for regional government? Those who spoke on behalf of the south-east and the south-west acknowledged that regional governments would never he established there. Members from the west midlands and east midlands did not appear on the Labour Benches, and opinion was strictly divided in the remaining three regions. So it seems—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope that the lion. Gentleman has brought his intervention to a close.
  Mr. Pickles: I somewhat regret the fact that my hon. Friend did not get an opportunity to participate in the debate. His memory is correct. We come from the same region. Obviously, I have enormous affection for him,

  267
  but our constituencies have little in common. We do not share economic or planning interests. That can be said of constituencies across the eastern region—[Interruption.] I hope that I am not going to be heckled into submission.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that a regional identity exists in his constituency, but he had to admit that the paymasters remain in London. The Bill will not change that.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is meeting the Prime Minister tomorrow to tell him a few home truths about regional policy, made a courageous and important speech. He explained that the north-west has no regional identity. He also rightly told his hon. Friends that a regional assembly will not deliver on a number of things. For instance, it will have virtually no impact on the west coast main line. He spoke most eloquently about money and the Barnett formula, which is what the debate is really about.
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is from a different side of the Pennines, but for my whole life I have been aware of certain differences between Yorkshire and Lancashire. We have got a bit beyond that now, but the idea that there is no north-west identity betrays his origins as someone who comes from Yorkshire.
  Mr. Pickles: My entire life has been one of co-operation between Yorkshire and Lancashire because I married a Lancashire girl. After the hon. Gentleman left the Chamber, we had a decent discussion about the difference between Manchester and Leeds and how those cities co-operate across different regions. There is a commonality of needs along the M62 and the regions are a side issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) exposed the charade of regional inefficiency. He was right to talk about the need to revive democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made an excellent speech in which he clearly demonstrated the diversity in Northumberland. Few of us will forget the description of his district council, which is about to be abolished. It represents 800 sq m and is to be replaced by a more remote local authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) rightly talked about the needs of his constituents. He said that the people of Cheshire have nothing in common with people in the rest of the north-west.
  Mr. Dawson: Is not the hon. Gentleman compounding the error made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) in referring to the remoteness of Northumberland county council? Surely he is undermining the arguments of the rest of his hon. Friends about county councils being wonderful, viable democratic institutions.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we have been saying, particularly about the need for a two-tier system of district and county councils.
  The referendum proposed in the Bill lacks quality, transparency and openness. People are being asked to vote without knowing what they will receive. The
  268
  question will be difficult to frame, and as we have seen the Electoral Commission has already had problems with definitions of single tiers of local government.
  If the majority of citizens in a county vote against regional government, their county can still be destroyed because of the way in which the Government impose regional boundaries. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that 86 per cent. of Yorkshire and Humberside is governed by unitary authorities. Why should 86 per cent. decide the fate of the good people of North Yorkshire? He was right to say that we would give local authorities additional powers.
  The abolition of long-established boundaries needs a clear mandate; it should not, to quote the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), be done by a trickle of minor empire builders and anoraks. The Government ultimately have the power to pick and choose when and where referendums are to be held. They are vague about when the trigger for a referendum will be reached. Threats of continuous periodic referendums will lead to instability and a reduction of long-term planning. The Government should have the courage of their convictions and let all the regions decide on the same date, instead of having a trickle of referendums. If there is a need for regional government, as Labour Members have said, let us have it now. Let us have referendums and test their case.
  The people of England do not live in regions; they live in counties, towns and villages. Their allegiance is to the immediate community of their country. Between county and country there are no intermediaries. I was born in Yorkshire, not Yorkshire and Humberside. Where I was born has nothing in common with north Lincolnshire. I now live in Essex, not in the eastern region. Brentwood has nothing in common with Cromer or Cambridge. The creation of an elected regional assembly will not create affection for a region that exists only on paper.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is becoming what Spiro Agnew would have described as one of the negative nabobs of nattering negativism. Has it occurred to him that exactly the same negative quibbling was used in the argument put forward by one of his Front-Bench predecessors against devolution in Scotland and Wales? Is he imitating that speech?
  Mr. Pickles: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's trip down memory lane in his earlier contribution, but when he was talking about regional affinity he kept moving from one region to another without understanding that he was talking about different regions.
  There is a case for co-operation between authorities along the M62 corridor, but that is not a pan-regional matter. There is a case for co-operation between authorities around the M25, but that is not a pan-regional matter. There is a case for co-operation between authorities along the southern coast, but that is not a matter of regions; it is common sense. The regions proposed by the Government are too rigid.
  Let me give the House an idea of the way in which regional assemblies try to garner support for regional pride. The south-east assembly had the opportunity to meet in various locations, including Aylesbury, Canterbury, Dover, Guildford and Windsor, to

  269
  demonstrate the wonders of the region. However, it decided to meet in London, which best represents that great region, the south-east of England, and is more convenient than anywhere else in the south-east. I commend it on that decision—it was more honest than any other regional assembly and demonstrated better than any other regional assembly that the assemblies will be the Government's poodles. They will be the Government's representatives in the regions and will see that the Government's will is carried out, not the will of the people of the regions.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had an interesting, varied and, at times, frustrating debate on one of the most significant issues that we will deal with during the course of this Parliament.
  The Bill represents an important further step towards the modernisation of our constitution following the measures already enacted to devolve power to Scotland, Wales and London. It reflects the commitment and determination of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to give the people of England the choice of devolved regional assemblies. For decades, the needs and aspirations of the English regions were at best neglected and at worst ignored. The approaches of the past were either laissez-faire or "Whitehall knows best", and created a widening economic divide and a regional democratic deficit. The Government have been working hard to decentralise power, to make our politics more open, accountable and inclusive. The Bill is a major step forward in that process.
  We have had a variety of contributions. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), speaking for the official Opposition in a curiously muted speech, started by claiming that there was something wrong with devolution because unemployment in the UK was highest in areas with new tiers of government. Let us consider that curious concept. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman forget his party's shameful record of rising unemployment, which stained its period in government; he forgot that under the present Government unemployment has reduced to historically low levels in comparison with all our major competitors. If there is a connection between unemployment and devolution—the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman based his argument—devolution, where it has been introduced in this country, shows clearly that we can take action to tackle unemployment. That is our party's commitment—[Interruption.] I was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman, who proceeded to try to build a case for opposition to regional devolution on some curious comments from representatives of the CBI, effectively ignoring the fact that the CBI itself has a regional structure and is organised on a regional basis. Its director general, Digby Jones, at a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference at which I was speaking, made it perfectly clear that the CBI strongly supports regional devolution.
  The right hon. Gentleman then got into deep water by arguing that if about 25 per cent. of people voted in favour of a referendum, that was a technical basis for
  270
  making that referendum valid—a point which his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) effectively demolished. Finally, he was silent on the issue that he spent a lot of time raising in the House last week—the concept that the Government should hold referendums in every region on the same day. What happened to that policy? The right hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten what he was arguing just last week. It is a typical case of the Opposition not knowing what they are doing.
  Mr. Pickles: I know that time is getting on and that the right hon. Gentleman has stayed up late. However, may I politely remind him that I raised that matter about five minutes ago?
  Mr. Raynsford: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), in a passionate speech, made it clear that we are considering one of the most important constitutional developments in our lifetime. He properly made a distinction between affection for historical county identities—in his case, he spoke about Lancashire—as against effective administrative structures. I strongly agree with his contributions.
  Speaking for the Liberal Democrats in a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) indicated his commitment to regional government and democratic accountability, and rightly criticised the Conservative Opposition for their opposition to extending democratic accountability. He believed that our proposals did not go far enough, and gave us an entertaining list of quangos that he would like to see abolished. He also asked a number of questions, not all of which I am able to answer this evening owing to lack of time. He asked specifically whether we would publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. We are not necessarily opposed to that idea, but there are timetable issues that will determine whether that option is feasible. We will keep that under consideration.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what research we had undertaken on the ballot question in clause 2, and whether we had used focus groups. We did not use focus groups. We tried to use common sense, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 gives a specific role to the Electoral Commission to test the intelligibility of questions. That is why we prepared a draft question and submitted it to the Electoral Commission, which has given its views. We will give those views careful consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) announced at the start of his speech that he would not need 12 minutes to say what he had to say, although he ended up taking the full time to indicate that he was opposed to devolution and remained a fierce centralist. I differ with him wholeheartedly on that issue.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who passed me a note to apologise for the fact that he cannot be present for the winding-up speeches, in a speech full of graphic images made a case for regional devolution—even if he differed from the

  271
  views contained in our Bill and our White Paper. He said that he thought the Bill was produced by people who water their red wine. That, I thought, was rather typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He might have suggested that it was a Bill produced by people who water the workers' beer, but there was no such image. Instead, he described it as a "mewling and puking" measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman clearly started life on that basis.
  Mr. John Greenway: In the absence of my right hon. Friend, will the Minister explain to the people of North Yorkshire why, if they vote in favour of the retention of North Yorkshire county council, the rest of the people of Yorkshire should overrule them?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had been present throughout the debate, I might have had more sympathy for his intervention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I will deal with the question when responding to a North Yorkshire Member who raised questions during the debate and was present throughout the debate.
  My hon. Friend the M ember for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) questioned the existence of a north-west identity. He argued that no one can agree on boundaries because there are no natural boundaries. I disagree. I believe that we have a natural tendency to disagree about boundaries, whether they are at regional, county, constituency, local government or ward level, and such disputes rarely contribute to progress. We believe that we need to make progress on the Bill, and we do not want to be caught in a morass of boundary disputes.
  My hon. Friend also argued that the electoral system would give a platform to extremist parties such as the British National party. The 5 per cent. threshold contained in the provisions, as in London, is an important safeguard against unrepresentative extremist parties gaining representation on a small percentage of the vote.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in a nostalgic speech, celebrated the great municipal developments of the 19th century, but seemed a little less comfortable with the current manifestations of them on his own patch. On his point about a threshold, he will recall the unfortunate example of Scotland, where the existence of a threshold in the 1978 legislation resulted in the people of Scotland being denied an opportunity for devolution, even though a clear majority had voted in favour, thereby deferring the process of devolution for almost 20 years. I think that that is the strongest argument against thresholds.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby argued passionately about home rule for Yorkshire.
  The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) characteristically saw a European plot behind our proposals. I can assure him that there is no such plot.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) believes that decisions can be more effectively made at a regional level. I agree wholeheartedly with him.
  272
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) expressed concern about the powers available under our proposals, but supported the principle of regional assemblies. He was worried about the consequences of unitarisation of local government. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
  Matthew Green: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid I do not have time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) spoke in a thoughtful and well-considered speech about the important development of the yes coalition in the north-east, in which she is playing a leading and very important part. She rightly stressed that the White Paper makes a very good start on regional governance and argued the case for the use of postal ballots to help with turnout, perhaps in combination with other elections.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was unsympathetic to regional government. He argued for greater devolution to local government, but was clearly unaware of the measures that we announced today dramatically to reduce the obligations on local authorities to produce plans and other red tape.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) rightly highlighted the benefit of directly accountable regional institutions. He raised concerns about whether resource restraints would prevent the boundary committee from considering the need for local government reorganisation in the regions that may be interested in that. I can assure him that our primary test in deciding where to hold referendums will be the level of interest in each region. He represents North Yorkshire, which is not a separate and isolated part of the country, but part of Yorkshire and Humberside. It is right that any decision relating to the future of that region, whether or not it has an elected regional assembly, should be taken by all the people living in Yorkshire and Humberside.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was opposed to elected regional assemblies and claimed that reorganisation would destroy the districts in his county, thereby neatly demolishing the Opposition's claim that what we are doing is all about abolishing the county councils. I could not have had a better case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), a strong advocate of regional government, argued that regional decisions should be taken at a regional level. We wholeheartedly agree. He also put in a strong bid for the city of Lancaster as the home for the new assembly.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) opposed the idea of elected regional assemblies and asked about the use of public funds to promote referendums. I assure him that there will be no use of public funds other than through the Electoral Commission, whose role is to provide objective information to inform voters.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) to read chapter 2 of the White Paper, which relates to improving existing arrangements in the south-east and other regions.

  273
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked how the Government would assess the degree of interest and competing claims. I assure him that we have already consulted on that matter and will set out detailed arrangements during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) made an important case for unitary government.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) challenged the validity of regional boundaries and spoke for Cornwall in that regard. I disagree on the case for a Cornish assembly.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who finished the debate for the Opposition, made a remorselessly negative speech that revealed why the Tory party is in its current mess, with nothing positive to offer.
  Since the Government came to power, we have worked hard to increase democracy, devolve power and break free from the over-centralised system of governance that we inherited from the previous Administration. The Bill gives the English regions the historic opportunity to decide whether to have an elected regional assembly. We are giving the people of England a choice that was denied them for far too long. Devolving power is central to providing public services, and I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 389.

  Division No. 7]

  [10:00 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Evans, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bacon, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Barker, Gregory

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Flight, Howard

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Flook, Adrian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, rh Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Francois, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Brady, Graham

  Goodman, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Burns, Simon

  Grayling, Chris

  Burnside, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John

  Butterfill, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cameron, David

  Gummer, rh John

  Cash, William

  Hague, rh William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hammond, Philip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Collins, Tim

  Hermon, Lady

  Conway, Derek

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Howard, rh Michael

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  274

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jack, rh Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ruffley, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Selous, Andrew

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Shepherd, Richard

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Streeter, Gary

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Maclean, rh David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Maples John

  Trend, Michael

  Maude, rh Francis

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mercer, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walter, Robert

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Watkinson, Angela

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Wilshire, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Randall, John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Redwood, rh John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blizzard, Bob

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Ainger, Nick

  Borrow, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Breed, Colin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bryant, Chris

  Baird, Vera

  Burgon, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Burnett, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Burnham, Andy

  Barrett, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Battle, John

  Cairns, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Casale, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Caton, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Berry, Roger

  Challen, Colin

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Chidgey, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Clapham, Michael

  275

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Grogan, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Connarty, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cotter, Brian

  Harvey, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Crausby, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Healey, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Heath, David

  Cummings, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Heppell, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hesford, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hinchliffe, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  David, Wayne

  Holmes, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Denham, rh John

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Doran, Frank

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Doughty, Sue

  Hume, John (Foyle)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Hutton, rh John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Illsley, Eric

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Edwards, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Flint Caroline

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Follett, Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Keetch, Paul

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Gardiner, Barry

  Kidney, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  276

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lamb, Norman

  Plaskitt, James

  Lammy, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lepper, David

  Prescott, rh John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Linton, Martin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Love, Andrew

  Purnell, James

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Rammell, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McCafferty, Chris

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Rendel, David

  MacDougall, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Salter, Martin

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheridan, Jim

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Merron, Gillian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Moore, Michael

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Southworth, Helen

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Spellar, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Perham, Linda

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Picking, Anne

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stunell, Andrew

  277

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Watts, David

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Willis, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Winnick, David

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Worthington, Tony

  Truswell, Paul

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Dan Norris and

  Ward, Claire

  Mr. Phil Woolas

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading).
  The House divided: Ayes 386, Noes 134.

  Division No. 8

  10:13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bryant, Chris

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Burnett, John

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Burnham, Andy

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Burstow, Paul

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cairns, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Baird, Vera

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Barrett, John

  Challen, Colin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Chaytor, David

  Battle, John

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Blackman, Liz

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Coleman, Iain

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Colman, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Connarty, Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brennan, Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cotter, Brian

  278

  Cousins, Jim

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Crausby, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Healey, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Heath, David

  Cummings, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Heppell, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hesford, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hinchliffe, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  David, Wayne

  Holmes, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Denham, rh John

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Doran, Frank

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Doughty, Sue

  Hume, John (Foyle)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Hutton, rh John

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Illsley, Eric

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Edwards, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Follett, Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Keetch, Paul

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Gardiner, Barry

  Kidney, David

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gidley, Sandra

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Gilroy, Linda

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lamb, Norman

  Goggins, Paul

  Lammy, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Grogan, John

  Lepper, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Linton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hanson, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Love, Andrew

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Harvey, Nick

  McAvoy, Thomas

  279

  McCabe, Stephen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McCafferty, Chris

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Rendel, David

  MacDougall, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sheridan, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Singh, Marsha

  Michael, rh Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Southworth, Helen

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Spellar, rh John

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Perham, Linda

  Stringer, Graham

  Picking, Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prescott, rh John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Trickett, Jon

  Purchase, Ken

  Truswell, Paul

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  280

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winnick, David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  White, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Phil Woolas and

  Wilson, Brian

  Dan Norris

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Bacon, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Barker, Gregory

  Jack, rh Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Bellmgnam, Henry

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burnside, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Leigh, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cameron, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cash, William

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Chope, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clappison, James

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, rh David

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maples, John

  Maude, rh Francis

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Peterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Grayling, Chris

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, David

  Hague, rh William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hammond, Philip

  Selous, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heald, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Spring, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  281

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Swayne, Desmond

  Watkinson, Angela

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Whittingdale, John

  Syms, Robert

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Trend, Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Walter, Robert

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

    REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill:

    REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME)

      Committal
      1. Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
      2. The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

      Programming of proceedings
      3. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.

      Proceedings
      4. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one day.
      5.(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 19th December 2002.
      (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
      6. When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee, have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.

      Consideration and Third Reading
      7. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
      8. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
      282
      9. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Derek Twigg.]
      The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 178.

      Division No. 9]

      [10:28 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Crausby, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Cruddas, Jon

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cummings, John

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Austin, John

      David, Wayne

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davidson, Ian

      Baird, Vera

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Banks, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      Barnes, Harry

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Denham, rh John

      Battle, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beard, Nigel

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Doran, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Best, Harold

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Edwards, Huw

      Borrow, David

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Etherington, Bill

      Brennan, Kevin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flint, Caroline

      Bryant, Chris

      Follett, Barbara

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foulkes, rh George

      Cairns, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caton, Martin

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Challen, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chaytor, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cohen, Harry

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coleman, Iain

      Colman, Tony

      Healey, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hendrick, Mark

      Corston, Jean

      Hepburn, Stephen

      283

      Heppell, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Martlew, Eric

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mole, Chris

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hume, John (Foyle)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      lllsley, Eric

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King Andy (Rugby)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prescott, rh John

      Lammy, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      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, Terry (Worsley)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Linton, Martin

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKechin, Ann

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheeiman, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      MacShane, Denis

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      284

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Southworth, Helen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Spellar, rh John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Stevenson, George

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Ward, Claire

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stinchcombe Paul

      Watts, David

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wilson, Brian

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Trickett, Jon

      Dan Norris

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Flight, Howard

      Bacon, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, rh Eric

      Barker, Gregory

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Francois, Mark

      Barrett, John

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Gamier, hon. Edward

      Beith, rh A. J.

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gidley, Sandra

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodman, Paul

      Brady, Graham

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Breed, Colin

      Grayling, Chris

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Burnett, John

      Greenway, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burnside, David

      Hague, rh William

      Burstow, Paul

      Hammond, Philip

      Burt Alistair

      Hancock, Mike

      Butterfill John

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Cameron, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Cameron, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Heald, Oliver

      Chidgey, David

      Heath, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Clappison, James

      Hermon, Lady

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Collins, Tim

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Conway, Derek

      Holmes, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Jack, rh Michael

      Dodds, Nigel

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Doughty, Sue

      Keetch, Paul

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Evans, Nigel

      Fabricant, Michael

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      285

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Selous, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Simmonds, Mark

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

      Lamb, Norman

      Lansley, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Spring, Richard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Streeter, Gary

      Lidington, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Swayne, Desmond

      Loughton, Tim

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Syms, Robert

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mercer, Patrick

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moore, Michael

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Watkinson, Angela

      Paterson, Owen

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Wilkinson, John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Randall, John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Wilshire, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS)BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill:

    (1) there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund any sums required by the Electoral Commission to meet:

    (a) the charges payable to counting officers in connection with a referendum held about the establishment of an elected regional assembly; and

    (b) sums payable in respect of increases in superannuation contributions required to be paid by local authorities in consequence of fees paid as part of those charges.

    (2) there shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament:

    (a) any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown—

    286

    (i) in connection with a referendum held about the establishment of an elected regional assembly;

    (ii) in making payments to the Electoral Commission;

    (iii) in paying grant in respect of the expenditure of regional chambers;

    (iv) in preparation for elected regional assemblies;

    (v) in connection with the transfer of any function to such an assembly;

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Derek Twigg.]

    Question agreed to.

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2)(Liaison Committee),
    That this House agrees with the Report [21st November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]
    Question agreed to.

    HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That the Lords Message [14th November] relating to House of Lords Reform be now considered.
    That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution.
    That, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 19th June in the last Session of Parliament, a Select Committee of 12 Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, with the same terms of reference, powers and membership as in the last session and that the proceedings of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Potato Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.— [Derek Twigg.]
    Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

    GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14394/01, draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC; and supports the Government's objective of establishing a flexible, market-based instrument across the European Union in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions towards meeting the United Kingdom's international obligations and domestic targets on climate change.—[Derek Twigg.]
    Question agreed to.

    PETITIONS

      Stansted Airport
      10.41 pm
      Mr. Mark Prisk: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of east Hertfordshire, north and west Essex and the surrounding communities. In just 14 weeks, the petition has attracted signatures and support from more than 33,000 people.
      The petition states:
      We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of more runways at Stansted Airport because our area does not have the infrastructure needed to sustain such a development and because it would destroy whole villages and blight thousands of homes; severely imperil our wildlife and countryside; and overwhelm existing and planned road and rail transport.
      We therefore request that the House of Commons require that Her Majesty's Government to withdraw its proposals for the construction of more runways at Stansted Airport.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Consumers for Health Choice
      10.43 pm
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I rise to present the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Brown of Fordingbridge, which has been signed by 230 of my constituents.
      The petition states:
      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 the petitioners fear 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 require 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.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Hare Coursing (Northern Ireland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject this evening. First, it is a pleasure to have my debate answered by my hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate her on her ministerial appointment. I believe that this is the first Adjournment debate that she has done, and the coincidence that it should be on this subject is wonderful. It is an awful paradox that while most of us would like the Northern Ireland Assembly to be running again as soon as possible, all of us would wish my hon. Friend to continue in her ministerial role for as long as possible.
  I must make it clear at the outset that I recognise the strict parameters on this debate, and on what my hon. Friend can be expected to answer. Although I might stray into issues of cruelty at times, my concern is to explore and, I hope, illuminate the issues around the licensing of the netting of hares in Northern Ireland and associated conservation matters. She knows that. as the MP for Altcar, I have a long-standing interest in hare coursing and the unnecessary cruelty that it involves. That has led to my concern for the conservation of hares and the well-being of a magnificent animal that is under constant pressure from change in agricultural practice generally.
  The system for addressing hare coursing in Northern Ireland is a recent addition to my concerns. The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) would have included Northern Ireland in its embrace. The subsequent hunting Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) did not do so. As yet, we do not know what the Bill to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will involve.
  The Minister is well aware that hare coursing in Northern Ireland takes place under Irish coursing club rules, and differs greatly from hare coursing in England and Wales. The greyhounds are muzzled and the coursing fields are semi-enclosed. In particular localities, there may not, at any particular time, be enough hares for the purpose of a specific event. Accordingly, club members will go into the countryside to collect hares. The latter are netted and put into containers for transport to the coursing venue. For that, the former need a licence.
  In late 2001, the Northern Ireland Assembly discussed concerns about the decline in the Northern Ireland hare population when it was debating the game laws. Most studies—by Professor Montgomery of Queens university, by the Northern Ireland species action plan, and by the biodiversity strategy for Northern Ireland—reveal a decline in hare numbers. The Irish hare is the only mammal selected for a specific Northern Ireland action plan, which, inter alia, states:
  "The provision of refuge areas, adequate and varied food supply and freedom from disturbance are essential if Irish hare numbers are to be maintained at present levels."
  Records show that in 1864 there were 138 hares per square kilometre in Northern Ireland—I am not sure how that was worked out, but that is what I am told.

  289
  Current records show that there are 0.6 hares per square kilometre in Northern Ireland. Even over such a long period, that is a pretty dramatic difference. The action plan of 2000 also states:
  "Research is required to determine whether numbers are still declining".
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me what that research concluded and whether it informed previous decisions to license netting made by her predecessor.
  The Northern Ireland Assembly voted to ensure that the Minister responsible should not issue licensing for the netting of hares for coursing without being satisfied that it
  "would not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof."
  I suppose that "any part thereof" is particularly significant. That is part of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. What is the nature of the research data available to the Minister and to her predecessors that would allow such a judgment to be made, particularly on a local basis?
  I understand that the most recent estimates of the hare population in Northern Ireland range from 8,250 to 21,000. In other words, we have no real idea. It is one heck of an area to cover. Recent researches by Professor Montgomery suggest that the Irish hare population may, in some areas, be extinct or near extinct. The crucial point in the present context is for my hon. Friend to ensure that all future decisions on licensing made by her and her successors are based on clear and unambiguous scientific evidence such as may have eluded her predecessor.
  A new study has been initiated by the Environment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend think that it would be invidious to license any further nettings until the results of that new study are to hand and have been examined? Will she tell me how long a licence lasts?
  Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the circumstances of netting and coursing in relation to hare conservation? Coursers claim that, because the dogs are muzzled in Northern Ireland coursing, hares are not killed but are later released. That sounds, at least, a gesture towards conservation. It is an argument that I have often used to hare coursers in West Lancashire. I say to them, "If it is not all about blood and killing, why don't you muzzle the dogs?"
  However, in its evidence to Burns, the National Coursing Club of England and Wales claimed that muzzled coursing might be more inhumane than unmuzzled coursing. It said:
  "The hare could be bludgeoned to death, involving considerably more suffering than if the dog had been unmuzzled."
  There are certainly videos showing hares in Northern Ireland being buffeted about, tossed into the air and mauled into the ground. Handlers often have to kill the hares as a result.
  Lembit Öpik: Although I know that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree about some of the substantive points in the general debate, does he at
  290
  least accept that the middle way group seeks a regulatory solution that takes account not just of cruelty to hares but, more broadly, to all hunted animals?
  Mr. Pickthall: I know what the middle way group says and what its platform is. I also know that most people who espouse the middle way detest hare coursing, of all the blood sports. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I am not highlighting the relative cruelty of what goes on, but pointing out that there is, at least, an impact on hare numbers. In The Belfast Telegraph of 22 November, a piece quotes Ronan Gorman, the Northern Ireland chief executive of the Countryside Alliance. The article quotes his view that the decline in the Irish hare population was to
  "'a very large extent' due to changes in agriculture and that is was 'absolute nonsense' to blame coursing."
  That totally misses the point. No one is blaming anyone. We are concerned with the conservation of the hare population in Northern Ireland, as was the Assembly when it considered these matters. The issue of whether we blame agricultural changes and practices and/or hare coursing is almost irrelevant. Both, in some measure, are causing hare numbers to decline in that area.
  The process of netting and transportation might damage hares physically and in terms of stress. I do not know whether research has been carried out on that. If my hon. Friend knows, I am sure that she will put it on the record in one way or another. One aspect of those activities is their effect on the reproductivity of female hares. What research on that is available to the Minister when considering applications for licences?
  I have a few questions on the conditions for granting licences. Condition B obliges the coursing club to notify the Department at least 72 hours in advance of the date, time and location of any netting activities. Is that done in such a way as to allow researchers, scientists or academics to monitor the events?
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and interesting case on legal hare coursing and the problems that that causes in Northern Ireland. Is he aware of the terrible problems in rural areas in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom caused by individuals from urban conurbations who trample across farmers' land, which is often cropped, to chase hares illegally? Does he agree that additional police powers should be put into the hunting Bill that will come before Parliament soon?
  Mr. Pickthall: Indeed I do. I agree almost entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I know a good deal about illegal hare coursing and have done much towards doing something about it. If there is one thing on which hare coursers and anti-hare coursers agree, it is the horrible nature of illegal hare coursing. Not only does it destroy animals, which are left to rot in the fields, but it poses a threat to farmers, landowners and people who spot it taking place, an activity in which I have been physically involved. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. Illegal hare coursing happens a great deal in my area. I do not know for sure, but I suspect that it happens in Northern Ireland too. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.

  291
  Condition C says that netting and releasing may be subject to inspection by the Department. Is that done? If so, how often? Condition D says that all caught hares must be humanely marked to identify their place of capture. Who does that? Should not it be done by independent vets, academics or people who know what they are doing? Condition E says that surviving hares must be released into the locality. Is that monitored by the Department? How many are released into the environment, and how many have to have their necks wrung because they are badly damaged by the coursing? Condition G says that netting should be undertaken only by members of the club that has the licence. Is that monitored? Can we be sure that it is done by experienced people and that there is no commercial trade in netted hares?
  Condition H is a sweep-up clause. It says that the club must co-operate with Queen's university in research to monitor the condition and fate of netted hares. Is that done? If so, is the research thorough, satisfactory and made available to the relevant Minister? Condition I concerns the obligation on clubs to file a detailed report on all those matters to the Department within one month of the expiry of the licence. Is that evidence made public, and if not, why not?
  I could have made a passionate speech about the hare and its decline in these islands, especially as I understand that hares in Northern Ireland are generally smaller and 'weaker than English and Welsh hares which makes them more vulnerable to the activities that I have described, but that would have been unhelpful in this context. I hope that the need for our debate will be made otiose by a hunting Bill, but who knows how long that will be in the gestation?
  I realise that my hon. Friend is in a difficult position, and I have asked her a lot of questions. No one in the Mouse has a finer record on animal welfare than her. Her present role restricts her to ensuring that all the mechanisms for the licensing of netting are properly used to ensure that the hare population of Northern Ireland is not further damaged and, indeed, that it is enhanced. I can think of no one more capable than her to do just that.
  11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) for his kind and generous comments. I accept his comments about my position but I make it clear that my ministerial appointment is temporary. We all want the Assembly to be up and running as soon as possible, and we work to that end.
  I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject, because, as he said, it is of interest to me. In racing terms, I have some form on the issue. My hon. Friend has a reputation in this matter, being well known as a campaigner for conservation. His interest in hare coursing arises from his commitment to see hares preserved and protected. I share his concern about the protection of our biodiversity, and I fully support the aims of the recently published Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy.
  The netting of hares for coursing is governed by the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, which was amended in 2002. Under that legislation permits are
  292
  issued by the Department of the Environment, for which I am responsible. The permits are issued subject to a number of conditions, currently nine, designed to minimise the harm to hares and to avoid adverse effects on the hare population.
  In Northern Ireland hares are traditionally caught over a six-week period prior to the coursing event. They are individually marked and kept in a spacious enclosure until the event. On the day of the meet, the hares are coursed once by a pair of dogs and then allowed to escape into the enclosure. I have to admit that I have not seen evidence of that, never having seen hare coursing in Northern Ireland. However, I visited my hon. Friend's constituency to see the Waterloo cup on one occasion—it was not an experience that I would care to repeat.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does the Minister accept that the holders of the two existing licences stringently adhere to the conditions of those licences?
  Angela Smith: I understand that there is only one existing licence; another has expired, or is due to expire on 30 November. I am not aware of the holders breaching the conditions, but I shall make some comments about action that we can take regarding monitoring.
  I am told that, the day after the event, the hares are returned to the place of their original capture and released. As my hon. Friend made clear, dogs are muzzled in hare coursing in Northern Ireland, under the Irish Coursing Club rules, and they cannot bite. However, I am interested in his comments about what can happen to the hare during coursing with muzzled dogs. He mentioned a video, and I would be interested to see it if he could get me a copy. I am informed that most hares are returned to the wild following the event and that only occasionally a hare has died while in captivity. I do not know and do not at this stage have access to the information about how many, if any, hares died during the process of capture, netting, transport and release.
  The Northern Ireland Assembly has considered hare coursing within the past year. It rejected an amendment to legislation which would have had the effect of banning organised coursing of Irish hares that were trapped or netted in Northern Ireland, but it introduced an amendment governing the issue of permits to net hares. That requires that the Department be satisfied that the trapping of hares for a coursing event will not impact on the hare population in Northern Ireland, or any part thereof, before another permit is issued.
  The legal advice is that in deciding to grant or refuse an application, the Department must have sufficient relevant evidence to support its view that the taking of hares by netting would or would not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof. The Minister must therefore be satisfied that netting does not have an adverse effect.
  As is highlighted in the Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy, the Irish hare is an endemic sub-species not present outside Ireland. Historically it was widespread and common throughout Ireland, including Northern Ireland. However, a detailed survey of the Irish hare population during the late 1990s indicated that it had

  293
  undergone a marked decline. Similar information was available to my predecessor, but we have now been able to update it.
  Estimates indicate that the present Northern Ireland population may be as low as 8,250 or as high as 22,000, but it is at critical levels in some areas. Professor Montgomery is currently undertaking a further survey for my Department's environment and heritage service. As a result of those figures and the concerns that have been expressed, the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued in October 2000 a local species action plan for the Irish hare. The Ulster Wildlife Trust is taking the lead in delivering that plan, which draws on current evidence to analyse the main factors causing loss or decline and goes on to draw up objectives and targets for protection of the Irish hare.
  Key factors thought to have a negative effect on hare populations include loss of refuge areas for daytime lie-up sites, conversion of species-rich grassland to ryegrass and clover mixes, increased levels of disturbance due mainly to high livestock densities on farms, increased use of farm machinery, illegal coursing, lamping and overhunting. The plan recognises that the provision of refuge areas, adequate and varied food supply, and freedom from disturbance are essential if Irish hare numbers are to be maintained at present levels. A number of challenging targets are set in the plan, including a target to double the present population of the Irish hare by 2010 over as widespread an area as possible. Improving the habitat of the hare is one of the most critical factors in hare conservation, and agri-environment schemes such as environmentally sensitive areas and the new countryside management scheme will have an important role to play. Hare sanctuaries or hare reserves will be set up. Greater public awareness will be promoted through the publication of management advice about hares.
  The plan also sets out the need to review and, if necessary, increase protection for the Irish hare under current legislation. It points to the need for further research into both hare ecology and population levels. My Department has commissioned further studies of the Irish hare with a view to considering what enhanced protection measures may be required to ensure that targets in the action plan are met. Legislation alone, however, will not ensure protection of the species. Greater public awareness of the uniqueness of the Irish hare will also be an important factor.
  Given the importance that my Department and all those interested in supporting our biodiversity place on that endemic sub-species, I will need to consider carefully the issue of permits for hare netting. Clearly, the issue of permits to net hares for coursing sits uneasily alongside policies that are aimed at conservation of the species. Any such permits will have to looked at within the wider review of the conservation of the Irish hare.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that all available and up-to-date evidence on the Irish hare will be carefully examined before any permits are issued. The wider public perception of any tension between the Department's conservation policy and the issuing of permits must also be considered. As I said earlier, greater public appreciation of the uniqueness of that
  294
  species will be an important factor in the success of measures set out in the species action plan. I cannot remember his exact phrase, but my hon. Friend asked whether any future decision would be based on clear and unambiguous scientific evidence. I can give him an assurance that we shall of course look at and use scientific evidence. I agree that where a species may be under threat the general environmental precautionary principle is apt. It may take some time fully to develop enhanced conservation measures for the Irish hare, but in the meantime I will be cautious in taking any administrative action that may run contrary to the development of measures that have already been agreed by my Department.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of questions about the conditions for a licence, which I shall do my best to answer. If I do not address them all, I hope that he will take them up with me later. Condition B says that the club must give the Department at least 72 hours notice of netting. My hon. Friend was concerned that Queen's university and others should make preparations to attend netting attempts. I assure him that in the past year coursing clubs have been helpful when Queen's university has attended such attempts. He also asked about condition C on inspection by officials. Previously, officials were not present at every stage of netting and release, but in the past year they have been. I can assure my hon. Friend that my officials will do their very best to be present, and I see no reason why in future years it should not be a condition of the licence that they should be present. Of course, that would need co-operation from the coursing clubs, but in the past year my experience is that they have co-operated. There is therefore no reason why officials should not be present.
  My hon. Friend asked about condition D and whether the tagging of hares should be done by independent vets, so that when the hares are released, some assessment can be made of how they fare afterwards. There is no difficulty with that. An independent vet was present this year, and advised that the tag should not be invasive. I understand that he has indicated his willingness to be involved again in future. That was done with the co-operation of the coursing clubs, which I would like to see taken forward. We will look at the matter again.
  Condition E deals with surviving hares being released into the locality in which they were caught. That is part of the tagging process. If an independent vet tags the hares, there is a means of assuring that they are released back into the same locality and recording how they fare. That will be important to me and future Ministers when we come to make an assessment on the issuing of licences.
  Condition G stipulates that netting should be undertaken only by members of the coursing club. My hon. Friend asked whether my officials can ensure that those involved are fit people with sufficient experience. I do not think that it is the job of my officials to check the experience of those involved in hare netting, but officials from my Department would be present and check that people are authorised for that purpose.
  Condition H covers the club's co-operation with Queen's university. Again, there has been a positive relationship with the university. I should like more

  295
  information on that. The coursing clubs have been cooperative and we will encourage them to co-operate further with the university.
  Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend has been exceedingly helpful. I asked whether we could be sure that there is no commercial netting to sell hares on to other areas. If she does not have that information now, I am happy to receive it at any other time.
  Angela Smith: I am not aware of any such information, but if I am incorrect, I will write to my hon. Friend. I do not think that enough hares were caught even for coursing this year, let alone for any commercial activity.
  My hon. Friend asked whether the report could be made public. The coursing clubs issue a report to the Department. I see no reason why that cannot be made public. I will check the legislation, but I should think that it would be to the advantage of all if the information about the date, number and location of hares caught and hares released were made public.
  296
  As I said, there is only one current licence, which expires on 30 November. For that licence to be used, application would have to be made tomorrow in order to give 72 hours notice. If such an application is received, I can give the House an assurance that my officials will monitor the conditions of the licence.
  Finally, there was a comment from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) about illegal hare coursing. I share his views. Action is available to the landowner. In England, the charge would be taking game without consent; in Northern Ireland it is civil trespass with intent. I appreciate the problems and hope that the police could be involved in dealing with the matter. One of the things that make it difficult to police illegal hare coursing is the difficulty of explaining to people that one form of coursing is legal, while another form is illegal. I am aware of the disruption and distress that that can cause. I hope that I have answered all the comments. We shall monitor the activity closely.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Heroin Addicts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Lammy.]
9.30 am
John Mann: I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for timetabling this debate and agreeing to my request that it should last for one and a half hours. The number of hon. Members present indicates the interest in this matter, which, in recent weeks, has been raised a number of times on the Floor of the House in discussion and questions.
Hon. Members will know that I have made a fairly detailed analysis of heroin use in my constituency, but I do not propose to go through the 300-page background document, the 150 case studies or the 39 recommendations. All that is available and I believe that a copy has been sent to all hon. Members. Anyone who wants a copy is more than welcome to have one.
I want to take the opportunity to thank those who contributed to my public inquiry, for which I received a lot of local public support. Many hundreds of people contributed personally and many thousands contributed in writing. However, when dealing with one section of the community and professions—the health service—I sometimes wondered whether I was looking into dental services because obtaining information was like pulling teeth. That is why I called for this debate on treatment services for heroin addicts.
Until the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) appeared at 9.25 am, I did not know which Minister would respond to this debate. I chose not to inquire because I did not want to skew my comments according to whether the response was coming from a Home Office Minister or a Health Minister. The provision of drug treatment services is a major issue and is a dilemma here and throughout Europe.
Yesterday I went to GOAN where I discussed CAD and the links between CDPs and DRGs under the auspices of DATS and, in Nottinghamshire, DAATS. GOAM is not responsible for the NTA so I did not discuss CDTs, but I could discuss DDTOs and the role of the LSP and the SRP of EMDA. SORTID and HETTIS may be interested, but Framework and Hope less so. Tomorrow, I shall be at the PCT. There are two PCTs involved and mine does not commission the DAAT. NCC chairs the DAAT but BDC chairs the DRG. GPs are covered by one strategic health authority and DAAT by another. Some GPs fall under a third PCT, but, thankfully, there is only one LEA and one police force, although that has two emergency numbers and two separate control rooms. Most people in those bodies want to discuss funding streams. I am a simple man and to me a stream is running water, although if it were left to the EA and NCB in my constituency, that
2WH
might not be so. How on earth are we to tackle the problem of drug addiction with that plethora of semi-detached organisations?
In my area there are far more than I have listed. When we knew that my mother was terminally ill with cancer, we received a call and a visit from a Macmillan nurse, who dealt with the other organisations. I put it to the Minister that in drug treatment, someone fulfilling the equivalent of the Macmillan nurse's role would bring about a major breakthrough in handling the plethora of organisations involved. The fact that there is not someone like that in drug treatment has contributed to the frustration and anger that has built up in my community and others.
Let me set the scene. In my constituency most of the pits shut between the late 1980s and 1992. They provided the majority of jobs in many parts of the constituency. In some villages, every male was working, or had worked in the pits, usually from the age of 15 to 65. When the pits shut, there was nothing. There were attempts at regeneration and there still are. Some were successful and some were not. The certainty of life was removed. I accept that that certainty had some downsides in terms of aspiration. 'Pit fodder' is the term that was used in schools, and was still used when I entered the House 18 months ago and it showed how the kids in those villages were perceived by the educational establishment. However, they were certain of a job for life in the community, and it had become an increasingly well-paid job over its last 30 years. That was taken away and, as predicted in the House in 1992, there has been a rise in drug addiction, specifically heroin.
The comparison between the pit villages and the more affluent rural areas is quite stark. Less than 10 per cent. of the cases dealt with by the probation service in Retford, which is a predominately rural area, involve criminals addicted to heroin. In Worksop, that figure is 92 per cent, and accounts for two thirds of all reported crime. When I met the chief constable on Monday he agreed with me that drug addiction probably accounts for virtually all the unreported crime as well.
We do not have treatment services in my constituency; they are at a distance. The philosophy of the drugs treatment service is one of harm reduction. I will come back to that because I challenge the whole ethos of the National Treatment Agency, and the whole drugs treatment business. We know the results. I could give chapter and verse, and describe the individuals who inject into their eyeballs because they have no veins left that they can use. Women have given up their children for adoption because they cannot cope with heroin addiction. Large numbers of grandmothers are caring for children. I could go on and on. I could paint a more evocative picture of the real state of play because those examples are not isolated, but I will not do so because I do not have enough time. The vast majority of criminals in my constituency are addicts. Only a few clubbing drugs are used in my constituency; there is hardly any cocaine, or crack cocaine. The drug being used time and again, and in hundreds of cases, is heroin.
There are several things that I would like to be able to say to a Home Office Minister. I want to see drugs courts because many addicts are drugs criminals. Only one of the 150 people I met was not involved in crime. That one person had a partner who funded his addiction and had done for nine years. I want addicts to be given a choice:

3WH
prison or treatment. That is what we recommended in our report. It is a false choice at the moment because treatment is not being provided.
Fortuitously, Professor Howard Parker of Manchester university has recently produced a new report—he has produced many over the years. I ask for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of other hon. Members, while I explore the work of Professor Parker. There is a particularly poignant and important reason for doing so. His paper in Sociology magazine, which was released, I believe, on Sunday and which I accessed yesterday, is entitled "The Normalization of 'Sensible' Recreational Drug Use". According to the references, Professor Parker started writing articles on the normalisation of drug use in 1994 and he refers to Mr. Van Vliet of the Netherlands, who wrote of the concept of the normalisation of drug use in 1990.
In a wonderful throw-away phrase explaining why he did not get all the responses that he had anticipated from the young people he had studied, Professor Parker writes that of his cohort—his evidence base—"up to half" went away to university, which meant that he had some problems in getting them to respond to his survey. So by his own definition, up to half the young people he surveyed in the north-west went to university. That must play a part in the debate.
Professor Parker and others who write on the normalisation of sensible recreational drug use, talk time and time again of clubbing. Well, we do not have clubbing in my constituency. Virtually nobody goes clubbing because the clubs do not exist. It is 30 or 40 miles to the nearest one and the buses that go to the clubs in Doncaster and Nottingham are infrequent and increasingly rare.
Significant numbers of people in the mining villages and other parts of the community start by experimenting with cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis and then move on to experimenting with heroin, often realising too late that they are addicted. The vast majority move on to injecting eight times a day and their whole lifestyle is based around funding that addiction. The cycle cannot be broken without treatment. According to police estimates, if someone has a criminal income of £15,000, that translates to £70,000 or £80,000 worth of stolen goods. That is per person, per year. That means £20 million worth of stolen goods in my constituency alone. Yet treatment is still not being provided.
I want to move on to the reason why I referred to Professor Parker and made what I suppose was an attack on him. The people he studied were not the same as the people who live in my constituency, so perhaps attacking him is unfair in abstract. He studied students. However, his name was cited four times in evidence to my inquiry, so I had to find out who he was and what he stood for. His philosophy of harm reduction goes right to the core of the work of the National Treatment Agency. It is central to what is going on in drugs treatment services in my constituency and it is not acceptable.
It is unacceptable for professionals to say, "I am in favour of harm minimisation." People who are in favour of harm minimisation suggest that we need needle
4WH
exchanges. Well, we do, but the national health service does not provide a needle exchange in my constituency. That was left to a homeless charity because the NHS did not get its act together. Together with the panel of five people from the church, the business community and the community who comprise my inquiry team—there were six of us in total—I have called for more needle exchanges. We have to cover 360 sq miles. I am not against harm minimisation or harm reduction, but I am against the whole philosophy that what is needed—to put it in the extreme—is to show people how to inject into their eyeball because they have no veins left. That is not a coherent approach or an answer to the drugs epidemic that we face. The fact that people such as Howard Parker have been cited by professionals—four times by four different people—is a very worrying sign.
I have taken the opportunity, and will do so again, to make comparisons with what happens abroad. Last week, I met the head of drugs co-ordination for the European Union to consider the evidence base. I am not a medical expert—I do not know what forms of treatment are most effective—but the research base says that different treatments work for different people. I, and others, have called for a menu of treatment options, but that is not available.
"Changing Habits", the Audit Commission report published in February, highlighted six weaknesses, the first of which was the difficulty of accessing drugs treatment. In my area, there are transport problems for people who want to go to Mansfield or Doncaster but have no money because they are spending it all on heroin. Indeed, the most common excuse used when tapping young people for money is, "Give me money for my bus fare or train fare." That happens all the time in my constituency—it is part of the daily intimidation of drug-free young people.
What is the role of general practitioners? There is a target stating that 30 per cent. of GPs should be trained in drugs treatment. That has not been met in my area of Nottinghamshire, and in Bassetlaw we are below the Nottinghamshire average. We need trained GPs. Some are good; some are brilliant—two of them took part in my inquiry and were happy to do so—but what about those who are bad? What sanctions are we applying to ensure that GPs have the knowledge base within their practice to deal with the problem? I want new clinics on a local base that can feed back into the National Treatment Agency.
Like me, the Audit Commission found that there were lengthy delays in treatment. That has been mentioned by other hon. Members, and I will allow them to present their own facts and figures. If I, a member of my family or any of my constituents have cancer, we should receive immediate diagnosis and treatment. I do not expect to be told to come back in six months or a year. One of the more puzzling, and prevalent, official phrases that I came across was "presenting". The addict must present himself, as if to say, "Here I am, sir: I have come to present myself because I want to come off this drug". If they do "present" themselves they are often told, "Go away sonny. Come back tomorrow and present yourself again, and again and again, to prove that you are genuine."
Let me describe the case study written up in my report as that of Miss A. I do not know whether Miss A was involved in prostitution, but my evidence base suggests

5WH
that almost every young woman who is a heroin addict—there are more than 200 in my constituency—is so involved. Miss A's father buys her heroin because he does not want his daughter prostituting herself on the streets to get the money. She is in what I would call a relatively stable family situation. The mother and father are married and have been for a long time and they have other children. I listened to the answerphone messages that Miss A received from the treatment services, and frankly they were an absolute disgrace. Appointments were broken. One message said, "Meet us at Boots at 10 o'clock", but the drugs worker was not there at that time. Other messages said, "Meet us next week," "Meet us the week after" and "Oh, I'm going on holiday for three weeks." Because her phone was not on at 1 o'clock, there was a message at two minutes past claiming that she was obviously not serious about drugs treatment, so was not going to get it.
The parents of Mr. Y, who is from a stable family background, came to me just over a year ago. The father buys him drugs to stabilise his intake and to get him away from the criminals. He has spent more than a year trying to reduce his son's intake and has to take him to accident and emergency every time he overdoses, which is about once a month because the family are not professionals so are not managing matters properly. That is a great expense to the NHS. Those petrified parents wanted residential rehabilitation for their son. In the nine months before my inquiry, I could not find a single case of residential rehab in my constituency—not one. Amazingly, in the week after the inquiry, Mr. Y went into residential rehab. That was, of course, going to happen anyway, but I want to know on what basis decisions are being made, and who is making them. Those are real case studies.
The National Audit Office found, as I have, that assessment procedures are chaotic across the country. In some places assessments are made by a team, but in my area just one person seems to be making assessments on who should get what treatment, and there is no right of appeal.
I should like quantified statistics. What is the definition of treatment for the 118,000 people currently being treated in this country—that is the number according to the information that has been given? I should like to know how many in my constituency are being treated because I have not been given those statistics. I asked publicly for the figures, but they were not given, even when I asked again. What quantifies success? How many are going into residential rehabilitation and why? How many are being treated in the community, and how? How are we measuring success? I want to see comparisons of success, because it can be defined in different ways. For some individuals it might be defined as reducing heroin intake and stabilising. They might not ever be drug free, but might be stable for a long period of time, out of the crime cycle and fit enough to get back into work. For others—hopefully a majority—success means being drug free. That quantifying is not there in anything I have been given. Perhaps the Minister can help me on that.
Such comparisons are critical, and are needed across Europe. The Council of Ministers is meeting to discuss this matter on Thursday and Friday this week, and I believe that either the Home Secretary or a Health Minister is going to the meeting. There will there be a
6WH
paper on the EU action plan on drugs. I should like to see consideration there of one of the six principles of the UN General Assembly's special session on drugs, which is
"To increase substantially the number of successfully treated addicts".
The quantifying of such success is missing in the EU action plan on drugs, although it has plenty on cross-border smuggling. I propose that the Government put the quantifying of success back into the plan. In its action plan the EU has signed up to the six principles of the UN General Assembly special session on drugs, so that quantifying should be part of its policy. There must be a follow-up to analyse what treatments work, and Europe seems a better data bank than Britain alone. Let us learn from best practice. I propose that that measure be built in for consideration at the Council of Ministers meeting on Thursday and Friday. It could then be passed on to the Heads of State, who meet in December, although I suppose the papers will go in front of them only briefly.
I should like to see the database of the Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction Activities quantified. It is rather difficult to access it. That might just be because of my internet prowess, but I have been repeatedly unable to access the EDDRA database on drug demand reduction programmes. Certainly, the EU has been concentrating on supply.
As I have said, I should like to see the equivalent of a Macmillan nurse in drug treatment services—one person who is there to advise the families of addicts. I should like to see the notion of people having to "present" themselves for treatment knocked on the head. Treatment should just be made available.
My next comment is directed at the Home Office. I should like to see drugs courts and drug testing in the custody suites of my local police stations. Those measures have been piloted in Nottingham, and there is nothing wrong with doing things in the cities, but we want the same priority. I want to see those measures in my constituency.
More than 3,000 people have responded to my inquiry, and I have met 150 heroin addicts both on a one-to-one basis and in groups, which is a reasonable evidence base. I have written up the results and given the Department of Health and the Home Office CDs containing the case studies, in which we have masked the names to preserve confidentiality. The case studies follow a pattern, which is repeated and repeated and repeated, of low aspirations and mobility.
Young people who experiment with a range of drugs compare their control of taking cannabis with their initial control of taking heroin. That is what they said, not what I said, and they said it repeatedly. Young people who experiment with smoking heroin find themselves addicted and move on to injecting. Heroin was £5 a hit in September, but it is now £2, and one can get a free lump of crack with it, if one really wants it. Ironically, although it is free, heroin addicts are not taking it. Some addicts inject themselves eight times a day and there have been nine heroin overdoses.
Families are being torn apart, and large extended families in mining communities are being hit by crime carried out by their own family members—there is £20 million worth of drug-related crime. My drugs action

7WH
team, along with others, has not even discussed the National Audit Office report of February 2002. The National Treatment Agency should come under the Department of Health rather than the Home Office, and I am pleased that a Health Minister is replying to the debate. In my community, we are not prepared to accept no provision of treatment services. We demand treatment services and we demand that their successes be quantified. The issue is not going to go away and I am not going to go away; my panel is permanently in situ, and we will hound Ministers. Hopefully, we will not need to do that because I hope that they are with us. We need to get on top of the problem to allow my community and addicts to get the chance that they deserve, in which case crime will come down accordingly.
9.57 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: I commend the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for securing the debate, for the power and passion of his speech and for his commitment to the vital subject of drug addiction in our country. Although I cannot match his level of commitment in looking into the matter through his inquiry, none the less, I have started my own investigation into what I consider to be one of the most serious menaces to the coherence of our society. I strongly agree with him that one issue affecting efforts to tackle this big social problem is the incoherent approach to providing a response displayed by the Government, local government and health authorities.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), whose first outing on the Front Bench this is. I am delighted that he is here, and having watched him in the Chamber on a number of occasions, I know that this will not be his last such outing. I am sure that I will be sitting behind him for many years to come.
At the beginning of this year, I decided to undertake some research into drugs and youth crime both in Plymouth, which is in my constituency, and in Vauxhall, which is the part of London in which I have my tiny accommodation. I thought that it would be good to balance two different communities in my investigation of drugs, crime and young people. I spent a number of months pottering around both places on my own, talking to local authority officials, the police, voluntary sector agencies—they do a great job trying to tackle the problem—and young people. I met some wonderful people: many of those working in the voluntary and charitable sectors trying to grapple with the problems of some of the most disturbed and troubled youngsters in this country are real heroes and an inspiration to all of us.
The one message that came out loud and clear from the police, local government and voluntary sector agencies was that when a heroin addict makes the brave decision to kick their habit, when they reach that low point in their life that I believe each of them reaches at least once, when they are so steeped in misery that they want to end their terrible addiction, there must be immediate access to help. That simply is not available at present. It is certainly not available in Plymouth, in parts of London or—picking up on what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said—in many parts of the country.
8WH
We know that drug addiction causes acquisitive crime—the police in Plymouth tell me that 80 per cent. of burglaries and thefts are drug-related. We know the human misery that is involved. We know that heroin addiction is a family breaker. All the agencies say that it is a massive social problem, but the response to it is incoherent. Immediate access to appropriate treatment simply is not available. It is very much a matter of catching the moment at which an addict decides to kick the habit, and help must be immediate. Six months later is far too late—six days later is too late. We must catch the moment.
In Plymouth, heroin addiction is now an enormous problem, and the police tell me that crack cocaine use is well on the way—in their words, not mine, "You ain't seen nothing yet." They believe that crack cocaine use in Plymouth will put heroin addiction in the shade. On the horizon is a massive problem for many parts of the country, and I call on the Government to come to grips with it now. They must improve their responses and try to solve the problem before it drags us down.
I began my personal researches a few weeks ago. As I started to talk about the issue through sections of my local media, a gentleman came to see me in my surgery to discuss a problem with one of his family members. We had a long session together and I asked him to go away and write to me with the details. If the Committee will forgive me, I shall read out part of his letter in which sets out his experiences, as it says everything that must be said about what is happening out there and the existing responses and available treatment.
"I am a 59 year old great-grandfather, who on 20th August 2002 discovered that one of my granddaughters was appearing in court charged with theft. To my horror, on arriving at the Court, I was soon to find out that not only was she stealing, but she was doing it to fund her heroin addiction. My natural instinct was to help, but the only help that is wanted by an addict is the money to pay for the next fix and when you witness your own flesh and blood writhing on the floor in agony, the only option your emotions allows is to supply the cash. However, was not prepared to fund her habit and after some discussions we agreed together to find some help to start 'getting clean'."
The family are standing together and embarking on what ought to be a straightforward approach to coming off heroin. The letter continues:
"Our first port of call was Narcotics Anonymous who advised me not to provide her with any money with which to buy drugs. They directed us to the Community Drugs Service (CDS).
We then visited the CDS, who informed us that they could help if the addict is willing. My granddaughter categorically stated that she wants to be clean and we were then advised that the current waiting list to start a detox course is 6 months. We were further informed that the wait is due to current shortages in manpower and lack of funding. The local Harbour Centre is able to provide an instruction to GPs to prescribe the heroin alternatives, DFs and methadone. However, very few GPs are willing to do so because they don't want the addicts, with associated problems and disruptive behaviour, in their surgery. I was also told that 'Going cold turkey can and does kill addicts and is not to be entered into under any circumstances'. To my absolute amazement we were then given the only remaining option, which is apparently given to all addicts, 'Commit crime and get caught in order to fast track the system, as there is no treatment available in the short term'. Once within the legal system the Probation Officer can apply for a DTTO (Detoxification Testing and Treatment Order)."
The gentleman continues his letter by setting out the journey that they undertook together to get help, but as I stand here this morning, his granddaughter still has not received treatment.

9WH
I do not point the finger at the current Government any more than at past Governments. The problem has crept up on us in the past few years and has now become the biggest social problem that we have ever faced. We know that the cost of funding a heroin addiction can be as much as £100 to £200 a day. One remarkable man—Mark Williams, who works for Centrepoint—told me that many of the people he was trying to help were selling their bodies at night in Soho or committing burglary to raise money for their heroin addiction.
The problem is of huge importance and access to immediate treatment is the real solution, so the Government must redirect resources and move them upstream. Let us not debate whether I am calling for taxes to be increased—as it happens, I am not, but I would if it were the only solution to this massive problem. However, there are areas from which resources can be redirected: for example, in a sitting last week of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, we realised that there was an underspend of £350 million. That would do for starters.
There are other avenues of action. First, what about insurance companies? We all know that they are struggling at the moment, and they would make a massive saving if some of these problems were nipped in the bud. Why do we not tap them for some funding? We must move resources upstream to ensure that money is available. Secondly, the Government must call a summit with all the treatment centres, including the rehab and detox centres in the voluntary and private sectors, to ask them how best to expand their capacity to provide sufficient access to treatment.
Thirdly, more coherence in the Government response is vital, in particular by having one funding conduit. I cannot tell hon. Members whether in Plymouth primary funding comes from the local authority, from the health authority or directly from the Home Office—there is real confusion. Likewise, I did not know which Minister would respond to today's debate, but I am delighted that a Minister is here.
We need more coherent funding mechanisms. I understand that one reason why there is such a delay in getting access to treatment in London is because local authorities bounce what we could call customers off each other. For example, if someone with a family home in Croydon is caught up on the streets of Lambeth and wants to access treatment, a debate takes place between Croydon and Lambeth authorities about which of them is to pay for it. That can take months to resolve, which is no good when that young addict has made the brave decision to kick the habit. Perhaps providing a central funding agency in London should be the Government's response.
We place a statutory duty on local authorities to house homeless people, so perhaps we should place a statutory duty on them to ensure that addicts who want to kick the habit have access to treatment. Someone must take responsibility for the problem. Local authorities should not be providing treatment; in my view, they should do almost nothing but act as enabling authorities. However, in the right climate, some wonderful organisations in the voluntary and private sector could expand.

My final point is really for another debate. It is that a great deal more international action could be taken to crack down on drug barons. Most policemen in this
10WH
country will tell you that arresting a few drug dealers will not solve the problem. They say that access to treatment and education are the key weapons in this war. We see NATO out there looking for a role: perhaps declaring war on drug barons deserves higher priority.
The Government face no more important a task than to put in place a coherent and immediate system to tackle the problem of drug addition. The great advantage for any Government who made progress in that field is that, within a very short time, the crime figures would plummet—and the Government would get the glory.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. The matter that we are debating this morning is of immense importance, and a number of hon. Members want to speak. If they use considerable self-discipline, I might be able to call them all, but that means contributions of four minutes or less. I call the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).
10.10 am
Mr. Chris Bryant: With that injunction in mind, I shall try to be concise, swift and brief. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) not only for securing this debate, but for speaking with such eloquence on this and other occasions.
I am intrigued that a Minister from the Department of Health should be here today. I represent a Welsh constituency, and although the Minister will probably not be able to answer many of the issues that arise there because they are devolved matters, I intend to speak briefly about the scale and nature of the problem in Wales.
We have about 7,700 problematic heroin and crack cocaine users in south Wales. At least 270 young people died through the use of drugs in 2000, but we still do not have the figures for 2001. At least 28 young people in my constituency have died from drug abuse since I was elected 17 months ago. The market in heroin and crack cocaine in south Wales is worth about £130 million, so whatever resources the Government are able to throw at the problem, they will scarcely match the sums of money invested by dealers and pushers—especially those in the major markets in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol, who are trying to invest in the new market that has developed in the south Wales valleys in the past five to seven years.
In November and December 2001, the vast majority of new prisoners in south Wales jails tested positive for either heroin or crack cocaine, and many of them would still have tested positive when they left—indeed, some would have tested positive on leaving prison who did not test positive on entering. Between 1993 and 2000, south Wales witnessed a 50 per cent. increase in drugs deaths, yet during that time the United Kingdom average fell by 8 per cent. However, I have a word of caution about the figures for drug-related deaths, because the coroners service has a considerable way to go before we can rely on what is counted as a drug-related death. Some coroners will count a death as drugs related only if the needle is stuck in the arm when the

11WH
body is found, but others will be more liberal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, greater consistency is necessary, not only in the UK but throughout the European Union, if we are to gain a better understanding of the exact nature of the problem.
In the south Wales valleys—in the former mining constituencies—the problem is slightly different. We have close-knit communities where such deaths are not anonymous—everyone in the village knows the person who died and other members of the family. That is significant, not least because it means that everyone knows where drugs are available. Everyone in the community could say where heroin or crack cocaine can be obtained. That is different from what happens in the cities.
Few GPs in south Wales know enough about drug treatment, particularly for heroin abusers, to be confident of ensuring that their patients get the right treatment. The fact that about 40 per cent. of GPs will retire in the next few years will present us with another terrible problem, because many GPs have not been in close touch with the issue throughout their working lives. Ten years ago, only one of the police cells in the Rhondda would have had a note on the door saying that the occupant had a drug problem; now, every single cell door carries such a notice.
South Wales has specific problems and I hope that Ministers or the Welsh Assembly can solve them. There has been a significant increase in the number of my constituents who go to the local community drug and alcohol team and into treatment—indeed, the number is three times greater than in surrounding constituencies. However, the team was closed to new clients four months ago. The problem is not that there is a long waiting list for people in the Rhondda, but that those responsible for providing services have overspent and have been so successful at getting people into treatment that there is no waiting list. The challenge facing Bro Taf health authority and the Welsh Assembly is how to deal with that issue. There is an enormous lack of trust between public sector and voluntary sector agencies, and one does not need to study my constituency long to notice that.
The Prison Service does a good job of weaning people off their various drug dependency problems, but many still return to the community believing that their level of tolerance is the same as when they went into prison, when in fact it is lower. That results in many of the drugs-related deaths in our constituencies. I therefore hope that the Prison Service will build stronger long-term relations with the local health service so that people can receive ongoing treatment.
Some politicians in south Wales confuse the broader issue of treating heroin abusers—let us face it, they often abuse many other substances—and the specific issues of detoxification and rehabilitation. The main issue in my constituency is how to get people into treatment; when they go into detoxification and rehabilitation is a matter for another day.
At present, the major challenges relate to co-ordination between the Welsh Assembly and Westminster, and between the different agencies. It is shocking that Bro Taf health authority and the
12WH
Rhondda Cynon Taff local authority still have no full, coherent strategy on bringing all the agencies together to deliver decent services. In the past few weeks, the Welsh Assembly has committed money, which is most welcome, but we must ensure that that money is spent on the ground. Every agency to which I have spoken has made it clear that one of the biggest challenges in the next five years will be to ensure that we have enough trained people to employ in the relevant services. It is a question not only of announcing new money, but of ensuring that it is spent.
Finally, housing is an issue. For £8,000, commercial landlords in my constituency can buy a house in a terrible state of repair. They do not do it up, but they move in families—particularly ones with drug dependency problems—who they know will bring in housing benefit at the rate of £4,500 a year. The state is subsidising outrageous, immoral and unscrupulous behaviour on the part of commercial landlords, and the people who suffer most are the families of heroin abusers.
10.17 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on keeping this issue alive. It is important that we endlessly discuss the misuse of drugs and, in particular, heroin, which is one of the worst social problems facing Britain today.
The number of heroin users is increasing, prices are down considerably and, tragically, there are more deaths. I subscribe to the view that we need better statistics. Coroners' certificates are completely inadequate, and I understand that the Home Office will change them shortly. The number of deaths recorded for 2000 is 1,162. That figure was given in the Official Report, 29 October 2002. I think that that is a gross underestimate, and the figure is probably at least double that. Yesterday, I discovered that there have been almost 8,000 deaths across the European Union, so this is a tragic matter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on producing his report, which I have read two or three times. I agree with much of it, but I disagree with a point made on page one, which states:
"We believe that only a policy of zero tolerance of drugs and crime will overcome this blight".
We would all like to realise that ideal, but we are living in the real world, and I do not think that we will adopt zero-tolerance policies in this country. Certain countries, such as Sweden, have adopted zero tolerance, not only towards misuse of heroin and other illicit drugs, but towards alcohol. If one tries to buy decent alcohol in Sweden, one finds that what can be bought in bars and cafés is less than 1 per cent. proof and it is almost impossible to buy the hard stuff. Therefore, I believe that we would have to adopt the same approach towards alcohol and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw suggested, also towards tobacco.
It is difficult to estimate the number of addicts in Britain. According to Home Office statistics, the figure is somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000, but I suspect that the true figure is higher. Before the National Treatment Agency for substance misuse was set up in April 2001, something that I very much welcomed, only

13WH
between 6 and 7 per cent. of addicts were in treatment. That is a derisory figure, which has since increased and will continue to increase in future.
I could go on at length about the social consequences of drug misuse in my constituency, which, on all the social indicators, is deprived. In the red-light area alone, there have been three deaths in under nine months. Two young women, one of whom was pregnant and, a few days ago, a young man in my constituency, were murdered. The murders were probably all related to drugs in some way—the deaths of the two women certainly were. They were heroin addicts who were supporting their habit through street prostitution.
Because of the situation in Bolton, we have taken a hard attitude towards getting people into treatment. Political leadership is very important. Drug action teams vary throughout the country, but under Sandie Nesbitt, our very committed drug action team coordinator, we have one of the best DATs in the country. However, but for the fact that the chief executive of Bolton metropolitan council chairs the committee that drives the DAT forward in Bolton, it would not be so effective. If DATs are to operate effectively, they must be driven from the top, and chief executives can do that because they have the networks to be able to bring on board the health service, the probation service, the police and the voluntary agencies.
We have an estimated 2,500 drug addicts in Bolton, 84. per cent. of whom are heroin users. Almost half those known drug addicts—some 1,225—are currently in treatment in Bolton. There is an increasing demand for treatment, which I am also pleased about, but the effect is that the waiting list for treatment is getting longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, we need to aim towards a situation in which no one has to wait for treatment. There should be an open door to treatment, so that when addicts feel that they want to give up the habit, they can receive treatment immediately. Furthermore, if they relapse after initial treatment, as many addicts do, they should not have to wait to receive treatment again. In some areas, drug users have to be out of the system for six months before they can get back in. That is crazy. During that intervening gap, some addicts die because of a lack of tolerance. They start taking doses of heroin that they were formerly used to and overdose. That is a tragedy.
Unfortunately, an increasing number of under-19s in Bolton are using drugs. About 40 schoolchildren in Bolton under the age of 16 have come forward for treatment, as well as 104 16 to 19-year-olds. That also includes the figures for alcohol abuse.
One of the gaps across the country is in treatment for young people under the age of 19. Bolton is getting better at that. I want to tell people about Project 360 Degrees. It has that name because it looks all around—in a circle—and takes on board children who are desperately seeking help for substance misuse, and their parents. The project covers alcohol as well as illicit drugs and has been quite successful.
There is controversy about drugs education. It can be good, but much of it is bad. We need to train teachers. People who know what is happening on the ground have to be brought into schools. Reading passages from textbooks is not enough. When people provide drugs education they have to know about drugs, their misuse
14WH
and the harm that it creates. I do not object to bringing ex-users or even current users into schools to tell people the bad news; to tell them not only about injecting into eyeballs or other parts of the body when veins have run out, but about gangrene and the loss of legs.
Brighton and Hove has the worst drugs problem in Britain. I congratulate Professor Ghodse from St. George's hospital medical school, who controls the national programme on substance abuse deaths and publishes a document every six months. It is about not only drug deaths, but the worst places in Britain for drug misuse. Brighton and Hove has topped the list for several years. I urge the Minister to put more resources into places where drug use is prevalent.
There has to be a choice of treatment. If someone has been an addict for 20 years, he has to be given access to clinically pure heroin, which is diamorphine. People on that can be stabilised. The Government drugs policy debate will take place a week on Thursday on the Floor of the House. I hope that during that debate the Home Secretary will make announcements about heroin prescribing, because we need more of it.
Methadone has a role, but I am critical of how it has been used as a crime reduction drug rather than a harm minimisation drug. Other drugs should be considered. For three years, I fought with the Department of Health to get buprenorphine on board. Subutex is one of its trade names. It rather than methadone is the drug of choice in France and Australia. If it is given to fairly new heroin users, they can be helped out of addiction much better than through use of methadone. For many people, methadone is very addictive, and it has a narrow toxicity window.
A friend in Manchester is prepared to make L-methadone. Methadone has two molecules. One is toxic and the other has the desired effect. My friend wants to test L-methadone in clinics. I have put that to the Department, but it has not yet responded. I have also argued that LAAM—levo-alpha-acetylmethadol—which is used in America, should be available for some addicts in Britain. Another choice is abstinence and 12-step programmes, for when someone wants to come off heroin but not on to methadone and is willing to accept counselling instead. Why do we not have more abstinence programmes? The answer is not methadone, methadone, methadone. The choices suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw should be available to all addicts.
Things can only get better. They have to, and soon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to call the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), but I must ask him to keep his comments short. He is an expert on the subject, but if he speaks for only two or three minutes we shall not take up any of the time allocated for Front-Bench spokesmen.
10.29 am
Paul Flynn: Things have got better. I have attended debates on this subject since 1987. As recently as 1998, there was absolute unanimity among all the speakers from the three main parties when the 10-year strategy was introduced. Everyone agreed that that was the answer, and only one voice was raised in the Chamber that suggested that it was not. Today all hon.

15WH
Members are talking about the almighty failure of our drugs policies—and I appreciated especially the contribution made by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). Our drugs laws are not working.
I received a letter from the Gwent specialist substance misuse service that said that the average waiting list for that service is 11 months, and that the longest wait is 17 months. It is disgraceful that we have arrived at that position.
I disagree with the solutions proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), although he has done a marvellous job in bringing the subject to the attention of the House. Those solutions have already been tried—we tried zero tolerance in 1971. We once had a system that worked well, in which there were fewer than 1,000 heroin addicts, whereas the number of people addicted to heroin and cocaine in this country is now 320,000. Deprivation may be one of the factors, and those who live in poor areas are far more likely to die from their addictions, but for those who can get clean needles the figures are similar, regardless of whether they live in a deprived or a privileged area.
I have studied figures on the subject from all over Europe. Those who can get clean needles and heroin of known strength can go on for a long time. There is the famous example of the writer of "National Velvet", who took prodigious quantities of heroin all her life. She died a serene and peaceful death, in her bed, at the age of 91. The problems with heroin use stem from the situation in which people take it. Two years ago, 50 deaths were caused by one batch of contaminated heroin in Ireland and Scotland.
No one should leap to instant conclusions. Zero tolerance was the answer in America, but in this country our harshest prohibition policies mean that for every 100,000 people, we have a prison population of 130. That is one of the highest prison populations in Europe—it is higher than Turkey's. In the United States, the prison population in that ratio is 700, which is partly the result of zero tolerance. The increased use of heroin is driven by the greed for profit; people make a great deal out of it, and many of the dealers are addicts and are dealing to feed their own addiction.
10.32 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I understand that time is short, and I do not want to take up any of the time that the Minister and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman need. The subject is one that Back Benchers should have time to discuss, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for securing the debate. An hour and a half is not enough to discuss the matter, and I suspect that the time allocated on the Estimates day next Thursday will not be enough to deal with all the issues.
Rather than express a party position based on a paper that we have published, I want to take time to respond to the passion and content of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It is a pity that Hansard will not reflect the passion with which he spoke, as it affected many of us here. He referred to the lack of coherence between the various agencies involved. That problem
16WH
does not occur only in respect of drugs, and it represents another strong argument for not only joint working but bringing together health service commissioning with social services under the auspices of a democratically accountable local authority. That would do something to merge the alphabet soup of agencies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the huge cost of the problem. That will not be settled by requesting extra funding from the taxpayer. I do not think that that is necessary even though, sadly, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) could contemplate it. For every person treated, there would be immense savings to the criminal justice system, the health service and the victims of crime, as reflected in insurance premiums. On any judgment, any investment is self-funding and releases far more resources—and that is quite apart from the increase in human happiness and the reduction in human misery for users, families of users and the victims of crime associated with the problem.
Many hon. Members said that there are difficulties accessing treatment. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw raised several issues. For instance, there is the question of transport. Treatment needs to be local, which is why general practice will always have a role, because that is the local, accessible service. There are issues about the quality of that treatment, particularly in general practice, and about delays, not only in terms of access, reduction programmes or acute detoxification, but in getting on to residential rehabilitation. That has been shown, at least for adult users—the evidence is very good—to stop people from simply returning to the position from which they started, by mixing with their old friends and the dealers they know, and going to the places where they had the lifestyle of injection.
I had the privilege of spending a few hours at the surgery of a GP in my constituency who takes a special interest in the treatment of drug users. It was fascinating to see him at work. I have encouraged him to do an audit of his results. However, although he had an interest, he was never funded to do that work. He had to do it in time that he could have spent doing other work in his practice. It was difficult for him to organise the practice because of the problem of people not wanting to share waiting rooms with drug users, an issue raised by other hon. Members and certainly by patients in the practice.
There is a strong argument for additional remuneration of GPs to encourage the best to do such work, not simply those who are committed. There is an argument about the quality of service provided by some GPs offering methadone. I do not think that sanctions are required. More resources are required for training and support. In addition to a GP, a counsellor and testing arrangements are needed to ensure that the contract that is entered into is kept to.
There is the issue of prostitution by drug users. The current restrictive criminalising laws on prostitution make it difficult to provide the help and access to treatment services needed by those involved in prostitution, particularly young women.
Clearly, there is not enough capacity in treatment services. It is not just a question of funding: there are not huge numbers of trained people waiting to fall off trees.

17WH
We should have started to undertake the sort of measures that are needed some years ago. Funding has to be increased and we need proper data on outcomes.
The take-home message from the debate is that drug addiction should be seen as an issue for the Department of Health, not the Home Office. I am surprised that there was any doubt about whether a Health Minister would be answering the debate. The problem is that many people consider the issue in terms of crime. The idea that one has to commit a crime to get treatment is heinous. I am not sure that prison is necessarily the right way forward, and one is required to reach a threshold of criminality to access drug treatment and testing orders. The Government are bringing in drug abstinence orders and drug abstinence requirements, which are a lower tier. It might have been better to have done that earlier, alongside the drug treatment and testing orders. In my constituency, so desperate are magistrates to use drug treatment and testing orders that they are using them at a lower threshold, and they run out of money by at least mid-year.
We have to be careful about selective citing of the evidence base. There is now increasing evidence from overseas about the option of maintenance on heroin. We believe that the validity of clean injecting rooms—often called shooting galleries—should be explored. I hope that the Government will not rule that out completely, as I fear they might, because it is a way in which to reduce harm and ensure adequate access to treatment.
Professor Howard Parker will be able to speak for himself, and might write to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw now that his name has been raised. However, I am not sure that talking about the normalisation of sensible recreational drug use—whatever that is—is the same as showing people how to inject into their eyeballs.
We must not confuse—I do not think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw did—the decriminalisation of soft drugs with the suggestion that hard drug use is in any way sensible or could be considered recreational. It is a health problem and we need health solutions. Sometimes criminal justice solutions prevent people from accessing the most appropriate treatment.
10.40 am
Mr. John Baron: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on having initiated the debate and on having spoken with such passion. The effects of heroin use are devastating and it is extremely sad to hear about their terrible consequences in his constituency. Having read his inquiry report, I offer him my best wishes in his efforts to address the problem.
All hon. Members who have spoken today agree that the issue is serious and requires urgent attention. However, all discussions about the drug, this one included, are hampered by a dearth of reliable research and data. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that there are few statistics available for his constituency, but there is a wider issue: there are many gaps in our knowledge of the national problem. Professor Neil McKeganey and Dr. Gordon Hay of the centre for drug misuse research at Glasgow university have said that, nationally, we have no drug survey, no assessment for problem drug use, no reliable record of the numbers in treatment, no school survey, no estimate of drug-related crime and no data on hepatitis C prevalence.
18WH
Without reliable information and data, we cannot hope to administer the appropriate solutions. Will the Minister address the points raised by McKeganey and Hay, and tell us whether the Government intend to put right the situation with regard to the specific examples that they have given? If so, what are the expected timetables?
As a society, we must recognise the many harmful social effects of both heroin and drugs in general, of which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw spoke so passionately. They include marital breakdown, neglect and abuse of children, poverty and accidents, particularly road traffic accidents. In addition, the links between drugs and crime are widely accepted. It is estimated that the cost of hard-drug related crime is some £20 billion. The hon. Gentleman told us that some two thirds of crime in his constituency is drug related. The criminal justice system must clamp down on those who deal in drugs.
However, as has been said, simply addressing the issue as a crime problem is wrong. That is the fundamental flaw in our drugs strategy. There is a chronic and serious shortage of treatment services at every level and what services there are tend to be provided through the criminal justice system. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and others, too many users are not helped until they enter the criminal justice system. Society must realise that drug use should not be simply a law and order issue, but should be addressed as a health issue.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw agrees in his inquiry that we spend a fortune dealing with the costs of heroin-related crime—policing and imprisonment—yet we have no coherent treatment service. The Government appear to recognise that, albeit tentatively. However, there is inconsistency between localities in the scope, accessibility and effectiveness of treatments. There is also insecurity about levels of funding, as has been highlighted by nearly all who have spoken.
The Audit Commission report, "Changing Habits" points to the uneven availability of treatment services and the long delays that users face—something that many hon. Members have mentioned. The Home Affairs Committee's report on drugs also suggests the inadequacy of current treatment provision. There are simply too many organisations, methods of funding, bidding rounds and acronyms. That serves only to cause confusion, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has testified.
It appears that the Government realise that they are failing in the matters I have outlined. That is confirmed by the fact that according to paragraph 13.21 of the 10-year NHS plan the Government originally hoped to reduce the proportion of people under 25 who were using class A drugs by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008. That target has now been abandoned. What measures will the Government introduce to provide a seamless treatment service to get people off drugs? Such a service clearly does not exist at present.
There are too many organisations adopting too many approaches with too many different avenues of funding. That confusion needs to be dealt with by clearer communication, fewer organisations and a simpler funding stream. What are the Government going to do to put matters right, and what is the expected timetable?

19WH
The Conservative party has set out proposals to tackle the problem, and they have been put out for consultation. We have suggested that the number of drug treatment places should be expanded tenfold to be able to offer a treatment and rehabilitation place to every young heroin and cocaine addict. We believe that the current de facto policy of ignoring such users needs to be replaced, and we have suggested that each young heroin or cocaine addict should be given the choice of undergoing treatment or facing criminal proceedings. Some welcome comments have been made about that proposal. The best way of instigating the programme would be through the community and voluntary groups that are active in the relevant context. I pay tribute to the sterling work of those groups, without which things would be so much worse.
However, while a more rounded approach to the problem—one that includes the health and treatment issue—is important, society can also help addicts by ensuring that the law stands firm against drug dealers and pushers. The inquiry into heroin in Bassetlaw heard from heroin users who demanded longer prison sentences to help them break their habit. Many people wrote demanding stronger action by the courts, particularly for dealers.
However, the Government are causing confusion about the law. The Home Secretary announced his decision to declassify cannabis from a class B drug to a class C drug in July. He also announced his decision to increase the maximum sentence for cannabis dealers from 10 to 14 years imprisonment—the same as for class B drugs. That incoherence in policy sends out mixed messages. That needs to be put right, starting in schools, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) explained.
Police officers certainly do not understand the policy and nor do young people. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) believes that the reclassification of cannabis and the Brixton experiment have effectively handed drug policy and communities over to drug dealers in many areas of her constituency.
I focus on cannabis not only because it shows the incoherence of the Government's message about drugs, but because, according to the inquiry report, the issue was raised time and again by virtually every heroin user interviewed. Each heroin addict had used cannabis at an earlier stage. Heroin just seemed a natural progression. Many addicts informed the inquiry that they felt that they could control heroin use because they could control cannabis use. Those same addicts stressed the fact that the dangers of cannabis needed to be strongly restated.
How and when will the Government end the confusion? When will they send out the message that taking drugs is wrong, that it can destroy lives and that it harms society? The sooner the Government can end the confusion, the sooner lives will no longer be needlessly lost. I hope that the Minister will take the necessary steps today. Such a policy would help to free resources that could be better spent in providing treatment for heroin addicts—indeed, for all drug addicts.
We must significantly reduce heroin addiction in this country. The Government must identify the extent of the problem in order to be able to deal with it. They must
20WH
provide a clear, coherent and seamless treatment service that is properly funded, end the mixed signals, which are causing confusion, and state loudly and clearly that drugs cause misery, cost lives and harm society. I ask the Minister to address those points.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on raising this important topic and on the dynamic and passionate way in which he has presented the subject.
All our constituencies are touched by the serious problems of hard drug addiction. I am the Member for Tottenham in north London, and in the past few weeks I have been working with the police on the serious problem of heroin trafficking in this country, much of which emanates from my constituency. We all see the serious problems that affect families, young children and others in our constituencies. For me, crack cocaine in London is the problem. I am the youngest Minister in the Government, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) will understand that hard drug addiction, and particularly the problems of crack cocaine and heroin, profoundly affect my generation. The Government are seeking to deal with that problem, which we take very seriously.
According to recent research by York university, the annual economic and social costs of drug misuse to our society are between £10.9 billion and £11.8 billion. Problematic drug users, whom the study isolates, account for 99 per cent. of those costs, which is why getting the issue right matters so much. Examination of the evidence base shows us that treatment works. It reduces drug use and its associated personal and social harms and it reduces drug-related crime. The findings from the national treatment outcome research study show that every £1 spent on treatment saves £3 of expenditure within the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was right to raise the associated cost of treatment and its links with the criminal justice system.
Improving treatment for drug misusers was a major element of the 10-year national drug strategy, which was launched in 1998. The strategy was comprehensive and aimed to combat drug misuse in deprived and high-crime areas. At the same time, we set up the National Treatment Agency to drive forward improvements in the quality, availability, accessibility and effectiveness of drug treatment in England.
Much of what has been said this morning relates to greater and faster provision of drug treatment services. The Government accept that, and we are doing as much as we can to deal with the problem. However, we recognise the tremendous challenge ahead of us. Very rapid expansion of drug treatment services, particularly in those areas with the worst substance misuse problems, is required to achieve the targets that we have set. The background of historic underfunding and limited capacity in that area must be borne in mind when we debate the matter.

We must also bear in mind how far we are into the 10-year journey: we are four years into it and one year into a comprehensive system set up by the National Treatment Agency.

21WH
We have made significant new funding available to address work force and quality issues in order to deliver successfully on our goals. Four years into the national drugs strategy, we have already made significant progress. Based on current performance, there is no doubt that we are delivering and are on course to reach the treatment target. I stand here today as a Minister in the Department of Health because the subject of the debate is drug treatment, and it is right that a Health Minister should respond. However, we co-ordinate closely with colleagues in the Home Office, and I will ensure that the debate is brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is responsible for drugs policy across Government.
Last night in the Library I read the comprehensive report of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. It has also been read by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who is the Minister responsible for public health. She has written to my hon. Friend and will be responding in detail shortly. We believe that increasing funding for the treatment of drug users is essential to combat drug use, to reduce crime and to make our communities safer. We have ensured that substantial extra funds have been made available for that through the drug treatment pooled budget. That budget now stands at £195.7 million, which allowed each health authority in England to receive an increase of at least 30 per cent. in April, compared to last year's allocation. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the drug action team in north Nottinghamshire received a 42 per cent. increase in its budget during 2002–03. That has led to a figure for Nottinghamshire of £1.8 million, enabling the development of treatment services in Bassetlaw and the surrounding areas.
Mr. Bryant: As the Minister knows, Bassetlaw and Rhondda are both former mining constituencies. Will he commit the Department to considering the similarities between former mining constituencies—perhaps alongside his Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament colleagues—to see whether there are specific needs that must be met?
Mr. Lammy: In my view, the use and misuse of hard drugs such as heroin is a complex issue. Many hon.
22WH
Members could make a particular case for the way in which drugs affect their constituencies. My background in Tottenham and Peterborough demonstrates the complexity of the problem. In Tottenham, we are tackling the challenge of drugs in the context of serious inner city deprivation. I visit friends in Peterborough, who talk about the challenges of dealing with heroin addiction in Grantham, and the problems faced in such cities. It is a complex situation, and it is right that we consider the whole picture.
John Mann: The Minister mentioned the increase in budget. How many drug addicts in my constituency are receiving treatment, and how many have been successfully treated?
Mr. Lammy: In his contribution, my hon. Friend raised the issue of successful treatment, and the different measurements of success. Success means different things to people with different types of heroin addiction. It very much depends on the starting point. Success for someone with a 20-year problem will clearly be different from success for someone who has a short history of heroin use and has been able to come off the drug quickly. The number of people in treatment will depend on the starting and end points of the year, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the specific problem.
Mr. Baron rose—
Mr. Lammy: I shall not be able to make progress if I give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred to the drug action team, how it is made up and the contribution made by various agencies. That ensures a co-ordinated lead for the local drug strategy. It is important that it includes the police, the probation service, the health service through the PCTs and social service teams. He also referred to harm minimisation. It is vital to reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. Harm reduction is not an add-on—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that we have run out of time. We thank the Minister for that part of his reply that he was able to give within the time limit. We now move to the next debate.

A-Levels
11 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on A-levels, a subject that, I suspect, has been nearer to our hearts for longer than most things.
When the Government came to office, they inherited an A-level system that was internationally recognised as the gold standard of school leaving and university entrance examinations. The Government inherited proposals for curriculum 2000 to broaden the A-level without losing quality. By mid-September, five and a half years later, we were in the middle of a full-blown A-level crisis; not, as so often in the past, involving allegations of grade inflation, but arbitrary grade boundary rigging to make the achievement of higher grades more difficult.
In this debate I want to unravel the causes of the crisis, to establish whether Ministers are learning lessons, to examine the activities of two specific ministerial aides in making matters worse, to examine whether Ministers made matters worse, to see whether lessons are more broadly applicable throughout the Department and Government and to discover the best way of re-establishing confidence in the A-level as the gold standard.
Curriculum 2000 was proposed by Lord Dearing in 1996 after widespread consultation. Its purpose was to broaden the A-level without losing quality. It was a means of ensuring that more students entered examinations in subjects that were not at the core of their normal activities. The former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) said:
"The previous Conservative Government might have introduced their proposals in 1997, but we delayed until 1999. We then consulted further. After that further consultation, we postponed the implementation of A and AS-level exams for a further year, to 2000. By that time, four years had passed since the publication of Ron Dearing's report on the wider curriculum for 16 to 18-year-olds."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 212.]
The first courses were taught in the year 2000 and the first AS-level examinations were taken in 2001. There were, of course, well-chronicled problems with the effect of AS-levels on schooling and the lower sixth form experience, but that is another story. By this summer, when the first new A-level results were announced, the pass rate had risen from 89.8 per cent. to 94.3 per cent. and the rate of A grades achieved had risen from 18.6 per cent. to 20.7 per cent. The Head Masters' Conference identified five factors that made that likely: the new curriculum's modular structure with several assessment opportunities; the availability of resits; more detailed and specific syllabuses, specifications and assessment objectives; harder work by sixth formers during the course; and the element of self-selection from AS to A2.
In a press release dated 15 August 2002, the Minister congratulated students and their teachers on their achievements in those examinations, but by 1 September there were reports of concern about downgrading; that is, raising the mark required to achieve a particular
24WH
grade. Some of the concerns were expressed by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
I was in Birmingham with the Select Committee on Education and Skills as the story broke, and I confess that my immediate reaction was that the Select Committee ought to hold an inquiry on the subject. Wiser and—dare I say it—older heads, in the shape of that of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, declined to make a mountain out of a molehill. However, as we know, the then Secretary of State did not have one of those older nor, regrettably, wiser heads. Her reaction was to set up not one but two inquiries.
First, she asked Ken Boston, the new chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, to undertake an inquiry. The following day, she asked Mike Tomlinson, Her Majesty's former chief inspector of schools, to do so. I do not wish to badmouth the former Secretary of State, because she is an honourable and decent woman, but I believe that her reaction was one of panic. Mike Tomlinson's interim report published on 27 September said that
"the evidence strongly suggests that the actions taken with regard to the marks to be associated with the key grade boundaries (A/B and E/U) did vary across the three boards. In particular, it seems the balance between judgment based on the standard of marked work and the use of statistical information changed, and for more subjects in one Board (OCR) than in the other two."
The fact is that different boards took different approaches to setting grade boundaries. It appears that, in OCR, those involved pull scripts out at grade boundaries and examine them. They agree the grade boundaries and then apply statistical analysis to determine whether the results match expectations. According to the uncorrected transcript of the evidence to the Select Committee, Dr. McLone, the chief executive of OCR, stated:
"We have a set of procedures laid down…we have looked very closely at what the examiners have said — We then apply statistical evidence, GCSE performance, we look at performance from year to year, of course, to see whether or not we are agreeing. This year, some subjects, they would obviously work something out to get to the right place, and other subjects have not."
Later, he stated:
"The key thing is where you select scripts; and I think that this is what we really need to be looking at, in the future … The way you select scripts and where you select them depends very much on how much information you put into the system to start with … I have to say that you could do it, and we could have done it, by looking first of all at statistical evidence".
On that occasion, they first selected the scripts.
AQA and Edexcel, the other examination boards, approached the matter the other way around. They looked first at the statistical evidence and then at the marks and chief examiner's recommendations. The result is that one procedure is more transparent than the other; I do not believe that that has been picked up clearly enough. The OCR procedure is more transparent, and enables examiners to object to the results more easily than they might were the statistics examined before the results were put before examiners. The examiners are told where to look for boundaries whereas, under the OCR system, the examiners select and identify the boundaries and then apply the statistics. Therefore, if an examiner disagrees with the statistics, he

25WH
is more likely to object, which is probably why OCR was identified as the board for which things might be going wrong.
Tomlinson recommended that students' marked work in some A2 units be regraded and their overall GCE A-level grade adjusted if necessary. He also recommended that the QCA be asked to provide additional guidance on the standards associated with AS and A2 units, both generically and in some subjects.
That brings us to the second grading problem, which was that the relative values of the AS and A2 papers were unclear. To illustrate that point, the then Secretary of State, in response to a question that I asked on 15 October—on whether an AS-level is half an A-level or not—said:
"There are six modules in an A-level: three at AS-level and three at A2. AS-levels count for half an A-level — Due to the linear nature of some subjects, it was deemed that the first year six, usually the AS-levels, would be marginally easier than the old A-level standard. To maintain that standard, therefore, the second year had to be marginally more difficult than the A-level standard. That is where the difficulty lies. What is clear is that the overall standard of AS and A2"—
together, I presume—
"is the same as previous A-level standards."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 217.]
That is indeed where the difficulty lies, and the right hon. Lady could have said that again. Dr. Boston told the Select Committee—I am quoting from an uncorrected transcript of evidence—the following:
"The issue is, we are dealing with A levels as they have been for 50 years; the change is, we are arriving at it now from two papers, one of them is a hard paper, one of them is an easy paper, relatively."
The regrading was announced on 14 October. Grade boundaries were revised in 18 units. A total of 9,800 candidates had unit grades changed, and 1,845 individual students received a changed grade. On 15 November 2002, in the debate on the Address, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is not here, raised various questions that arose from discussions with Mr. Roger Porkess, an official of the OCR board. I shall not go into the details today, but, in short, the hon. Gentleman blamed the Tomlinson inquiry's terms of reference for the problems arising, suggesting that those terms were too narrow. His words were:
"The inquiry's terms of reference had more to do with saving the face of Ministers than with getting to the truth."—[Official Report, 15 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 300.]
I do not, in all honesty, see any evidence for that view. The terms of reference were much broader than simply to examine areas where the grade boundaries had shifted substantially, and Mr. Tomlinson himself decided which grade boundaries to examine in detail.
Some points arise from the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which Ministers have still to consider. First, why did Mr. Tomlinson take no evidence from the chief examiners? Secondly, was the OCR board right to profess pleasure at the fact that only 18 of its examinations had changed, or was it benefiting from a rather narrower inquiry than Ministers had perhaps
26WH
expected? Finally, and most importantly, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said very clearly to the Secretary of State that
"the Secretary of State must ensure"—
I believe that the QCA should do so as well—
"that no scripts are destroyed until all the lessons have been learned from this year's debacle."—[Official Report, 15 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 300.]
Regrettably, it was not only Ministers who showed an element of panic and made things worse. The evidence given by the former chief executive of the QCA, Sir William Stubbs, to the Select Committee, drew attention to what I consider the wholly improper behaviour of a special adviser and a chief press officer—I have occupied one such office—in the Department. He said—again, this is an uncorrected transcript—the following:
"On 19 September I had complained directly to the Secretary of State about the continuing damaging references that were being made by her staff about QCA to the press, and asked her to take action to stop them … during the period from the setting up of the Tomlinson inquiry … officials … were directly briefing the press that QCA was 'dead in the water' and that by the end of that week I would be gone as Chairman."
Later on, he says that he believes that that was said at
"a briefing given to the press by Chris Boffey, the political media adviser"—
I think he was a special adviser—
"and the civil servant who is head of news, D. J. Collins, must surely have taken a lead in this. Those were the ones I asked the Secretary of State the week before when there was malign briefing taking place, particularly during an independent inquiry, would she act to stop it. If she did act, they did not stop."
He goes on to say:
"I knew Collins would give stories to reporters and then imply, 'If you do not report them in a way that is friendly you will get cut off and get no more stories.' I have been told that by reporters."
He continues that
"having had it reported to me direct what was happening, it appeared in the press not once or twice I think but five times, so I do not think there is much doubt there … either these people were acting as free agents, in which case they are loose cannons in the departments and this is a big department of state, or they were acting under instructions. Either way that was a flawed system and it should not happen."
I consider his words to be moderate. If officials are bullying and briefing the press in such a way that they are not free to report and print what they wish to, it is far more than a flawed system; it is a disgrace. The Department was rapid—more rapid than I have known it to be for some time—in responding to the Committee. It denied the allegations in an unpublished memorandum. I find it hard to see why a man of such high repute as Sir William Stubbs should make such allegations if they were unsubstantiated.
Everyone, including the former Secretary of State, accepts that curriculum 2000 was introduced too rapidly. As Mike Tomlinson said, it was an accident waiting to happen. That conclusion is of wider application. Grade boundary setting could be attributed to a lack of guidance from QCA. Regrettably, the 50:50 or 60:40 split that is the relative value of AS-levels and A2-levels appears to be a fudge that has not yet been acknowledged or resolved. If there is any explanation for Dr. McLone's behaviour, it is that he was intellectually too honest to be able to cope with the

27WH
fudge with which he was landed by the claimed 50:50 split in the relative value of the papers. The destruction of papers immediately after A-levels should be prevented at all costs.
Ministers fuelled the crisis and their officials fuelled it disgracefully. The examination was introduced in a rush, and the way ahead is far from clear. We must re-establish confidence in the A-level as the internationally recognised gold standard in school leaving examinations. If we start to talk again about a new system, as the present Secretary of State did this weekend, the A-level will never regain the confidence that it enjoyed for 50 years.
11.18 am
Dr. John Pugh: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is unable to be here to respond to the comments that were made about his contributions to the debate.
I approach the subject with a certain amount of background knowledge and experience. I taught A-levels for about 25 years, examined A-levels in three different subjects, designed A-level questions and dealt with A-level appeals. I recognise that some of the things that the Government are endeavouring to do are highly commendable, and that their education policy is to raise standards. They also want to maintain the integrity of a qualification that has international recognition, which I support.
The Government are also trying to encourage breadth in post-16 qualifications. A good aspect of AS-levels—a desirable one in the view of many education institutions—is that they prevent pupils at the age of 16 from considering themselves as scientists or non-scientists, as linguists or non-linguists, or as interested in, or not interested in, the arts. The narrowness of the English post-16 curriculum has been a deficiency for many years. Although A-levels have maintained a consistent standard, they have been associated with a certain narrowness.
AS-levels found a place because of the necessity to bridge the gap that emerged after the introduction of GCSEs. It was quite evident to those in schools that pupils who had done well in a subject at GCSE were not always competent to proceed to A-level straight away; they needed some form of interim assessment to gauge how well they might do at A-level. In the case of languages, pupils would often get a very good GCSE grade, only to flounder badly at A-level. The AS-level plugged that gap.
I also applaud any attempt by the Government to encourage a parity of esteem between A-level qualification and some of the higher technical and vocational qualifications. It is manifest that this country has a severe skills gap, and anything done to address that is all well and good.
Most Members in the Chamber would therefore support the Government's intentions, but their effect this year has been somewhat dire, particularly for the many students who have had to recalculate their careers and rethink the university courses that they wish to do. They have been surprised and sometimes depressed by
28WH
their results. The esteem of the system has taken a knock. I recall the Leader of the Opposition saying in the House of Commons—rather unwisely—that many A-level qualifications are no longer thought to be worth the paper that they are written on. That comment was deeply insulting to the people who received those qualifications, but it reflects—in a kind of saloon bar manner—the damage done to the system. The Government would say that that was an entirely unintended consequence, but one can plead that only when an unintended consequence is not foreseeable. The consequence was entirely foreseeable; it was an accident waiting to happen.
The introduction of AS-levels took place against a background of pupils being over-examined, and of schools being more crudely exam-driven, because of the need to figure prominently in local area league tables to attract increasing numbers of pupils. It also took place against a background of exam boards behaving—I am not being unfair—in a more entrepreneurial manner, whereby exams are hawked to any establishment that will take them. That is not a desirable tendency.
There is also a shortage of good examiners. Some desirable improvements have made the examination system more transparent, but they have also made examiners more reluctant to take up their task. I am referring to the system whereby pupils can retain and examine their papers, and return to the examining board with their views on how they have been marked. That is not a bad thing in itself because it leads to greater transparency, but a necessary consequence is that every examiner needs not only to put a justified mark on a paper, but to explain in considerable detail why the mark is justified. That makes additional work, which is fine if it is for additional pay. However, many quality examiners have found that such work is not compensated for, so they have decided to give up, rather than work against a background of the permanent prospect of litigation.
The Government should have been perfectly aware of that background because education institutions, teachers, parents and pupils were. The Government are therefore doubly responsible if they act rashly against a background that they themselves have ensured is rather tricky. Just like the examinee who walks into an exam without having prepared properly, they can be blamed to some extent for the outcome. Moreover, before introducing AS-levels they did not run an adequate pilot. That is a key factor, and one to which many Members will wish to draw attention. The philosophy and principles were there, but the difficulties involved in bedding down the system within a working school were not at all apparent to the Government.
In the Government's defence, it should be said that modular exams were nothing new. They had been running for many years before AS-levels were introduced, but there are differences between the AS-level in its fully-fledged form and previous modular exams. In subjects such as chemistry, it was perfectly possible to believe that a pupil could perform as well at 17 as at 18. That idea was manifest in most results for, and in most evaluations of modular exams in, such subjects. In many arts subjects—I am talking from my own experience—there is an appreciable improvement in a pupil's maturity, ability and grasp between 17 and 18. That means that considering the type of modular

29WH
exams used to test science subjects is not a good way to establish how modular exams of the AS-level and A2-level type will run.
In considering specifically what went wrong with AS-levels this year, it is clear that there appears to have been some perverse statistical moderation. I do not want to enter into the details of that. As the Minister will undoubtedly tell us, statistical moderation is nothing new. It has become more sophisticated over the years. At one stage, it might have been a matter merely of setting a crude percentage rate; these days, it is something rather more considerable.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with statistical moderation. One needs to guard oneself against the vagaries of exams. With the best will, and preparation, in the world, exams can still vary from year to year. They can be unduly harsh one year and more lenient the next, but the qualification should be of the same standard. Statistical moderation is also necessary to guard against the vagaries of examiners, who work within very tightly defined schedules, but who can still veer on the side of being stricter than, or more lenient than, their counterparts. There is no reason why pupils whose papers are sent to strict examiners should do worse than pupils whose papers are sent to lenient ones.
Statistical moderation is a well-understood science that is carried out by comparing across examiners, and across exams and years. Interestingly, some of that data would have been missing this year. There were no previous years to consider, so the probability of something going wrong was greater. There was nothing on which to look back, and it appears that panic set in on some boards and among some statisticians. The normal procedure of adjustment led to results that would have looked implausibly good. The examination boards clearly felt that those results could not be presented to the QCA, and that they needed some modification.
The QCA is not considered to be the simple guardian of standards. Within the educational establishment, it is widely regarded as a body with its own agenda. Despite its safeguarding watchdog role, it was initially quite happy with the results. I understand that the whistle was blown by pupils and schools who found the results downright implausible.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the QCA's agenda. Will he tell us what that agenda is?
Dr. Pugh: I do not want to go into too much personal and anecdotal detail, but I have spoken to chief examiners and people who have had visits from the boards' statisticians, and I have seen examination prototypes go back and forth to the QCA. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that—apart from the issue of preserving standards—the QCA has fixed views about what it wants, and can be quite prescriptive in terms of modes and types of examination, and so forth. If the hon. Gentleman has time later, I dare say that I can fill out my comments further.
All of us will agree that lessons have been learned. The Tomlinson review has taken place, and schools have drawn their own conclusions to some extent. Some schools are leading a minor stampede towards the
30WH
baccalaureate because they feel that the situation cannot be redeemed. I would like to believe that the Government have learned a big lesson: that they must learn a little better, listen a little more and anticipate a little better. However, for as long as schools are evaluated by crude league tables, examiners are overworked and underpaid, exam boards behave like ticket touts when selling their examinations to schools, and the QCA behaves like God, my guess is that such episodes will not be isolated. Although we may not have quite the same debate next year or the year after, and although the difficulties may not be quite the same, the problems associated with A-levels and AS-levels will not go away.
11.30 am
Mr. Graham Brady: As a fellow north-west Member of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be familiar with the overriding characteristic of Southport, which is that the beach goes on and on before you reach the sea. When the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) stood up with 70 minutes of the debate stretching out before him, I was afraid that he might be tempted to be a true physical embodiment of his constituency, so we are grateful to him for being so sparing in his comments. I shall try to follow suit, although the Minister may not be entirely grateful. However, I am sure that he has copious notes.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for raising this important subject. As he made clear, he has been pursuing the matter rigorously and doggedly in the Select Committee, which has been doing a good job in trying to find out the details of exactly what happened in this year's A-level fiasco. My hon. Friend went to some lengths to describe the picture, but his opening comments must stay in the minds of all Members. He said that the A-level inherited by the Government was the internationally renowned gold standard but that, within five years, it had moved to a state of full-blown crisis. We have become used over the years to allegations of grade inflation, but this year the more serious allegations—some of which have been proved—were that grades had been deliberately adjusted and rigged to conceal the process of grade inflation.
The introduction of the AS-level was mishandled. There were, of course, good reasons for looking at ways to expand the breadth of the sixth form curriculum, such as trying to avoid too much specialisation too early. Indeed, Governments of both parties sought to achieve that. However, since the introduction of curriculum 2000 it has become clear not only that it was badly introduced but that, in the round, it has caused more harm than good. That is because it has limited the opportunity for sixth formers to engage in extracurricular activities in the arts, music and drama. That absurd situation was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) in this Chamber a few months ago when we last debated the AS-level. He told us that his daughter had been forced to withdraw from the school play because the demands of her drama AS-level course were so great. Most sixth forms have experienced that narrowing of their students' overall experience, even if the curriculum has marginally widened.

31WH
The hon. Member for Southport alluded to the fact that that absurdity has led to students who are already heavily examined being grossly over-examined. The constant repetition of public examinations at the ages of 16, 17 and 18 does not simply put extra pressure on sixth-form students; some are able to cope well with the pressure, others less so. It also has the negative effect of squeezing teaching time out of the sixth form. In a classic two-year course to A-level, comprising six terms, one term is effectively lost to examinations. Instead of having five terms to teach up to A-level, schools now find effectively that they have only four terms. They lose a term to the AS exams and a term to A2.
The perverse effect is that students come out at the other end of the process having been taught less. Crucially, they also miss out on what has always been held to be one of the most important parts of teaching people to A-level, by which I mean the little time that it takes to make the bridge from GCSEs to A-level, where the skills required are different, more complex and harder to gain.
A huge additional burden has been added to the marking system, which has been overloaded. The difficulties of finding people to mark the exams and of ensuring that the system retains its integrity have been immense. Against that backdrop, the Opposition have called for the AS-level to be withdrawn. That leads to some continuing problems that the Government need to face about the proper allocation of marks between the two papers; where the boundary should be drawn, and whether AS papers should be graded as a smaller percentage of the marks in recognition of the fact that AS is easier than the A2 stage of the A-level process. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight spoke on that subject. It is clear that the approach taken of pretending that AS is worth 50 per cent. of an A-level has been an instrumental factor in grade inflation. That led to the problems that we have been left to tackle.
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the QCA as having its own agenda, and said that it behaved like God. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will have time to take him up on his kind offer of letting him hear more of his views later. If so, I would be interested to know what information has been imparted.
Mr. Turner: I had rather hoped that the hon. Member for Southport would use the many minutes available to put his views on the record, so that we could examine them in depth later and so that everyone could share hem.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right; we all hoped that the hon. Member for Southport would take advantage of that opportunity. During my brief remarks, there will be an opportunity for him to speak if he wants to intervene, and I am sure that the Minister will extend him the same courtesy. We wait with bated breath until such moment may come.
One of the main responses to this year's A-level crisis has been the suggestions—they have come from Her Majesty's Opposition, but have been echoed by bodies throughout education, such as head teachers'
32WH
organisations and many interested observers—that the only way in which we can tackle the problem and have confidence in the performance of the QCA is if it is clearly and emphatically removed from ministerial control. The QCA needs to be genuinely independent. We have said that its independence should be much like that of the Bank of England, with a remit set by Parliament that it then has to fulfil without even the possibility of ministerial interference or intervention, such as that which cast a shadow over the A-level marking process this year.
Almost everyone agrees that the system would be greatly improved if the QCA were given that independence. Does the Minister and the Department for Education and Skills agree with that? Or is the QCA the only body standing in the way of what most people feel would be a step towards transparency and independence, which would help to restore the integrity of the A-level system and restore confidence in our whole examination system? I think the Minister agrees, so I hope that, when he responds to the debate, he will announce that there was an unfortunate oversight in the Gracious Address, and that the Government had intended to introduce a Bill this Session to give the QCA that much-needed independence. I suspect that such a welcome surprise awaits us. That would be an important step towards addressing concerns about the status of the A-level system and the difficulties that we have had this year regarding the different treatment of grade boundaries.
Initial reviews have taken place and have taken us a little way forward, but there remains considerable concern and uncertainty about the marking of A-levels this year. It has been suggested that another 20,000 scripts may need to be remarked or regraded. There is evidence that some examination boards—even those that have not seen fit to regrade this year's examination papers—are responding by changing their grade boundaries for next year, which implies that they accept that there is a problem. For example, the OCR is adjusting the grade boundaries for psychology for next year's exams, although this year's psychology papers were not adjusted. Many schools remain concerned about unexpectedly low grades, especially for coursework. One school was shocked to find that 14 out of 20 entrants were given a U grade for their coursework; those 14 candidates had been expected to perform well and the school could see no reason why the results were so poor.
Following the inquiry and the agreement that papers might be returned to schools, one would have thought that there would be a degree of openness and that all those concerns could be swept away. In fact, the process is causing more worry in some instances. I shall refer briefly from a letter sent from one school to Dr. McLone at the OCR. I shall not mention the school's name because I do not have its permission to raise the matter publicly. The letter stated that the second batch of A-level psychology scripts were returned to the school without the cover sheets, so it had no details of the marks awarded. Furthermore, the school was informed that the scripts bore no annotations; neither was there an accompanying report, unlike the returned scripts for other OCR subjects. All of that made it very difficult to understand why the school's candidates did so badly on the coursework element. In fact, the school was hardly any the wiser now than it was on results day.

33WH
Many schools and examination candidates remain concerned that they may not have been treated fairly. The fact that detailed information is not being provided and that papers and marks are being withheld is a cause for serious concern.
What is certain is that tens, even hundreds, of thousands of A-level students were left in torment during the summer, not knowing what their grades were worth. University admissions officers were thrown into disarray, not knowing how many students they might have to accept this or next year. It is certain that parents, employers and pupils are worried about the validity of the whole A-level exam, and that many will go on to take their exams next year not confident that the mess has been sorted out. Against that background, Ministers are saying that a form of baccalaureate might be the answer might be the answer and that we should perhaps scrap the A-level and give it up as a bad job.
There is a pressing need for action now to restore confidence in our A-level system. Ministers may be contemplating moving to a different examination system, but that will take some years. The many students who enter their A-level years before such a change takes place deserve to know that their exams will be fair and to be assured of the integrity of the examination and marking systems. I strongly endorse the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight that speculation about the introduction of a different system is damaging the reputation of the A-level at a time when we must do everything in our power to restore confidence in it and to restore the system's integrity.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): In the short time remaining, I shall endeavour to respond to the points raised in the debate. I join the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue, which is important for our education system, before next week's publication of the second Tomlinson report. I thank everyone who has participated in the debate and I shall do my best to respond to their points.
The main priority throughout the recent difficult events was the students who studied for and sat exams in the summer, and those who will study for and sit exams next summer and in future years. In no way do I underestimate how difficult that time was, and thousands of students up and down the country faced uncertainty. That is why it was so important that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), responded quickly when allegations first appeared. She responded to the concerns of head teacher associations by inviting Mike Tomlinson to conduct his two inquiries. His first report was published some time ago, and the second is due to be published next week.
Let me make it clear that one wrong result for a student is one wrong result too many, and there must be no complacency about that. It is important that we not only acknowledge and discuss this year's difficulties but that we keep a sense of perspective. I do not concur with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West when
34WH
he says that the introduction of the new system has done more harm than good. The number of students whose grades were changed was relatively small. That is not to underestimate the impact on them or to say that such things are acceptable. However, I cannot accept the use of terms such as "crisis" to describe the situation that we faced earlier this year. Nevertheless, we need to learn from what happened, and, in that respect, we have had a good debate. The three Opposition Members who have spoken have contributed to the important process of considering how we can learn from what went wrong this year.
Dr. Pugh: It is statistically certain that the number of appeals this year has been relatively small, but that is not the issue. We are concerned not about the number of appeals, but about their nature and the grounds for them.
Mr. Twigg: Absolutely, and I am coming to that. That is a fair point.
At the instigation of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), we debated similar issues in Westminster Hall before the summer recess and before the A-level results had come out. We focused in part on the nature of the curriculum 2000 reforms and on how they would progress, and we heard demands to abolish the AS-level. Those demands have been repeated today, but they are a panic reaction to what happened over the summer. Like all hon. Members, I visit schools and colleges week in, week out to see how things are going, and I do not believe that they would welcome such a reaction. Indeed, I understand that head teacher associations, in their recent evidence to the Select Committee, strongly argued against us reacting in that way.
Mr. Brady: Does the Minister believe that it is right and helpful for pupils to be examined three times in major public examinations, at 16, 17 and 18?
Mr. Twigg: Examination and testing form an important part of our secondary and primary education service. However, I accept that there is a case for considering the pattern of examinations, the balance between internal and external examination and testing, the mix between assessment and testing and the timing of testing.
Mr. Brady: Does the Minister think that there is a case for abolition?
Mr. Twigg: I would not argue that any examination necessarily needed to be abolished. We need to consider the mix of testing, examination and assessment available in each examination conducted throughout secondary education, from key stage 3 through GCSEs to A-levels.
I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and others that we should reaffirm the principle that the A-level is a gold standard. After this summer's difficulties, our first response must be to reaffirm that point. With a new system in place, we need a period of stability. The broader debate about the 14 to 19 curriculum and the qualifications available in that age range involves a wide range of organisations, including many young people. We shall publish our proposals in the new year, as we develop the Green Paper.

35WH
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the longstanding debate about how to achieve a greater parity of esteem between academic qualifications and subjects and those of a more technical or vocational character. It is clear that the matter needs to be addressed urgently, in terms not only of economics but of providing real opportunities for all young people. That is reflected in the positive response given to our Green Paper for the 14 to 19 age range.
We need to get the balance right. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, we need a period of stability. We have a new system, and we do not want the gold standard of the A-level to be undermined. However, we must also recognise the reasons for introducing the AS-level in the first place. It has undoubtedly broadened the curriculum at 16 and 17, which has been widely welcomed. When I visit sixth forms in secondary schools or further education colleges, I make a point of asking people what they think about the AS-level. Sometimes they complain about the constraints on extra-curricular activity; it would be daft for me to deny that that was an issue. More frequently, however, the young people who sit the examinations welcome the fact that they are studying four rather than three subjects in the lower sixth. I have spoken to several A2 students, in the upper sixth, who say that they have ended up doing three different subjects at that stage from those they would have chosen when they were 16 because of the extra year of experience.
It would be foolish of me to deny that there are downsides and pressures, but the new system overall has some great strengths and has done more good than harm. We must learn from the difficulties of the summer, but I support the changes introduced as a result of curriculum 2000. During Mike Tomlinson's initial inquiry, he found widespread support for those principles. After only the first year of the new A2 examinations, it is far too early to consider abolishing them. We must make a success of them by learning the lessons of this summer.
Mike Tomlinson's initial inquiry made several recommendations, providing a clear way forward for reestablishing confidence in the A-level system. Everyone who has spoken today has said that that was what they wanted to achieve. The Government immediately accepted all Mr. Tomlinson's recommendations, and we suggested that the QCA take them up as a matter of urgency. The authority is doing that under the leadership of Ken Boston and Tony Greener.
Mr. Turner: The Minister said that the Government had accepted all of Mike Tomlinson's recommendations. I refer to the remarks of the former Secretary of State, who said,
"Mike Tomlinson said that the structure had been introduced too quickly, and I have said all along that I accept every one of his recommendations."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 212.]
Does that mean that she accepted—and that the Department, Ministers and Government accept—that the structure had been introduced too quickly?
Mr. Twigg: We accept all of the recommendations that were made by Tomlinson. That does not necessarily
36WH
mean that we sign up to every phrase in the report concerning evaluation and analysis. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; some said at the time that we were moving faster than we might, but many believed that the pace was sensible. We piloted the AS level in a number of institutions and did not move immediately to implementation after the 1997 election. A month ago, Dr. Nicholas Tate, the headmaster of Winchester college, said in a letter to the permanent secretary of our Department that in his view it was perfectly possible to introduce the new A-levels without major problems in the agreed time scale and that although extra time might have helped, the time scale should not be blamed for the problems this summer. That is his view and Mike Tomlinson expressed a different one. We have accepted the recommendations for the way forward that were set out in Mike Tomlinson's report.
Mr. Turner: Why was the OCR board producing specifications of examinations for the QCA to sign off before the QCA had delivered to it the targets for those examinations?
Mr. Twigg: I would love to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I cannot do so now. I shall write to him.
Following Mike Tomlinson's initial inquiry, the QCA has worked with the examination boards, the regulatory authorities and head teacher associations to prepare a clear description of the relationship between the AS and A2 parts of the A-level courses arid the standards of the resulting qualifications. Distinct versions will be prepared for practitioners in schools, colleges and higher education as well as for a wider audience including parents, students and employers.
Grade boundaries were, as has been said, central to the problems this year. The QCA has been working with subject specialists across the examination boards to prepare reference collections of exemplar material representative of the A-B and E-U grade boundaries, which are set on the basis of examiner judgment for both AS and A2 qualifications. QCA is also producing performance descriptions reflecting the characteristics of candidates' work at the two grade boundaries. Next year, for the first time, examination boards will have the benefit of archive scripts for A2 units, which will be of assistance. Tomlinson recommended revisions to the code of practice governing the key elements of assessment and award for AS and A2 exams. The QCA is now working on the revisions, paying particular attention to the section that governs the setting of grade boundaries, including the contributions of awarding panels, subject specialists and the accountable officer of the particular examination board.
We understand that the exam boards have assured the QCA that they have arrangements in place to train their examiners in the use of the revised code of practice and exemplar materials in time for the next set of examinations in January 2003. Early next year, in preparation for the summer exams, there will be extensive training, for both teachers and examiners. We are confident that those actions will prevent the repetition in 2003 of this summer's problems. Next week, Mike Tomlinson will report on the second stage of his inquiry, in which he has reviewed the operational pressures on the A-level system. We shall carefully

37WH
consider his recommendations and act upon them to ensure that A-levels provide accurate, robust and respected recognition of the attainments of all the young people who take them. Among the issues that Tomlinson is examining is the respective weighting of AS and A2 grades, an issue that has been raised during this debate.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned transparency and the operation of the QCA code of practice. The second Tomlinson report, which will come out next week, will look at the procedures that the hon. Gentleman described and make recommendations on how the current system can be improved further to guarantee standards and consistency.
Why did this year's problems happen? Mike Tomlinson concluded that they were created by the perceived pressure on exam boards from the QCA, the lack of guidance on the level of attainment expected for a particular grade in an individual paper and the lack of common understanding about the standard required to ensure that the overall A-level standard was maintained. Although responsibility for standards rests firmly with the QCA—we are pleased to see its new leadership taking forward Mike Tomlinson's recommendations on clarifying A-level standards—the Government are clearly responsible for addressing the broader policy issues, many of which have come up in today's debate.
I shall address a number of the specific issues that have been raised in the debate.
Dr. Pugh: I should be interested in the Minister's views on the little sideshow debate on the QCA. My view is that the QCA has pursued its own agenda. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) wants it to be independent, which implies that it was pursuing a ministerial agenda. What is the Minister's view of the QCA?
Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for a moment because I intend to address that point and a related point made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has also raised specific concerns about psychology. The regrading exercise highlighted specific issues concerning syllabus design and assessment and marking schemes that the OCR was using for psychology. We have asked the QCA to look into that issue to make sure that the OCR takes effective action quickly to address it before next year's exams in January and July.
Mr. Brady: Does the Minister agree that in the interests of transparency it is essential that the cover page and the annotated scripts should be available to schools when examination papers are returned to them?
Mr. Twigg: That sounds reasonable, but I shall have to take further advice and write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that I give a fully accurate and considered response.
The hon. Members for Southport and for Altrincham and Sale, West raised the question of young people in education today being over-tested, and the hon. Member for Southport connected that to the publication of performance tables. I am acutely aware of
38WH
that concern. Over this term, the Department has been conducting a series of conferences around the country with secondary head teachers in which we have been discussing a number of issues including leadership in schools and how we can best ensure collaboration and the sharing of good practice between schools.
The concerns set out by the hon. Member for Southport came up frequently at those conferences. My Department faces the challenge of looking at how we can balance the proper desire of parents and students to know about schools' performance with the immeasurable outcomes, which can make a real difference for young people, that schools deliver. That point is serious. When I meet employers and employers' organisations—I am sure that other hon. Members will have experienced this—one of their most frequent concerns about young people leaving school and applying for work is weakness in the field of "soft skills"; that is a terrible phrase but we all know what it means. Interpersonal and communication skills are important in achieving success today. They are not necessarily measured by performance tables, and I should like us to debate how we can more effectively encapsulate how successful a school is in making a difference to immeasurable, so-called soft skills, which matter to young people.
The abolition of performance tables is neither viable nor desirable, but the provision of a wider context in which to place information—for example, via value-added measures—and an ability to describe some of the other things that schools do that make a difference to the abilities and outcomes of young people is worth considering. I hope that we can take that forward, and I look forward to hearing the contributions to that debate.
Dr. Pugh: I value the Minister's encouraging noises. What he is saying is totally appropriate. However, when considering what is measurable, there may be a tendency with league tables for students to be entered for examinations that may reflect well on the school and provide a good profile for it. Students may be discouraged from entering exams that are worthwhile but in which it is difficult to attain the highest grades. They may be entered for exams that are of less value in career terms, but in which they are likely to achieve good grades. There is concern that schools may hunt grades per se, instead of putting the needs of pupils first.
Mr. Twigg: I am aware of that concern, but not of how widespread the practice is. I accept that it has been alleged in some cases, but we should tread with care on such allegations. It is vital that young people are entered for the examinations they want to take and are capable of studying for. We must send that message firmly to schools and colleges throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred in his opening speech to the destruction of examination papers. That is a matter directly for the examination boards and the QCA, but I can reaffirm what the Secretary of State said during the debate on the Queen's Speech; that, in the light of the Tomlinson inquiry, the planned destruction of A-level scripts has not gone ahead and there will be no such destruction before January 2003. I hope that that provides some reassurance for the hon. Gentleman.

39WH
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the burden on examiners, which is serious and heavy. There has been a significant increase in the number of external examinations for which people are studying and we need to consider the matter. I addressed part of the issue in a direct exchange with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about the balance between internal and external assessment. Teachers have always undertaken assessments, and we all remember regular testing from our school days. The modular assessment that typifies A-levels now is that it enables students to obtain an early understanding of how effective their learning has been and to identify areas for improvement enabling them to make firm decisions about their studies. As we take the discussion forward in the light of experience this year and publication of the second Tomlinson report next week, that is one aspect that must be considered.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West raised the question of the QCA's independence. I am not entirely clear whether that would have made a difference. Ken Boston said that he believes that the QCA does act independently and that neither he nor Mike Tomlinson—nor anyone else—has seen any evidence of political interference or pressure on the QCA, so I do not believe that it would have made a difference to recent events. Nevertheless, we are open to that debate and we have asked Mike Tomlinson to consider the matter carefully in the next stage of his review. The key principle for the Government is that the exam system matches public expectations of integrity, fairness, objectivity and consistency.
Mr. Turner: Does the Minister accept that Dr. Boston also said, again in his uncorrected evidence, that there
40WH
should be greater distance between the Government and the awarding bodies? He was critical and referred to the "quite close contact" between DFES officers and individual officers in awarding bodies at a variety of levels and purposes. He was sure that all of that was benign but felt nevertheless that, in a situation where there was a regulator, the relationship was not a desirable one.
Mr. Twigg: I am aware of Dr. Boston's comments and I have said that we are open to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go further, as did the hon. Member for Southport earlier, but I would go beyond my remit if I did. However, I reiterate for the record that we are open to debate and consider that matter to be an important part of the way forward so that we can guarantee the continued integrity of the A-level and learn the lessons from this year's experience.
I again thank the three hon. Members from Opposition parties who contributed to this debate. It has provided an important opportunity to review the events of the past few months and for the House to learn lessons about those events. I look forward, as I am sure do hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the publication of the second Tomlinson report next week. It will provide an important foundation for taking the debate forward.
12.10 pm
Sitting suspended.
12.30 pm
On resuming—

2012 Olympic Games
12.30 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I want to use this short debate to add my voice to those supporting a British bid to host the Olympic games in 2012.
The bid would be based in, but not exclusive to London. The sports enthusiast in me would relish the chance to see the world's greatest athletes competing against one another in our great capital city. Which sports fan would not want the chance to see great Olympic performances in their own country, following in the footsteps of Linford Christie, Tanni Gray or more recently the remarkable Steve Redgrave? Enthusiasm for sport alone is not a good enough reason to bid for the Olympic games. We should bid because of the galvanising impact of the Olympics on its host city and nation.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and his colleague the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Government have been entirely right in the way that they have approached the issue thus far by working alongside the British Olympic Association, the London development agency and the Mayor of London to commission a full analysis of the cost and benefit implications of bidding for and hosting an Olympic games and a Paralympic games. Given that joint working is one essential prerequisite for a successful bid and event, the joint work thus far has been very encouraging.
I welcome, too, Ministers' determination to assess the legacy of past Olympic games, with visits to Sydney and Barcelona, and to look at the legacy that future games will bring by a visit to Beijing. That is an appropriate way in which to take an open-minded approach to the issue. The early clarity that the Secretary of State gave in a debate on the Gracious Address was welcome, too. She set out criteria that the Government would use in judging whether to back a bid: affordability, deliverability and legacy. She also gave a welcome commitment for a longer debate in Government time to allow the House to consider the merits of an Olympic bid.
The Arup report is very clear. We cannot afford to wait for the chance to host an Olympic games in 2016. We either hid now for 2012, or the next realistic possibility that we will ever have of winning the chance to host the games will be for 2024. Even if a non-European city were chosen for 2012, the bidding experience gained would be invaluable for a 2016 bid. The Arup report estimates that the cost of bidding for the games would be £13 million, of which £6 million could come from the private sector. Given the likely benefits for tourism and other business activity, that is pretty good value. Even if we do not win, an Olympic bid will help to forge new and deeper partnerships to help tackle the regeneration of the Thames gateway area, for example.
The real concerns about affordability centre first on the figure of £2 billion, which is confusingly quoted by some as the net cost of hosting the games, and secondly on whether such a figure is too low given the theoretically inevitable cost overruns. It is worth placing on record that the £2 billion figure is not the predicted
42WH
net cost as it does not take into account the income from the sale of sporting rights, from ticket sales and so on. There has been much misinformation about the cost of previous Olympic games, which has lead some people to speculate that costs for every Olympic games are likely to overrun. The Sydney games actually made a small profit on running costs, and both Sydney and Atlanta hit their financial targets broadly speaking. The one financial element in Atlanta that did not match the original budget was the cost of security, following the bomb that went off. There were significant differences between the overall costs of the Barcelona games to the public purse and the original estimate of those costs. It is important to remember that a new high-speed rail link and a motorway link are additional benefits that the Olympics helped to deliver once decisions to be more ambitious about the legacy of the games had been taken. Certainly, the Athens games are likely to be substantially more expensive than originally envisaged. Just about every new infrastructure project that the games have required Athens to build has been held up by archaeological issues. That is not a concern that we are likely to have to confront with a London games based in the lower Lea valley and Stratford area.
We can have confidence in Arup's financial modelling, not least because it allows for significant cost overruns in the years closest to the games when the amount of building work will be at its height. Arup estimates that at 2002 prices the games would cost about £1.8 billion, with a likely income of some £1.3 billion—a net cost of almost £500 million. As the excellent British Olympic Association points out, that does not include any income from the European Union. It is worth noting that Athens has managed to secure some £1.4 billion for Olympic-related projects. Given that some of the local authorities where the games would be held have objective 2 status, there remains a real possibility that, like Athens, we could secure additional financial support from the EU.
Another element to factor into any consideration of the financial costs and benefits of hosting an Olympic games is the likely increase in tourism, the value of which Arup conservatively estimates to be up to £610 million. An independent study recently suggested that more than £2 billion in inbound tourism spending in Australia was directly attributable to the staging of the Olympics in Sydney. In summary, Arup estimates that there is a gap of almost £500 million, which could completely, or to a large extent alone, be compensated for by the additional tourism benefits generated—apart from the wider legacy, which I shall discuss now.
The financial appraisal does not include any element of the additional income coming into the UK or any assessment of the extra jobs created. For Barcelona alone, it is estimated that the net economic impact equated to about £11 billion. Arup estimates that some 3,000 full-time jobs would be created just within the east London economy, not including any extra employment generated elsewhere. Nor did the financial analysis cover the regeneration of the Thames gateway area. There would be some 4,000 new housing units, all built on brownfield land, together with large-scale reclamation of contaminated, derelict and under-utilised land. That would have massive regeneration benefits.

43WH
Another key aspect of the legacy of the games is the additional facilities that are required for visiting Olympic athletes to train, which can also provide increased opportunities for grassroots sport in the United Kingdom. New swimming pools have been identified as being fundamental. The capital has just one 50 m pool, which could be used for competition, although it is in need of refurbishment. In addition, many sports need all-purpose halls for training, which would necessitate significant investment in the capital's leisure facilities, many of which are in varying degrees of repair.
As the British Olympic Association points out, in the run-up to the games visiting teams would need training camps dotted around the UK. The Americans might want to be based in Manchester, or the Russians in Birmingham, which would inject significant sums of money into those regional economies. Many of the events that will be held during the games do not have to take place in London. Football could be played at a variety of venues around the country—perhaps at Sheffield, which would give my right hon. Friend the Minister's constituents an opportunity to see high-quality football again.
To secure a lasting legacy from the Commonwealth games in Manchester, Sport England developed new training and activity strategies based on the new facilities bequeathed by the games. A new national squash centre was required as part of its funding agreement to produce a clearly thought through development strategy, which, it is predicted, will lead to 8,000 children from the north-west visiting it to play squash. A fundamental part of the games could and should be to develop participation, coaching and club management structures, as well as to improve the sporting infrastructure.
The games in Sydney and Manchester relied on an extensive volunteer pool. The experience of Sydney has shown that that culture of volunteerism has continued, with people becoming auxiliary officers, community workers, teaching assistants and so on. Some 10,000 volunteers were recruited and trained for the Manchester Commonwealth games—the youngest were 16 and the oldest 87. About 15 per cent. of them were recruited from ethnic minorities and 5,000 from disadvantaged areas of the north-west. More than 1,800 achieved a specially devised, nationally accredited qualification. Manchester has re-proven the case that a major sporting event can be a catalyst for economic and social regeneration. In addition, as UK Sport has highlighted, elite sport will also benefit from a home competition, which provides more role models and inspiration to generations of young people.
London and the UK already enjoy a high international profile, but it is likely that the global marketing opportunity offered by the Olympics would generate additional inward investment into the UK. Sydney and Atlanta have highlighted that as a significant benefit from the games hosted in their cities. The last element of the legacy of such games, aside from transport, is the impact on national prestige that hosting the largest sports event in the world brings the host city and nation.
44WH
The last criterion that the Government will use to judge whether to bid, which my right hon. Friend announced in her speech, is deliverability. To paraphrase some of the sceptics in the media, after the problems in securing Wembley, the decision to cancel Picketts Lock and the experience of the dome's finances, have we really the capability to deliver such a large sporting event, and will we have sorted out London's transport needs by then? It is worth reminding those sceptics that Britain annually stages Wimbledon, the Open golf championship and the London marathon to global acclaim. The Manchester games were delivered to the very highest standards, and no less a figure than Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee, has confirmed his belief that Britain could stage a highly creditable bid. We are bidding with confidence to host the 2007 rugby World cup—which I know all hon. Members will expect Wales to win—and we successfully hosted the 1996 European football championships. We have a good track record in delivering sporting events successfully.
Sceptics also point to London's transport difficulties, but new airport capacity at Heathrow, such as the new terminal 5, or at Stansted will ensure that there is sufficient capacity for overseas arrivals by aeroplane. The channel tunnel rail link through to Stratford will be up and running by then. Although Crossrail is not essential in securing effective transport for the Olympic games, the completion of the central London element will undoubtedly help. Arup remains confident, after discussions with London's transport experts, that the projected number of journeys by transport to and from the Olympic zones can be handled without delays or unacceptable disruption to normal travel patterns in London. Undoubtedly, the deadline of an Olympic games will help further to concentrate minds among London's transport planners, which can only be beneficial to those of us who live in London and experience the daily frustration of commuting at the moment.
Another element of the deliverability calculation could be described as the Ken factor. Can all the myriad forms of government—the local authorities, the London development agency, the Mayor, the Greater London Authority, Sport England, UK Sport, the British Olympic Association and the various Government Departments that would be involved—really be expected to work together effectively? They worked together effectively to make the Manchester games a success and they work together effectively in the various other international sporting events that we continue to host. That does not only happen for other sporting events here; it is worth putting on the record the experience of Barcelona, where many of the same problems were faced and people overcame them successfully, with considerable positive benefit for their city. In Barcelona, the state, provincial, city, port, tourism and redevelopment authorities and agencies all successfully worked together through a single regeneration plan, using the Olympics as a catalyst for what most people recognise as a highly successful example of urban transformation. If they could do it, we can certainly do it in London. Just bidding for the games would help to create additional pressures to promote agency co-operation.

45WH
In short, I believe that London could host the Olympic games at a much lower cost than is perhaps widely accepted at the moment. In the process, it could effectively secure a legacy of benefits, including the regeneration of the east London-Thames gateway area, additional certainty about transport quality and significant new social housing units, not to mention the extra investment in sporting facilities for community use and the mass new programmes to increase participation in sport at all levels.
Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and I am sorry that a prolonged telephone call meant that I missed the first minute or two of his speech. He has made an extremely cogent case and it will be considered by many people who are anxious to see the matter progress.
On deliverability, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, notwithstanding the Conservative party's current difficulties, it is possible that between now and 2012 there will be a Conservative Mayor of London and/or a Conservative Government. Although we, like the Government, are not in any position to write blank cheques, I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and those who are watching our deliberations, that we are very supportive of the Government's efforts to progress the bid.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement of Conservative support for an Olympics bid. His analysis of the chances of having a Conservative Mayor of London and a Conservative Government is perhaps best suited to dreams, rather than reality.
Hosting the Olympics would be a considerable boost to the tourism industry in both London and the United Kingdom as a whole and would result in a whole range of other benefits for British business. The Olympic games are the greatest sporting event in the world and having them in our country would undoubtedly be a powerful inspiration to get involved in sport. That in turn would help our efforts to tackle obesity, reduce crime and generally raise the aspirations and ambitions of all our communities. I hope that there will be a bid to host the games.
12.47 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for giving me this opportunity to support what has been said so far. Like my hon. Friend, I come at the issue from the point of view of a sports fan. However, we have to have a realistic head on when we approach something as major as the Olympic games. I would love to see the Olympic games in London. I have no doubts about that.
I have not had an opportunity to visit the Olympic games elsewhere in the world. Like many people, I have had to watch them on television. The games inspire a generation of people to watch sport at its best and to see the best competition in the world. There are other world athletics championships and other forums in which people are able to compete, but nothing compares to the magic of the Olympic games and the desire for that gold medal. Money and professionalism have not totally spoiled the Olympic games. Once every four years, there is still that idealistic desire to be the best in the world.
46WH
As a non-London Member, I would like to ensure that this is not just a London-focused Olympics bid. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has reassured me on that point. He made several comments about the ability of other parts of the country to benefit from the Olympic games. For example, he mentioned Birmingham and Manchester as being suitable sites for the Americans or the Russians. I am sure that Loughborough would probably be considered first, given the excellent facilities at the university and the support that could be provided. I am sure that my constituency would be on the list of places that would benefit from providing such a base for a major nation.
My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out that many of the major sports would not necessarily be based in London. It is possible for many of those sports to be located in the rest of the United Kingdom and still not be that far away. Obviously, the Australian model provides a clear example. Some of the sports were not held at the headquarters, but were spread around. The lack of time differences and the travel distances in the United Kingdom mean that it would be possible for teams to be based centrally and to participate in sports in Birmingham, Manchester and other parts of the country without too many difficulties.
My major concern still comes down to the general or net cost of the Olympics. I fully accept my hon. Friend's arguments that it would not be the £2 billion figure that is bandied around. However, we must identify from where even a net cost of £500 million would come. Based on my experience and that of others who are here today, there would be some cost overrun as well. For example, the Commonwealth games, which were a fantastic success, needed interim and other funding just to ensure that they happened. My fear is that the £500 million might creep up. If it does, we must be clear at an early stage exactly where the shortfall will come from, because there is a real danger that we could fall into the same trap that we have fallen into previously.
I believe that we have the ability to deliver. Anyone who visited the Commonwealth games in Manchester will have seen the enthusiasm of the crowds. I caught a bus with a group of schoolchildren who were going from the railway station to the Commonwealth games. There was a fantastic atmosphere before they arrived, and they spent the rest of the afternoon screaming about absolutely everything that happened. I hope that the legacy of that enthusiasm will be not just an enjoyable afternoon but that those children will be able and willing to carry their enthusiasm into their homes, schools and clubs. I want to hear stories in 10 or 15 years about people collecting gold medals who were inspired to join an athletics club by the Commonwealth games in 2002.
As a general supporter, I believe that there is an enormous amount of work still to be done, but I want to ensure that we get it absolutely right. I was sceptical about our ability to do it and the reasons for doing it until I visited the site in Australia. Recently, I met the mayor of New York, who is enthusiastic about the bid that that city wants to put together. If New York thinks that it can do it with the transport problems that it has, I see no reason why London should not also do so.
It would be a brave decision. I hope that the Government listen very carefully and are not put off by the failure, or whatever one wants to call it, of our 2006

47WH
World cup bid. The unique circumstances of that bid meant that from the beginning it was very difficult, to put it politely, to succeed. We have a fair wind on our side for the 2012 bid. Therefore, we stand a good chance from the beginning, whereas unfortunately our 2006 World cup bid was scuppered right from the start.
Our bid must be such that it is seen worldwide as a great advertisement not only for London but for sport itself. We must ensure that our sporting heroes are involved, because they inspire young people. Key to making it work are club structures and national governing bodies that are ready and willing to pick up individuals who are inspired by the Olympics. There is a small window in which the inspiration of the Olympics can be translated into people joining clubs and in which it can result in a lasting legacy. Wimbledon is an example of that. No one can get a municipal tennis court for the two weeks of Wimbledon, but activity drops off again for the rest of the year. We must ensure that the club structure brings in enthusiastic people.
Finally, I also want to ensure that if money is found for this it is not money that would otherwise be used for the day-to-day grassroots support for sport in this country. We must consider carefully the danger that we may fund a one-off that lasts just a few weeks and offers no lasting legacy of regeneration or benefit for UK sport as a whole.
In conclusion, I am an enthusiast but I am also a realist. I am 90 per cent. convinced. I hope that as the debate continues during the coming weeks and months many of the scepticisms and genuine concerns of people such as me will be eroded and that by the time the Government makes a decision some time in the new year we will be clear about which way we are going and how much it will cost. In that event, the Government and others would have my total and full support.
12.53 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. He might know a lot about the Olympic games, but he obviously does not know much about football. I invite him to Bramall lane, the mecca of football, to enjoy the delights of watching Sheffield United play any team he wishes.
This is the first debate on the potential bid for 2012. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Department and I want an ongoing debate in which people can express their points of view, which can then be factored into the final decision. We need an informed debate in the next few months before a final decision is made. The timetable means that we have to indicate to the British Olympic Association early in the new year whether we are supporting a bid. If we are, our intention to bid must be presented to the International Olympic Committee by July next year; the bid itself for the 2012 games can be made up until 2005. That is the broad timetable to which we are working.
48WH
I should like to say something about the local and, in particular, the national press. The Daily Telegraph has been doing a first-class job in bringing forward the debate objectively. Clearly several issues have to be explored, such as regeneration and the sporting spectacular that is the Olympic games. The Guardian and the Daily Mail, too, have been ensuring that the case is being made and that a proper and informed debate is taking place.
As my hon. Friend said, the summer Olympics are in a league of their own. They are the biggest sporting event in the world with more than 10,000 athletes, and 300 events and 28 sports being represented. No other sporting event covers such a wide spectrum of sport in such depth and with such competition. The games attract millions of spectators to the host city and billions of television viewers worldwide, and they have an impact well outside the sporting world. I have just come back from Sydney and have seen the impact that they have had on inward investment, tourism and the like. For a month or six weeks—perhaps a little longer—the host city is a massive window for the world, so it is important to get it right. The systematic way in which we are evaluating the bid and the UK's potential is correct.
In making its bid, Britain should be seen to be competent. In response to what my hon. Friend said about the Commonwealth games, one could argue that prior to those games our reputation had been slightly tarnished by what had happened in 2006 and the subsequent decision on Picketts Lock and the International Amateur Athletics Federation world athletics. However, since then the Commonwealth games have been described by the President of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, as probably one of the most competent Commonwealth games that have been held for many years.
The Commonwealth games were hugely successful in every respect, even financially—there were reserves at the end, as the contingency fund did not have to be fully used. After 11 September, such an achievement is a credit to all those who managed the games in Manchester and their financing. However, to put that into perspective, the total cost of the games was about £330 million, of which some £30 million came from the private sector and £300 million from the public sector. Arup's estimate for the Olympics in 2012 is about £2 billion, which is a factor of about six greater than the cost of the Commonwealth games.
After the great euphoria of Manchester, people were asking Sports Ministers and the Secretary of State, "Why not Manchester?". That question might be justified, but one must consider that the British Olympic Association has concluded that the Olympics should be staged in London because a key requirement is that the staging city should be able to provide sufficient accommodation. First, the Olympic family is huge, numbering up to 40,000. Beyond that, the number of spectators will be vast—perhaps millions over the relevant period. A fairly large city or a conglomerate is needed to accommodate such numbers efficiently. That is why the Arup report was commissioned.

Hong Kong Basic Law
1 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I am grateful for the opportunity to focus on the Hong Kong Government's proposals to implement article 23 of the Basic Law; those are important and controversial constitutional issues in Hong Kong. I have requested this Adjournment debate to raise the issues and concerns of many in Hong Kong. Also, I have the privilege of being joint chairman of the all-party House of Commons Hong Kong committee, which recently visited Hong Kong and engaged in extensive discussions with most of the key civil servants and politicians, and has since met Martin Lee.
The debate centres on whether the proposals are essentially a modernisation of archaic laws—which is, broadly, the Hong Kong Government's argument—or whether they are a beginning of the application of mainland concepts of national security, under something of a disguise.
The background to article 23 is the Sino-British joint declaration, signed by the British and Chinese Governments in 1984, which is registered as an international treaty with the United Nations. That lays down that Hong Kong's way of life and capitalist system should remain unchanged for 50 years post 1997, while the Hong Kong Government should remain fully autonomous except in the areas of foreign policy and national defence. The principles of the joint declaration form those of the Basic Law. The joint declaration, however, provided that
"the laws currently in force in Hong Kong"
should
"remain basically unchanged"
and that
"rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be insured by the law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region."
Article 23 was included in the Basic Law as something new and additional on the insistence of the mainland Government. There is an argument of principle that it is in breach of the provisions of the joint declaration, as it calls for the application to Hong Kong of legal concepts that are incompatible with the freedoms guaranteed by article 3(5) of the joint declaration. Article 23 states:
"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government or theft of State secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign or political organisations or bodies".
It is argued that the Hong Kong laws that would prohibit subversion against the mainland Central People's Government could be contrary to the articles of the international covenant on civil and political rights relating to freedom of expression.
In June, matters came to a head when the Chinese Vice-Premier Qian Qichen was reported as saying that the Government of Hong Kong should get a move on with enacting article 23, but that the people of Hong
50WH
Kong should not worry about it and that it was not intended to restrict democratic rights in Hong Kong. He claimed, however, that it would be illegal for Falun Gong members to retain links with Falun Gong practitioners outside Hong Kong—that is, on the mainland.
The Hong Kong Secretary for Justice, Elsie Leung, has responded to comments made by the British Government by promising that there would be full public consultation—which is now taking place—before draft legislation was introduced; that any legislation would comply with the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights; that freedom of speech, association and religion would be upheld; and that legislation would not be aimed at imposing sanctions on any group such as Falun Gong. She also pointed out that the current criminal code could be amended to cover some of the elements outlined in article 23.
Hong Kong already has domestic legislation on treason, sedition, official secrets and activities, and ties with foreign political organisations. However, some of those provisions are clearly outdated and are also potentially very wide. There are no offences of secession or subversion in Hong Kong law. Before 1997, Governor Chris Patten attempted to introduce legislation in those areas, but those efforts foundered in the face of opposition. Although the Legislative Council passed a Bill before handover, it was not enacted by the incoming Administration.
The Hong Kong Government now intend to put draft legislation to the Legislative Council in the new year, with a view to its being enacted next summer. There has been a debate as to whether it should be a White Paper or a Blue Paper. It has ended up as a Blue Paper, though it seemed to us that more of a White Paper approach was being followed, in terms of consultation. A main concern is that the legislative proposals could potentially allow the Government to ban any organisation of which the Beijing Government disapprove, where provisions in the area are not even specifically required by article 23 of the Basic Law.
Few states have express laws against secession and many do not have laws against subversion. The mainland concept of national security is very different from what we are all used to in democratic countries. The deal agreed under the joint declaration was that the PRC concept of national security would not be applied to Hong Kong. Under the treason section, it appears that any business person who trades with Taiwan could risk prosecution if their products end up being used by Taiwan's armed forces or otherwise to assist in Taiwan's defence. There is also a proposal to contain and modernise the archaic offence of misprision of treason, that is, the failure to inform the authorities of treason being committed by someone else. The new treason offence would also apply to all persons who are voluntarily in the Hong Kong SAR, where it is questionable for treason laws to be applied to persons who are not citizens and owe Hong Kong no loyalty.
The proposed new offence of secession includes extraterritorial jurisdiction powers, and could widen considerably the number of people who would not be admitted to Hong Kong or who might not be regarded as safe to enter Hong Kong. The proposed offence of

51WH
sedition is broadly similar to the existing common law offence, but is arguably unnecessary, as the last prosecution was 50 years ago. The mainland Government have traditionally used the offence of subversion to persecute and suppress legitimate opposition. The Hong Kong Government's proposals link the offence of subversion to overthrow by violence or serious unlawful means.
The Hong Kong Government are not proposing any extension to the law on relations with foreign political organisations. However, they propose a new mechanism for banning organisations affiliated with a mainland organisation that the central authorities have proscribed in accordance with national law, on the grounds that it would endanger national security. In that context, affiliated means connected. The key concern is that if such an organisation is proscribed on the mainland, Hong Kong is notified. There will inevitably be such evidence of past or present connections between such organisations that the Hong Kong Government are effectively obliged to ban them.
The general impression that the all-party committee formed from its visits was that there was certainly no malign intention by the Hong Kong Government, and that a great deal of what was being proposed was updating out-of-date law, but that it might have been better to use a White Bill. However, there are major constitutional issues to bottom that I certainly think have not been fully bottomed. In a sense, the constitutional challenge to the Hong Kong Government is to set out fully convincing arguments as to why the legislation would comply with the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and the international covenant on civil and political rights, as they claim is the case. Also, they must demonstrate that we need not worry if the legislation did comply, as they would not be forced to ban organisations that were banned in the mainland. The system for appeals might be better left to the courts than dealt with under the new proposals.
Others want to speak, so I shall finish in a moment. I trust that the United Kingdom Government are well alive to the issues. The consultation in Hong Kong is open and public, but the constitutional issues raised have not yet been fully answered or bottomed.
1.10 pm
Mr. Ben Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on securing the debate, and thank him for giving me time to contribute. I speak as another co-chairman of the Hong Kong committee. Coincidentally, I am also the chairman of the all-party group on China. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and I were privileged to be part of the delegation that recently visited Hong Kong, and I declare an interest in that regard.
Article 23 is important, but discussion of it must be taken in the context of the situation in Hong Kong and our relations with it as a whole. I hope that we might secure a longer debate on our relations with Hong Kong and, with others, I will try to set that in hand. The House
52WH
has continuing responsibilities in relation to Hong Kong under the terms of the joint declaration, because of its intrinsic importance and our major investment and commercial, cultural and educational interests there. Also, we have an interest in the 3.4 million British passport holders in Hong Kong, especially the British nationals overseas.
Like everything else in Hong Kong, article 23 needs to be seen in relation to the "one nation, two systems" concept, and against the background of the maintenance of confidence—internal and external—which drives the Special Administrative Region. I fear that Qian Qichen's comments do not seem entirely helpful when put in that context, or in the context of democratisation. The concept of Hong Kong's being allowed to run its own affairs, save in relation to foreign policy and defence, has been nigh on meticulously maintained. The handover and subsequent events have gone at least as well as we might reasonably have hoped.
Hong Kong administrators often tell of the old days when, at the end of the United Kingdom working day, they received floods of telegrams of instruction from London on everything under the sun. Now they receive none from anywhere, and certainly not from Beijing.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that article 23 could involve and the importance of the issues that it covers. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs eruditely set those out. It is right that there are concerns. However, I found—I think that the rest of the delegation that recently visited Hong Kong agrees—that while in hindsight the Government of Hong Kong might reasonably have been best advised to publish a White Bill, they are still engaging in full consultation.
Enacting article 23 of the Basic Law is an imperative. It is not discretionary, although its timing is. I welcome the consultation. I am largely persuaded that the Government of the SAR are fully conscious of the need to maintain a separate regime and to be perceived as so doing. I am assured that the content of article 23 when enacted will be in accordance with international covenants on human rights, and will maintain the differences inherent in the concept of "one nation, two systems". It is, after all, a matter of self-interest for them to do so.
However, other pressing issues face Hong Kong. It is in the economic doldrums, with a budgetary deficit. Its propensity to reinvent itself is challenged. We were told that, even on best forecasts, it would take until 2006–07 to balance the budget; that takes account of soccer betting and border crossing taxes—and people are discussing such issues as a profit tax, a sales tax and even a maids tax, but all of those factors need to be set against the background of the issue of confidence, both internal and external.
Following the transfer of its manufacturing base to booming Guangdong, Hong Kong has transmogrified itself into the ultimate professional service for China — a service that provides a gateway but which is also a massive quarry of unrivalled expertise, possibly the best in the world. Hong Kong, together with its expatriates, has skills in financial services, the law—particularly commercial arbitration—banking, accountancy, information technology and so on. The difficulty is that more of those services and skills, with the possible

53WH
exception of the law, are being provided in China. It has a talented people and is developing those services at a rapid rate.
The development of Shanghai may be considered complementary as well as competitive, but it could further restrict Hong Kong's ability to transmogrify itself. It must be said that, when compared with that of China, Hong Kong's economic performance currently looks weak. Property values have weakened massively and could be off their peak by 50 per cent. and more. Hong Kong, the icon of adaptation to free market forces may need to become—dare it be said?—more dirigiste. It may need to plan its future differently. In that context, it was interesting to see that the cyber port, developed at the Government's initiative and with the Government's backing, is heading in that direction by creating a new way forward for Hong Kong.
Perhaps the most important issue facing the SAR is that of democratisation. In my view, the present ministerial system is not sustainable in the long term, nor can it be regarded as other than a stage in the development of democracy in Hong Kong. Progress towards universal suffrage is inadequate. I accept that the Basic Law does not require that until 2007, but it is important that the debate starts now and that progress is made. Many voices in Hong Kong are calling for it—in and outside LegCo. Progress is, again, not least a matter of self-interest and the retention of confidence. It is for me vital not only for the general well-being of the people of Hong Kong, but for its economy. I hope that the Hong Kong Government can be persuaded to move forward as soon as possible.
Ross Cranston rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. For the Minister to be given an adequate chance to respond, I must call him no later than 13.20.
1.17 pm
Ross Cranston: I thank the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I wrote to him and he kindly offered me two minutes of his time.
I make a declaration of interest. I was recently a guest of the Special Administrative Region in Hong Kong.
I wish to make three brief points. First, I was impressed with the vigour of debate on article 23. Freedom of speech is very much alive in Hong Kong, which is good. Secondly, on the substance of the proposal, I was impressed with the professional job done in the consultation document. Indeed, as an aside, I would say that I am impressed with the civil servants I met there. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) both said that the debate has not been helped by the official comments, and concern has been expressed about whether there should he a draft Bill. As a lawyer, however, I am not especially shocked at the substance of the proposals—they include provisions on entering premises without a warrant and official secrets—as we have similar provisions in the UK.
That leads me to the third point. It seems to me that the concern is more about how the provisions will be used. At present, the Special Administrative Region is
54WH
an open society with the rule of law. I was impressed by the quality of the Bar and the judiciary, which augurs well for the future of the rule of law. It is therefore important that Britain and other countries such as the United States should retain an interest in Hong Kong. Some people expressed concern that that interest was waning, and an assurance from the Minister that Her Majesty's Government will retain their special interest in the SAR would be welcome.
1.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), whom I congratulate on having called this debate. I am also genuinely pleased by the all-party group's interest in Hong Kong, which gives people there a clear indication of the continuing Government and Parliamentary interest in their well-being.
As the new Minister with responsibility for Hong Kong, I am delighted that our relationship with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is so strong. There continue to be many high-level exchanges and three Cabinet Ministers have visited Hong Kong in the past five months alone. Hong Kong's Chief Secretary was here in July and we were pleased to welcome Mr. Anthony Leung, Hong Kong's distinguished Financial Secretary, here this week. I met him yesterday morning and I am pleased that he will meet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. This debate has testified to the fact that Members of the House regularly visit Hong Kong, and Members of the Legislative Council also make the reverse journey to this country. I hope to visit Hong Kong early in the new year as part of a wider tour of China.
I want to take the opportunity afforded by this important Adjournment debate to get across the message that Hong Kong is a success story despite the current economic difficulties. It is important that that success is maintained as a result of the debate on article 23 and we must be conscious of the factors that have made Hong Kong successful, including the rule of law, guaranteed rights and fundamental freedoms, a level playing field for business, free flows of information and the efficient and effective market regulatory system. Those mechanisms have played a vital role in ensuring that Hong Kong maintains its position and develops as an international business hub. It is crucial that they are preserved when article 23 of the Basic Law is enacted.
That brings me to the key element in Britain's relationship with Hong Kong—our responsibilities under the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. The declaration provides that Hong Kong should have a high degree of autonomy from mainland China, except in foreign affairs and defence matters. It states that basic rights and freedoms shall be ensured by law in the Hong Kong SAR, and we have followed affairs closely since the handover. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reports twice yearly on the implementation of the joint declaration. Where we have had concerns that its principles might conceivably be undermined, we have raised them with the SAR. Government or with Beijing.
Overall, as my right hon. Friend's bi-annual reports have made clear, our assessment of the "one country., two systems" principle remains broadly positive. Hong

55WH
Kong has generally remained free to exercise its autonomy in all relevant regards, as promised under the joint declaration. However, as debate on the issue has developed, we have noted strong concerns among many sectors of Hong Kong society about the SAR Government's proposals for legislation to meet its obligations under article 23 of the Basic Law. As some hon. Members have clarified — I am grateful to them for doing so—such legislation has been foreshadowed for some time, and the Basic Law says that the SAR shall enact legislation. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly the most sensitive legislation that the SAR has had to enact since the handover.
We have closely followed the matter from the outset, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised article 23 as a general issue with the Chinese Vice-Premier and the Hong Kong Chief Executive during a visit to Hong Kong in July, before the SAR issued its consultation document. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor discussed the proposals in some detail during a visit to Hong Kong in October, and yesterday I had the opportunity to raise some of those issues with the Hong Kong Financial Secretary.
As a result, on 18 November I issued a public statement welcoming the wide consultation process undertaken by the SAR Government. I made it clear that as a cosignatory to the joint declaration, we had a responsibility to ensure that the rights and freedoms enshrined in the joint declaration were maintained. I went on to say that any new legislation must be compatible with those rights and freedoms and with maintaining Hong Kong's autonomy.
A key concern that has been raised through the process is the proposal to ban organisations in Hong Kong affiliated with mainland organisations proscribed on the mainland on national security grounds. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to that matter. We note that the consultation document says that the Hong Kong Secretary for Security would have discretion not to follow suit. However, there remains a concern that the integrity and independence of Hong Kong's legal system, which are key factors in the region's continuing success, might be compromised by the proposal. We hope and have made it clear that the SAR Government will consider the issue carefully as they draft the legislation in detail.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned Falun Gong and I know that other hon. Members are also concerned about the impact of that provision on that organisation. The Hong Kong Secretary of Justice has said that the proposals are not aimed at particular groups, but we hope that the draft of the Bill will give us the fundamental reassurance that we need.
56WH
Concerns have also been expressed about the impact of the proposals for the media. All hon. Members will agree that a free press is one of Hong Kong's distinctive strengths. Freedom of expression is certainly provided for in the joint declaration and any action that diminishes press freedom would not be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
We have highlighted other concerns and we hope that the SAR Government will consider them carefully. They have indicated that they are willing, in principle, to be flexible on at least some of those areas. We warmly welcome that fact.
We are listening to some of the strongest critics of the SAR Government proposals. Last week, the Foreign Secretary and I met Martin Lee, the chairman of the Hong Kong Democratic party. We listened to his concerns, told him that we were following the case carefully and assured him of the importance that we attach to the issue.
This has been an important debate. The proposals show the complexities that arise from Hong Kong's special status under the "one country, two systems" principle. We welcome the SAR Government's assurances that the legislation will be compatible with the international covenant on civil and political rights and that on economic, social and cultural rights, to which Hong Kong is party. That is a vital point, but the test will come with the precise wording of the proposed legislation, without which it is impossible to determine whether there is any conflict with the two United Nations human rights covenants.
Calls have been made for a "white Bill" to set out the detailed legislative proposals before the draft legislation is introduced into the legislative council. Given the intense interest in the proposals, we hope that the SAR Government will provide for full and genuine public consultation on the detailed legislation, whether through a "white Bill" or through some other mechanism. I made that point to the Financial Secretary yesterday.
We have also encouraged the SAR Government to start consultations on other outstanding elements of the basic law. I agree that the ultimate aim is to bring forward democracy, but until that happens it is crucial that the SAR Government should go the extra mile and ensure that no rights and freedoms are eroded in Hong Kong.
In conclusion, people hold contradictory views. Sometimes, we are told that the Government speak out too much on such issues and, on other occasions, we are told that we speak out too little. We will continue to put forward our views on areas of concern in the interests of and as a friend of Hong Kong. Article 23 must be enacted by the SAR Government, but it must be done in such a way as to preserve the tremendous success story of Hong Kong as an international city. We hope that its enactment will contribute to that success.

Crossrail
1.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: Crossrail 1 is an imaginative project for an east-west railway line through central London. It could increase the capacity of London's underground and national rail services by 15 to 20 per cent. In the west, it will run from a terminus beyond the M25—yet to be decided—but it will certainly serve Heathrow airport. It was announced last week that it would include stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Whitechapel. To the east of Whitechapel, one option is a route north of the Thames, through Ilford and Romford, to Shenfield in Essex. The second option is a route through the Isle of Dogs and along the south bank of the Thames, through the London boroughs of Greenwich, Bexley and Dartford, to a terminus at Ebbsfleet in Kent, the international station on the channel tunnel rail link.
I intend to concentrate on the route from central London to Ebbsfleet. The company responsible for developing and promoting those routes is a 50:50 joint venture of Transport for London and the Strategic Rail Authority, which has been allocated a budget of £154 million by the Government to carry out preparatory work and acquire powers for the lines. It is intended that a decision on the preferred routes will be taken before the end of the year, with the possibility of a hybrid Bill being brought before Parliament in the 2003–04 Session.
The choice of route through east London cannot be made in isolation from the major Government-sponsored project for the development of the Thames gateway. That will regenerate east London on both banks of the Thames and Thameside areas of Kent and Essex through the provision of many thousands of new homes and jobs, mostly on brownfield sites.
One of the largest areas available for business development in London lies in riverside Greenwich and Bexley in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin). That land lies in wards that are among the 10 per cent. worst deprived nationally. Improved transport from east to west and across the river is the key to realising business opportunities and job opportunities for local residents. A new river crossing is already proposed. The crossrail link from central London to Ebbsfleet is exactly what is needed to prime the regeneration of the area, as has been shown in study after study.
One reason why I fear that that opportunity might be overlooked in deciding the route for crossrail is because of the ritual practices of transport planners. Many of their methods of analysis and models are based on identifying latent and unsatisfied demand among existing residents and businesses. They then explore the road and rail links that will satisfy that demand most economically. In many cases, that is the right approach, but it is not the right approach where transport links are intended to promote the development of new communities or to attract new businesses, as in the Thames gateway. In those circumstances, the approach that is appropriate to serving pent-up demand in existing communities leads people to say, "Why put a railway through north Greenwich and Bexley when
58WH
there are insufficient people and jobs in the area to justify it?" That is the point; regeneration means attracting the development of housing and jobs because they are not there. Exactly that argument raged 25 years ago, about extending the Jubilee line through docklands, which was not done for the reasons that I mentioned. Acres and acres of land remained derelict for two decades until the Jubilee line was extended. We should consider the effect that that has had on the Isle of Dogs and the Greenwich peninsula.
My first plea is for crossrail 1 to be built from Whitechapel to Ebbsfleet. Businesses will then be attracted to Greenwich and Bexley Thameside because the reduced journey times will enable them to pull in skilled employees from the whole of London. For example, the journey from Paddington will be reduced from more than an hour to half an hour. Those businesses would also have easy access to the European Union via Ebbsfleet or internationally via Heathrow as a result of crossrail. The quality of employment available in the area could change dramatically. The same arguments apply in reverse to the residents of the area. Their job opportunities would lie in the whole of London rather than locally or in central London.
There has been talk of taking the crossrail route only as far as Charlton, Woolwich or Abbey Wood and then relying on an interchange with Connex services on the north Kent line. It is well known that such interchanges deter passengers from using the service. What is the point of the line going through the Isle of Dogs—which is doing very nicely—and the developed areas of Charlton and Woolwich, but stopping short of the major areas of regeneration opportunity in Belvedere, Erith and Crayford? At least, the first stage should extend to Slade Green, so that a substantial part of the potential regeneration area would be covered. Such talk is worrying because it makes it look as though the project is being directed with a narrow focus on cash and engineering, without any attention to the wider regeneration issues. It is especially strange for the crossrail service to stop short at that point, as the company responsible for crossrail has told me that the extension to Slade Green would add little cost because the land is already available.
I make the strongest possible plea for the line to be built to Ebbsfleet in continuing stages, with firm dates for the beginning and end of each stage and a firm commitment of money to make those dates credible. Britain, particularly London, has a history of "manana" public projects. No one can be sure when they will be carried out so the private sector is, understandably, unwilling to commit complementary investment until public works are finished. For crossrail to achieve a regeneration objective, it is vital to have a firm and credible construction programme so that companies can plan and invest concurrently.
The consultation document contains two variants on the route from the Isle of Dogs to Ebbsfleet. One goes from the Isle of Dogs past the dome on the Greenwich peninsula to Charlton and the other continues on the north bank of the Thames, through the major development area in the royal docks and crosses the river by a tunnel to Woolwich Arsenal. Thereafter, the routes are the same to Ebbsfleet.

59WH
The route through Charlton is estimated to be some £400 million cheaper than that through the royal docks. However, the Charlton route is already densely developed, so the potential for new residential or business development is limited. In addition, constructing the Charlton route would prevent Connex services on the north Kent line from going directly to London Bridge as they now do.
In contrast, the royal docks area offers a major regeneration opportunity; crossrail could make it into an extension of the developments on Canary wharf. Access to London City airport and to the Excel exhibition centre would be greatly improved and people from Greenwich and Bexley would have a major new source of job opportunities.
Mr. Tony Banks: On behalf of the London borough of Newham, might I underline the enormous significance of the royal docks option? It will be worth a great deal in terms of the thousands of extra jobs and homes for the area. It is right to stress the impact of transport on regeneration. The benefit is already clear in the east end, so I hope that the Minister will pay careful attention to my hon. Friend. Other Members of Parliament from the east end strongly endorse his comments.
Mr. Beard: If it were thought that crossrail should stop at Charlton and not continue to Ebbsfleet until years later, the extension would be unlikely ever to be made. Substantial demolition of houses between Charlton and Woolwich would be involved, whereas the royal docks route involves no such inhibition. The question about the royal docks route is whether the economic gains would make the extra £400 million cost worthwhile. In my judgment, that route has much greater regeneration potential than that through Charlton, as my hon. Friend has just said. If that does not carry enough weight with the Minister, it is also the judgment of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), the London boroughs of Newham and Bexley, the London development association, the London Transport Users Committee and the Mayor of London.
In summary, it is essential that crossrail 1 through east London be considered as a major contribution to the regeneration of the Thames gateway to London, the greatest foreseeable opportunity for urban regeneration in Britain. To achieve maximum effect in prioritising the development of housing and jobs, crossrail should go from central London to Ebbsfleet via the royal docks as one dedicated railway line. Planning must include a commitment to the necessary finance, so that there is sufficient confidence for private investment to be concurrent with public investment. On that basis, crossrail 1 and the Thames gateway project can be trailblazers for urban regeneration in Britain in the 21st century.
1.41 pm
John Austin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) for allowing me to speak in the debate. He
60WH
and I represent an area of London that is one of the worst served for public transport and includes some of the 10 most deprived wards in the country. My constituency includes Thamesmead—in effect, a new town designed in the 1960s as a contribution to solving London's housing crisis, but built without any thought of providing an adequate public transport infrastructure. Inadequate bus services developed in an unplanned and uncoordinated way as the population grew, with the result that transport in and out of Thamesmead is poor and within it even poorer. Thamesmead's nearest railway station is Abbey Wood, on the periphery.
Part of my constituency lies in the London borough of Greenwich, and colleagues at Westminster often assume that because of that, I have access to the new Jubilee line station, which serves the Greenwich peninsula. However, where I live, on the boundary of Thamesmead and Belvedere, in the heart of my constituency, there is no direct bus or any other link to the Jubilee line. Even from parts of my constituency that have a direct bus link, the journey time can be an hour or more. Yet Thamesmead and Belvedere, as my hon. Friend said, represent one of the largest employment areas and potential employment areas in London. The Belvedere employment area is the second largest industrial area in London, with potential for more development. Realising the potential of the Thamesmead and Woolwich industrial estates, the Belvedere employment area and, further east, the industrial and development sites in Erith and along the Thames road to north Kent, as well as retaining existing businesses, depends on good transport infrastructure.
The Minister saw for himself on his recent visit the problems caused by the Thames road bottleneck. When he saw the view from the top of the Pirelli vulcanising tower, he could see the development potential. Regrettably, a few days after the Minister left the site, Pirelli served 90-day redundancy notices on the bulk of its staff and the company is in danger of closure. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will intervene to ensure that the Government do what they can to protect the submarine cable industry in this country.
Paul Clark: On the point about the potential success of businesses in your constituency, are you not concerned that if the stupid proposal to end the line at Abbey Wood happens, congestion in your constituency will be much greater? Would you agree —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. My constituency is some way from east London.
John Austin: There are problems inherent in that. I would support an Abbey Wood destination and interchange as an interim measure, as long as we had the future plans to Ebbsfleet to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred.
Before constituency boundaries were changed, I was the Member for Woolwich. The seat included Woolwich Arsenal, which in its heyday employed more than 80,000 people on one site. It was the largest factory in Europe and it was bigger than the whole of Ford Europe is today. Woolwich Arsenal gradually declined after the

61WH
war and was eventually closed in the 1970s. Boundary changes have resulted in it being just outside my constituency, but it borders Thamesmead.
I have been campaigning for almost 20 years for a rail tunnel under the Thames at Woolwich. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I would have preferred a heavy rail link, which would have provided the best opportunities for regeneration by linking with the north Kent line to fill in the missing link in the orbital rail network.
The decision to extend the docklands light railway, which will help to boost the local economy in Woolwich and to assist the Woolwich Arsenal development, has been taken. It will not, however, have the major regenerational effect that crossrail would have had. As my hon. Friend said, the choice of crossrail route cannot be made in isolation from the development of the Thames gateway, where there is a large area of development land on both sides of the Thames, which could provide the homes and jobs that London needs.
Crossrail offers an opportunity to redress the east-west imbalance in London, and a route to the royal docks in Newham would support regeneration in what the Mayor's draft London plan identified as the third largest opportunity area in London. East London and the Thames gateway can provide one third of London's total new housing requirement and 40 per cent. of all new jobs. The royals is the largest area of development land in the Thames gateway and opting in favour of a station in Charlton would be short sighted and would jeopardise the regeneration benefits for the royals, which are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).
The royals route could also serve London City airport, which would link to the Government's recent report on airport capacity in the United Kingdom. That report proposes a planning policy actively to encourage airports to maximise their potential capacity by utilising their existing runways. At present, City airport serves 1.6 million people a year and the Government's consultation paper suggests that that figure could reach 5 million by 2030. That figure could be achieved sooner with crossrail, which has a possible throughput of 7 million passengers per annum by 2030. The extension of the docklands light railway to the airport by 2005 will certainly provide better access, but it will be insufficient to support either the airport's growth in capacity or the full development of the royals.
I live under City airport's flight path. The airport is a few miles away, but whether I travel by public or private transport I can get to Gatwick more quickly than I can get to it. Crossrail will massively cut journey times in east London. The journey time from the royals to Paddington would be down from 58 minutes to just 18, and that from Tottenham Court road to the royals would be down from 49 minutes to 14. The royals option is important for London, but the scale of the potential development, the key visitor attractions and the university make it nationally significant.
I know Charlton because I lived there for 15 years and represented it on Greenwich council for nearly 20 years. I lived a few hundred yards from Charlton station and the sacred turf of the Valley. There is a highly developed residential area to the south of the Woolwich road. The area to the north of the Woolwich road is largely
62WH
industrial and again it has little scope for residential, commercial or office development, or the generation of the jobs, which the royals would provide. Greenwich council argues that crossrail might not terminate at Charlton and could be extended to Woolwich, but there is no scope, or plans, for additional track eastwards from Charlton. Crossrail could go from Canary wharf to Charlton and Woolwich only if it were to take over the track that currently serves the Connex services from Woolwich into London Bridge and Cannon Street. In that case, there would he no direct trains from Erith, Belvedere, Abbey Wood or Plumstead into London Bridge, and a shuttle bus would replace them. Only the royals route guarantees a service to Woolwich that would not interfere with the existing north Kent line services.
Originally, there was talk of a terminus and interchange at Woolwich, but current opinion seems to favour a major interchange with the north Kent line at either Plumstead or Abbey Wood. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford suggests an interchange further east at Slade Green and I have no argument with that. My constituents want access to the new crossrail and continued access to the north Kent line. Only the royals guarantee a link to Woolwich.
Crossrail services could begin in 2012 and obviously the major benefits will accrue close to opening. However, as my hon. Friend said, an early announcement and an early commitment by the Government would provide significant pre-opening benefits in anticipation. For Woolwich and Abbey Wood, a decision to choose the royals would boost confidence, assist in retaining employment and enable developers to bring forward proposals sooner or to revise their master plans to reflect crossrail. Only the royals route offers the best prospect of maximising the full potential of the royals themselves, as well as enhancing the prospects for regeneration and development in Havering, Barking and Dagenham north of the Thames, and in Woolwich, Plumstead, Thamesmead, Belvedere, Erith and on to north Kent in the south. The Government must make a clear decision on the route of crossrail and it must be via the royals through to Woolwich and beyond.
1.50 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) on securing the debate and giving the Chamber an opportunity to discuss proposals for a cross-London rail link from east to west. We heard useful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Gillingham (Paul Clark). I am pleased also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). That demonstrates the widespread interest in the subject among Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friends are aware of the work that is being undertaken by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London through Cross London Rail Links Limited, a joint company set up by the SRA and TFL with the remit of examining alternative route options and developing the business case for the project. I shall shortly return to the route options under consideration, especially in relation to the east of London, but first I want to make three points.

63WH
First, the Government support viable proposals for a new east-west crossrail link. The transport 10-year plan indicates that such a project could contribute up to a 15 per cent. increase in seating capacity on rail and underground into central London during the morning peak. Hon. Members will agree that such a contribution is much needed. However, we must be sure that the project has a robust business case and will provide value for money. The work that CLRL is doing is vital in ensuring viability.
Secondly, I should make it clear that work is taking a little longer than CLRL originally envisaged. It had hoped to be in a position to finalise the business case and to recommend a preferred route by the end of the year. It now looks as though it will not be in a position to make recommendations until the first part of next year. I fully understand the concerns felt by hon. Members and their constituents who are potentially affected by the project about the continued uncertainty over the outcome of the work on the business case and the assessment of the route options. However, it would be generally agreed that such decisions cannot and should not be rushed. Crossrail would be a very expensive project—of the order of £10 billion, depending on the preferred option with commensurate benefits. It is therefore vital to get the scheme right. Evaluating the business case for such a major project, with all its economic, financial, social and environmental impacts—several of which were highlighted during the debate — is a complex and difficult process. The choice between route options will not be easy, given the strength of the arguments that were made today and have been articulated by other hon. Members and boroughs. Forecast costs and benefits must be thoroughly bottomed out.
Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, the interface with the existing infrastructure and services must be thoroughly understood. Looking further ahead, we must put the mechanisms in place to ensure that any project is delivered to time and to budget. Time that is spent now on getting crossrail properly scoped and defined is time well spent and need not delay the overall implementation programme.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford will be disappointed, but not surprised, that I cannot anticipate what recommendations CLRL will make, nor how the Government will respond to them. Nevertheless, I certainly heard the points that he and other hon. Members made and I am sure that he and others involved will put their case to CLRL with equal conviction during the stakeholder consultation and any future public consultation. On next steps, I understand that before the end of the year, the board of CLRL intends to make a statement of progress to date on the work to develop crossrail.
Before we consider what a crossrail route might be, we must decide the objectives that crossrail is meant to achieve. In May, before setting out to consult key stakeholders and local authorities, CLRL agreed several objectives for crossrail with the Government, the Mayor of London and the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority.
64WH
We said that a proposal for crossrail should aim to support the wider transport, social and environmental objectives of the Government's 10-year plan, the Mayor's strategy for London, the SRA's strategic plan and regional planning guidance. It should also relieve congestion and overcrowding on existing national rail and underground networks and support the development of strategic interchanges. It should facilitate the continued development of London's primary finance and business service activities located in both the City and docklands. It should facilitate the improvements of London's international links including, looking to the west, Heathrow. It should facilitate the regeneration of priority areas such as the Thames gateway and the Lea valley, and it should provide improved east-west access into and across London from the east and south-east regions. To meet those objectives, proposals for crossrail must be feasible from an operational and an engineering perspective, must be environmentally acceptable and must represent value for money and be affordable.
I turn to the route and service options that CLRL is considering. Given the objectives that the joint company has been set and the work done in the 1990s on earlier proposals for a new east-west link across London, it quickly became clear that there was a core route for the project based broadly on the previously safeguarded route, which would link Heathrow with Stratford and docklands. Around that core, CLRL examined a wide range of possible route options before selecting for further study a shortlist of corridors along which route and service patterns could be analysed in depth. In the west, those included Aylesbury, Watford Junction and Reading. To the east, they included Shenfield out to Ebbsfleet via north Kent. Within these five corridors there are of course multiple possible variants. For example, north Kent could be accessed either through the royal docks on the Isle of Dogs, or a more southerly approach via Charlton.
My hon. Friend mentioned alternatives in north Kent and CLRL is looking at a range of service patterns and frequencies for the royal docks and Charlton options. If the route were to be via the royal docks, new tunnels would be required from Custom House to Stepney Green and to link Silvertown and Woolwich. Depending on how far along the corridor the route extended, the north Kent line would be used from Abbey Wood. New stations would be constructed at Woolwich and the Isle of Dogs, as well as an interchange at Ebbsfleet.

If the chosen route were to be via Charlton, the north Kent line would be used as far as Charlton. Charlton station would be rebuilt, and a new line and tunnel built from there to the Isle of Dogs via the north Greenwich peninsula. There would be connecting services to London Bridge.
Those are the route options that CLRL consulted stakeholders about from spring to summer this year. CLRL is digesting the results of that consultation and undertaking the analysis. We await the outcome of that work.
As my hon. Friends will be aware, I have received many representations on crossrail from Members and local authorities, business interests and private individuals. Advocates have pointed to the need to provide a large increase in rail capacity to docklands,

65WH
particularly—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has pointed out—to support the growing business and finance sectors. They have argued for crossrail to facilitate regeneration in the Thames gateway to serve key development sites, including those in the royal docks, but also on Kent Thameside. It would also have the desirable effect of freeing capacity at Liverpool Street station. Proponents argue that crossrail can become the regional transport spine along Kent Thameside, providing significant journey savings from north Kent and can form an integrated transport network with much increased opportunity for modal interchange.
66WH
I understand the strength with which advocates of crossrail and its several potential routes put their cases. We will not be able to satisfy every competing interest. We are awaiting the work. The CLRL board will, I hope, be in a position to make an announcement before the end of the year on progress. I ask for some patience about that, but I understand that the debate is still to be advanced.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

TREASURY

  Employment Statistics
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were(a) in employment and(b) unemployed, expressed as a percentage of the total population in(i) Birmingham, (ii) the West Midlands region and (iii) London region in each of the past 10 years. [82865]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Lynne Jones, dated 26 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment and unemployment in Birmingham, the West Midlands and London. (82865)
  The attached tables give estimates of employment and unemployment expressed as a percentage of the total population aged 16 and over resident in the Birmingham Local Authority District, the West Midlands and London for each of the past 10 years. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Table 1: Employment as a percentage of all persons aged 16 and over; resident in the Birmingham local authority district. West Midlands and London; June to August 1993 to 2002; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  London

  1993

  1—

  56.0

  55.5

  1994

  52.5

  57.8

  55.9

  1995

  49.8

  57.6

  56.7

  1996

  52.4

  57.8

  57.1

  1997

  53.7

  58.8

  58.7

  1998

  54.6

  59.6

  59.4

  1999

  52.1

  59.5

  61.0

  2000

  51.4

  59.0

  60.6

  2001

  51.2

  59.6

  60.8

  2002

  54.2

  59.9

  60.5

  1 Data not available

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are not seasonally adjust (NSA) and have not been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results. ONS are working toward producing reweighted LFS estimates based on the findings of the 2001 Census, which will be available from summer 2003.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Unemployment as a percentage of all persons aged 16 and over; resident in the Birmingham local authority district, West Midlands and London; June to August 1993 to 2002; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  London

  1993

  1—

  7.4

  8.9

  1994

  9.5

  6.3

  8.3

  1995

  8.6

  5.6

  8.0

  148W

  Table 2: Unemployment as a percentage of all persons aged 16 and over; resident in the Birmingham local authority district, West Midlands and London; June to August 1993 to 2002; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  London

  1996

  7.7

  5.7

  7.5

  1997

  7.9

  4.8

  6.3

  1998

  5.8

  4.1

  5.3

  1999

  6.1

  4.4

  5.0

  2000

  6.3

  3.7

  4.8

  2001

  4.9

  3.4

  4.3

  2002

  6.6

  3.8

  4.6

  1 Data not available

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are not seasonally adjust (NSA) and have not been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results. ONS are working toward producing reweighted LFS estimates based on the findings of the 2001 Census, which will be available from summer 2003.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the numbers of jobs that have been created in the past six years in(a) Birmingham,(b) the West Midlands region and(c) the London region. [82866]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Lynne Jones, dated 26 November 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of jobs that have been created in the last 6 years in(a) Birmingham,(b) West Midlands region and(c) London region. (82866)
  There are no figures for jobs created but an indication can be obtained by comparing the annual surveys of employee jobs. The Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) gives an estimate of the number of employee jobs in December of each year and the latest year for which figures are available is 2000. The ABI was preceded (prior to 1998) by the Annual Employment Survey (AES) which estimated employee jobs in September of each year, and comparisons can only be made if the AES data is rescaled. The earliest year for which rescaled AES figures are available is 1995.
  Between 1995 and 2000 the AES/ABI data show net increases in the number of employee jobs in the 3 specified areas of:

  a) Birmingham: 11,000

  b) West Midlands region: 150,000

  c) London region: 602,000

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the working age employment rate was for(a) each Government office region and nation of the UK and(b) each ward of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne at(i) April 2000, (ii) April 2001 and (iii) April 2002. [83243]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Cousins, dated 26 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about working age employment rates. (83243)

  149W
  The attached table gives estimates of working age employment and rates for each Government Office Region and nation of the UK, and for Newcastle Upon Tyne Local Authority District, for the three month periods ending May 2001 and May 2002.
  LFS estimates are available for three month periods; they are not available for calendar months. Estimates at ward level are not available.

  Working age1 employment rates2 by area of residence; United Kingdom; spring (March to May) 2001 and 2002; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  Government office region and countries of the UK

  March to May 2001

  March to May 2002

  England

  75.3

  75.1

  North East

  68.4

  68.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  66.4

  63.2

  North West

  72.9

  72.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  73.3

  72.9

  East Midlands

  75.6

  76.5

  West Midlands

  74.1

  74.3

  Eastern

  79.8

  79.2

  London

  71.1

  70.9

  South East

  80.3

  80.1

  South West

  78.8

  79.0

  Wales

  68.1

  68.5

  Scotland

  73.4

  73.1

  Northern Ireland

  67.1

  67.5

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2 Working age people in employment as a percentage of the working age population.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are not seasonally adjusted (NSA) and have not been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results. ONS are working toward producing reweighted LFS estimates based on the findings of the 2001 Census, which will be available from summer 2003.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many constituencies unemployment has(a) risen and(b)(i) risen and (ii) fallen by more than 30 per cent, in the past year. [83234]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Peter Bottomley dated 26 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for the number of constituencies unemployment has(a) risen and(b) risen and fallen by more than 30 per cent in the past year. (83294)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However, by parliamentary constituency the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates. ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of the Jobseeker's Allowance working age benefit.
  Between October 2001 and October 2002 there were 285 parliamentary constituencies out of a total 659 which showed an increase in the levels of claimant count over the year. In the same period, 24 parliamentary constituencies showed a rise of more than 30 per cent while none fell by more than 30 per cent.

  Air Conditioning (Great George Street)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the 150W
  reasons for installing air conditioning equipment using hydrofluorocarbons in its office at Great George Street. [82684]

  Ruth Kelly
  The air conditioning chillers installed in the refurbished Treasury building were procured by Exchequer Partnership in May 2000. At the time of the development of the brief and detailed design for the building the use of refrigerant containing HFCs was in accordance with the accepted industry best practice and fully in line with Government and international environmental and energy policy. The refurbishment has been independently assessed under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method and has been awarded an Excellent rating.

  Barristers Fees (VAT)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the unique deferred VAT liability system on barristers' fees; and if he will make a statement. [82953]

  John Healey
  The Barristers Deferment Scheme is available to barristers who cease to practise and sets out rules for accounting to Customs and Excise for any outstanding VAT. Like all special VAT accounting schemes, this scheme is kept under review by Customs.

  Children (Poverty Statistics)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of children were living in poverty in each constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [83189]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Poverty is a complex multi-dimensional issue, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is therefore no single measure of the number of families with children in poverty in each constituency of the UK.

  The Government have a PSA target to reduce by a quarter the number of children living in households below 60 per cent, of median income by 2004, compared with 1998–99.

  In "Opportunity for All", the Government's annual anti-poverty report, the Government report progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion against this and a range of other indicators. The annual "Households Below Average Income" report, published by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for National Statistics, gives a breakdown of the percentage of children below the 60 per cent, median income threshold in each region of Great Britain. But no such information is available on a constituency-by-constituency basis.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of financial impact of the introduction of the Climate Change Levy tax on the glass industry; [82601]

  (2) which industries have(a) gained and(b) lost from the introduction of the Climate Change Levy. [82602]
  151W
  John Healey
  All industries face the same challenges and opportunities from the climate change levy. All revenue from the levy is recycled back to business through reductions to employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and support for energy efficiency. While the levy package is broadly revenue neutral to business as a whole, the effects on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors, including:the future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support;
  employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded NICs cuts;
  what use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy-exempt renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power; and
  use made of the 80 per cent, discount where-as in the case of glass-this is available via voluntary agreements with energy-intensive sectors.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated total of Treasury receipts from the Climate Change Levy is in 2002–03. [83540]

  John Healey
  The projection for CCL receipts in 2002–03 is shown in table C7 of the financial statement and Budget report 2002 and is £0.9 billion. An updated 2002–03 receipts projection for all duty heads, including CCL, will be published in the 2002 pre-Budget report on 27 November.

  Coin Production
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what basis the Treasury decided not to put its contract for UK coin production out to tender; and if he will make a statement; [80655]

  (2) what plans he has to open the next Treasury contract for the UK coin production to market competition. [80656]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury keeps the arrangements for the supply of circulation coins under review. The current arrangements have several years to run. When the time comes, the Treasury will consider all the possible options for the future supply of UK circulation coin, including the possibility of commercial tendering.

  It would be improper at present to comment further on this issue, given that it may have a bearing on the case brought against the Treasury by the Birmingham Mint, which is currently before the courts. Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of tax relief in Central London road user charges incurred in the financial years ending 31 March(a) 2003,(b) 2004 and(c) 2005. [81821]
  152W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The information on which to base an estimate of the cost is not available.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held on 5 November was, what the Government's position was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [82936]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended ECOFIN on 5 November.

  Council reached political agreement on the prospectus directive. I argued for greater freedom of choice of home state for issuers of non-equities, and secured an amendment to the text ensuring choice for all bonds denominated in units of €5,000 or more. A vote on the amended text was taken and a qualified majority obtained, with the UK voting in favour. In accordance with the revised Council rules of procedure following the Seville European Council, the initial debate and vote on the directive were held in public session.

  The Council noted the Commission's annual oral update on progress against the Risk Capital Action Plan.

  Professor Jaap Winter, Chair of the high level group of Company Law Experts outlined the key recommendations in his group's report on creating a modern regulatory framework for company law and corporate governance in the EU. This report was published on 4 November. Members of the Council noted the report and will discuss it in more detail at a later date.

  ECOFIN discussed, in restricted session, progress on the draft directive on the taxation of savings. The Presidency and the Commission reported on negotiations with third countries, which are to be concluded by end 2002 according to the timetable agreed at the Feira European Council.

  There was also a discussion on energy taxation. It was concluded that further preparatory work was needed on the outstanding issues ahead of further discussion at the December ECOFIN.

  Ministers decided that agreement on VAT Administrative Co-operation should be postponed until the December ECOFIN.

  ECOFIN noted a draft interim report from the Economic and Financial Committee and the Economic Policy Committee on ongoing work on streamlining economic and employment policy processes. It was agreed that further work on this should be undertaken jointly with the preparatory committee for the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council before the report is submitted to the Copenhagen European Council.

  In accordance with Article 104 of the Treaty, the Council agreed that Portugal had an excessive budget deficit, above the 3 per cent, limit, in 2001, and adopted a Recommendation for Portugal to bring the excessive deficit to an end by 31 December 2002.
  153W
  ECOFIN also agreed conclusions on the reform of governance of the European Investment Bank and the capital and reserves of the European Central Bank in light of enlargement.

  Under AOB, the economic and financial situation in the Lebanon was raised by the French Finance Minister.

  After the Council meeting, ECOFIN Ministers held a dialogue with their counterparts from the EU candidate countries.

  Ethiopia (Debt Relief)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to provide debt relief to Ethiopia; what recent discussions he has had with international organisations about providing debt relief to Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement. [83153]

  John Healey
  The UK is already providing 100 per cent, debt relief to Ethiopia. As a Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Ethiopia is eligible for debt relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative. In November 2001 Ethiopia reached Decision Point under the initiative and qualified for interim debt relief on payments due. For its part the UK goes further than is required under the terms of the HIPC initiative and always provides 100 per cent, debt relief. The UK Government are working with other donors, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help Ethiopia reach Completion Point under the HIPC initiative.

  At that point debt will be irrevocably cancelled. To reach Completion Point Ethiopia will need to have demonstrated a clear commitment to poverty reduction, and show how its country-owned poverty reduction strategies will be able to use the resources released by debt relief to reduce poverty. The IMF and World bank estimate that Ethiopia could reach Completion Point as early as July 2003.

  EU Savings Directive
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made by his Department to(a) the Cayman Islands and(b) Bermuda seeking to encourage compliance with the EU Draft Savings Directive. [83459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have held a number of discussions with both territories.

  Income Statistics
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the population of(a) Birmingham,(b) the West Midlands region and(c) the London region had an income(i) twice, (ii) three times, (iii) four times, (iv) five times and (v) more than five times the national average in each of the past 10 years; [82874]

  (2) how many higher rate taxpayers there were in(a) Birmingham,(b) the West Midlands region and(c) the London region expressed as a percentage of the total population of each specified area in each of the past 10 years. [82873]
  154W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates are in the tables.

  Number of higher rate taxpayers1 as a percentage of the total population2for the respective geographical areas

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands region3

  London region

  1995–96

  1.9

  2.6

  5.3

  1996–97

  1.7

  2.3

  5.2

  1997–98

  1.8

  2.1

  5.2

  1998–99

  2.2

  2.6

  6.0

  1999–2000

  2.0

  2.8

  6.3

  2000–01

  2.8

  3.3

  7.9

  1 Number of higher rate taxpayers based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  2 Source for population estimates: Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  3 Government Office Region.

  Number of individuals4 with total income over twice GB average earnings5 as a percentage of the total population6for the respective geographical areas

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands region7

  London region7

  UK

  1995–96

  1.0

  1.5

  3.3

  2.1

  1996–97

  1.1

  1.3

  3.5

  2.2

  1997–98

  1.0

  1.2

  3.6

  2.3

  1998–99

  1.1

  1.4

  4.0

  2.4

  1999–2000

  1.0

  1.6

  4.2

  2.5

  2000–01

  1.4

  1.6

  4.9

  2.7

  Number of individuals4 with total income over three times GB average earnings5 as a percentage of the total population6 for the respective geographical areas

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands region7

  London region1

  UK

  1995–96

  0.5

  0.5

  1.6

  0.9

  1996–97

  0.4

  0.5

  1.6

  0.9

  1997–98

  0.4

  0.4

  1.8

  0.9

  1998–99

  0.4

  0.5

  2.0

  1.0

  1999–2000

  0.4

  0.6

  2.0

  1.1

  2000–01

  0.5

  0.6

  2.4

  1.2

  Number of individuals4 with total income over four times GB average earnings5 as a percentage of the total population6 for the respective geographical areas

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands region7

  London region7

  UK

  1995–96

  0.2

  0.2

  1.0

  0.4

  1996–97

  0.2

  0.3

  1.0

  0.5

  1997–98

  0.2

  0.2

  1.1

  0.5

  1998–99

  0.3

  0.3

  1.3

  0.6

  1999–2000

  0.2

  0.3

  1.3

  0.6

  2000–01

  0.3

  0.3

  1.5

  0.6

  155W

  Number of individuals4 with total income over five times GB average earnings5 as a percentage of the total population6 for the respective geographical areas

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  West Midlands region7

  London region7

  UK

  1995–96

  0.1

  0.1

  0.7

  0.3

  1996–97

  0.1

  0.2

  0.7

  0.3

  1997–98

  0.1

  0.2

  0.8

  0.3

  1998–99

  0.2

  0.2

  0.9

  0.4

  1999–2000

  0.1

  0.2

  0.9

  0.4

  2000–01

  0.2

  0.2

  1.1

  0.4

  4 Number of individuals based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  5 Average earnings based on the New Earnings Survey.

  6 Source for population estimates: Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  7 Government Office Region.

  Inland Revenue Buildings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any of the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue buildings sold to Mapeley or Mapeley Steps were liable for stamp duty; whether stamp duty was paid; and on how many of the buildings. [82764]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 747W.

  Instruments of Torture
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what attempts illegally to export instruments of torture from the UK have been discovered by HM Customs and Excise; and what prosecutions have resulted from such discoveries in each year since 1997. [82942]

  John Healey
  No evidence of attempts to export instruments of torture from the UK illegally has been discovered by HM Customs since 1997.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance has been given to HM Customs and Excise on the identification and prevention of the illegal export of instruments of torture under the current legislation in each year since 1997. [82943]

  John Healey
  Since 1997 Customs have been immediately informed by the Department of Trade and Industry of changes to the UK's export control list and relevant European regulations. Torture equipment and items that could be used for internal repression are included in the control list and in applicable European regulations. Customs ensure that this information is passed to all relevant staff and officers at ports and airports.

  Insurance Industry (Terrorism)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the insurance industry, with particular reference to the cost of providing public liability and employers' liability cover to business; and if he will make a statement. [82830]
  156W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The terms, conditions and price of insurance products adapt in response to the many factors that affect market conditions. These factors include the impact of claims arising from the appalling attacks of 11 September 2001, and the willingness in the insurance industry to take on terrorism risk.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the guarantees and stand-by loan facilities extended to Network Rail represent contingent liabilities in the resource accounts of the Department of Transport. [81808]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The contingent and non-contingent liabilities in connection with Network Rail were set out in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the House on 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 971W, and in the minutes mentioned in the statement, which were laid before Parliament. The situation in relation to the facilities extended to Network Rail will be reported in the resource accounts of the Department for Transport in accordance with HM Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual.

  PFI Prisons (Accounting)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the accounting treatment of PFI prisons. [83237]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 21 November 2002,Official Report, column 280W.

  Population Statistics
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute an inquiry into the accuracy of(a) the census 2001 population figures and(b) the 2001 mid-year population figures. [82946]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Sir Sydney Chapman, dated 26 November 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking if he will institute an inquiry into the accuracy of(a) the 2001 Census population figures and(b) the 2001 mid-year estimate population figures. (82946)
  I am confident that the 2001 Census figures provide the most accurate estimate of the 2001 population, both nationally and locally. The 2001 Census results are the first to represent the entire population. This was achieved through a new strategy known as the 'One Number Census'. One of the key elements was an independent follow-up survey— the Census Coverage Survey (CCS), which involved an intensive face-to-face survey of a sample of over 16,000 postcodes containing 320,000 households covering every local authority in England and Wales. By combining the results of the Census and the CCS, it was possible to estimate the total resident population in 2001— the 'one number'— to a high

  157W
  level of precision, plus or minus 0.2 per cent, and to provide information on the characteristics of those persons missed by the Census.
  Thus in 2001, the Census results represent 100 per cent of the population. Census response, that is the proportion of people returning a form in England and Wales, was 94 per cent. The 6 per cent of people estimated to have been missed by the Census have been added to the counts using a statistical process that was subject to extensive consultation, and based on the results of the CCS.
  In addition, the 2001 Census has undergone rigorous testing and quality checking throughout both the fieldwork and processing. Census tests were carried out in 1997 and 1999 and a survey designed to measure the accuracy of response to each question has been completed. Furthermore, a comprehensive set of verification and validation checks were built in to the processing of the data, and data quality played a key role in all aspects of processing the forms. All information on accuracy will be contained in a Census Quality report to be published in 2003.
  The population base for the 2001 Census was defined so as to be entirely consistent with that used in the calculation of the mid-year estimates, and the 2001 Census figures will form the basis of the mid-year population estimates throughout the next decade. Thus, the 2001 mid-year estimate was calculated by adjusting the census figures to take account of births and deaths and an estimate of the net migration in the interval between Census day (29 April) and the 30 June.
  However, in the light of the evidence, shown by the 2001 Census figures, that the previous (pre-2001) mid-year estimate series had been over-estimating the size of the population and growth in the population over the last few years, the Office for National Statistics will be conducting an assessment of accuracy of the mid-year population estimates that is aimed at learning lessons from the 2001 Census results and making improvements to the method and data sources used to produce mid-year estimates in the future. The results of this assessment are due to be published on the National Statistics website in February 2003. A National Statistics Quality Review on international migration is also currently underway.
  Some local authorities have experienced an unexpectedly large shift between their population estimates for mid 2001, and the Census values. We are working with several of these to examine our explanation of the differences.
  For the above reasons, I therefore do not feel it necessary to instigate any further inquiry into the accuracy of the 2001 Census and 2001 mid-year estimate figures.

  Private Nursing Homes (VAT)
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the charging of VAT on the material costs and fees associated with the development of private nursing homes. [83403]

  John Healey
  There is no VAT on the construction of a new nursing home because it is zero-rated. In contrast, extensions and other works to existing homes are subject to the standard rate of VAT, other than approved alterations to nursing homes in listed buildings which are zero-rated.

  Redundancy Statistics
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) women and(b) men were made redundant between the ages of 50 and 65 in each year since 1996. [82542]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  158W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brazier, dated 26 November 2002:
  As the National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about redundancy levels. (82542)
  The attached table gives estimates of redundancy levels for(a) men and(b) women between the ages of 50 and 65 in each twelve month period ending August, from 1996 to 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Number of people aged 50 to 65 made redundant: United Kingdom 1996–2002, not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  September to August

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  1996

  143

  100

  43

  1997

  144

  100

  44

  1998

  145

  100

  45

  1999

  171

  113

  58

  2000

  157

  101

  57

  2001

  150

  109

  40

  2002

  176

  119

  57

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are not seasonally adjusted (NSA) and have not been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results. ONS are working toward producing re-weighted LFS estimates based on the findings of the 2001 Census, which will be available from summer 2003.

  Royal Mint
  Ms Stuart
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will require the Royal Mint to publish financial information separately covering its three distinct business streams of(a) UK circulating coins,(b) overseas coin production and(c) non-coin products. [80652]

  Ruth Kelly
  The provision of the information requested would place the Royal Mint at a competitive disadvantage. Exemption 7 (Effective management and operations of the public service) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Royal Mint informed his Department that it was to end its consortium agreement with the Royal Mint. [80653]

  Ruth Kelly
  It would be improper at present to comment on this issue, as it relates to the court case brought by the Birmingham Mint against the Treasury. Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet(a) directors and(b) union representatives from the Birmingham Mint to discuss the policy decision by the Royal Mint to end its consortium with the Birmingham Mint. [80654]

  Ruth Kelly
  Because of the court case brought against the Treasury by the Birmingham Mint, Ministers should not meet Directors or Union representatives of the Birmingham Mint. Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.
  159W
  Ms. Stuart:
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what reporting procedures his Department puts in place to ensure that the Royal Mint is not using its monopoly position in UK coin production to cross subsidise its other business units. [80657]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has shareholder oversight of the Mint's sales and cost base, and sets demanding conditions for the UK coinage contract.

  It would be improper at present to comment further on this issue, given that it may have a bearing on the case brought against the Treasury by the Birmingham Mint, which is currently before the courts. Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Ms. Stuart
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what return on capital the Royal Mint made in each year since 1990. [80658]

  Ruth Kelly
  The return on Capital made by the Royal Mint in each year since 1990 is included in the table below.

  Return on average capital employed

  Actual return (percentage)

  1990–91

  27.9

  1991–92

  21

  1992–93

  23.1

  1993–94

  32.0

  1994–95

  28.3

  1995–96

  18.3

  1996–97

  14.1

  1997–98

  22.3

  1998–99

  9.1

  1999–2000

  0.5

  2000–01

  0.7

  2001–02

  26.4

  Ms Stuart
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what return on capital the Treasury expects the Royal Mint to make in each year from 2002 to 2005. [80659]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury expects the Royal Mint to make a return on capital of 11 per cent, within the period from 2001/2 to 2005/6.

  Tax Processing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the underlying data for the basket of outputs referred to in his answer on tax processing of 5 November,Official Report, column 211W; and if he will make a statement. [80638]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so today.

  Voluntary Work
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the value of voluntary sector work to the economy in each year since 1997. [80409]

  John Healey
  The contribution of general charities to GDP was £4.5 billion in 1997;£4.7 billion in 1998;£5.0 billion in 1999;£5.3 billion in 2000;and £5.8 billion in 2001.
  160W
  The contribution of non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) to GDP was £19.6 billion in 1997;£21.1 billion in 1998;£22.2 billion in 1999; £23.0 billion in 2000;and £24.3 billion in 2001.

  Neither set of estimates takes into account the value of unpaid work to general charities.

ADVOCATE GENERAL

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since 23 October under the Scotland Act 1998. [81434]

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised with her since 22 October, under the Scotland Act 1988. [81435]

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since 23 October under the Scotland Act 1998. [81437]

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since 23 October under the Scotland Act 1998. [81438]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Lady, the Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), column 152.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Advocate-General how many devolution cases she has dealt with since September. [81436]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Since 1 September, 65 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make statement on his plans for the presentation of evidence in the Welsh language to select committees. [81519]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Select Committees may take oral evidence in the Welsh language. Written evidence must be submitted in the English language, though it is understood that the Welsh Affairs Committee frequently receives memoranda prepared in both languages.

  Parliamentary Language
  Mr. Chris Bryant
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to propose reforms to the rules on parliamentary language. [81520]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans at present to reform the rules of parliamentary language, but hopes that the Modernisation Committee may look at this matter soon. He recognises the concern of many Members
  161W
  about the more archaic elements of our parliamentary language and the impression they give to the public. 8/Parliamentary Calendar

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council, what assessment he has made of the public's reaction to the recently announced changes to the Parliamentary Calendar and timings of sittings of the House. [81523]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our impression is that the public's reaction to the recently announced changes has been generally favourable, and that the end to late evening sittings has been particularly welcomed. The YouGov poll in anticipation of the vote in the House on these matters showed a nine to one majority of the public in favour of the change to sitting hours and September sittings.

  Westminster Hall
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Council what representations he has received on the seating arrangements in Westminster Hall. [81515]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  There have been four parliamentary questions on the seating in Westminster Hall since June 2001, three of them from my hon. Friend. I have also received letters from six hon. Members on this subject since the House returned in October, one of them from my hon. Friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Security
  Brian White
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the cost and benefits were of the new security measures between Norman Shaw North and Portcullis House. [81522]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is long-standing practice not to comment on the details of security expenditure or arrangements on the Parliamentary Estate.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts Central Council
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she last met representatives of the Magistrates' Courts Central Council. [81471]

  Yvette Cooper
  I last met with representatives of the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees on 11 November 2002.

  Domestic Violence
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action her Department is taking to help victims of domestic violence. [81472]
  162W
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on further steps to tackle domestic violence that are under consideration by her Department. [81475]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government remain committed to tackling domestic violence.

  An inter-Ministerial group set up last November is working across Government on five key areas for action. My Department is responsible for leading work on improving the interface between the criminal, civil and family law. We aim to identify ways to make the process less distressing for victims, by working with stakeholders and voluntary organisations at local and national level to develop a more integrated approach that tackles the impacts of domestic violence as part of the justice process.

  In order to inform our work in this area, I set up an advisory group to bring together the full range of stakeholders involved in dealing with domestic violence and to act as a sounding board and reality check for our policy proposals.

  This group will also assist the Department in its work, in liaison with the Home Office, on the Government's consultation paper setting out proposals for the prevention of domestic violence.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when she last met members of the lay magistracy. [81474]

  Yvette Cooper
  I last met members of the lay magistracy on 18 November 2002.

  Courthouse, Colchester
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when she expects the new courthouse in Colchester will open. [81476]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is planned that the new courthouse in Colchester will be opened in early 2007.

  Child Abduction
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the actions taken by the Government to prevent child abduction from the UK. [81479]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department works closely with the other UK jurisdictions, the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Court Service and with other Government Departments, to prevent child abduction as far as possible. The Lord Chancellor's Department provides core funding to the charity Reunite—International Child Abduction Centre, which provides advice and support to parents in fear of, or who have suffered, the abduction of their child. The UK Government contribute towards the cost of their advice line, and are supporting initiatives for a prevention awareness campaign which will begin in England and Wales in March 2003.
  163W
  LCD provides the Secretariat for the Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group in which other Departments and agencies participate. The group promoted the change in passport regulations which means that a child has to have a separate passport, reducing the risk of a forged entry on a parent's passport being used to remove the child from the UK. The group meets quarterly and is looking at other action to raise awareness and prevent child abduction.

  Provisions of the Children Act 1989 allow the courts to prohibit the removal of the child from the UK.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement of the role of the Privy Council in relation to the use of the death penalty in a number of overseas territories. [81521]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for 16 independent Commonwealth countries. When hearing appeals the Judicial Committee applies the law of the country from which the appeal comes. Most of the countries concerned retain the death penalty for certain offences and some cases that come before the Judicial Committee are appeals against conviction and/or sentence in capital cases. Over the years the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has played an important part in developing constitutional safeguards in relation to the imposition and execution of the death penalty in these countries and in helping to uphold the integrity of the criminal process.

  Ministerial Committee on Biotechnology
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his work as Chairman of the Ministerial Committee on Biotechnology. [81509]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I chair the Ministerial Committee on Biotechnology (SCI(BIO)). Details on the membership of the Committee can be found on my Department's website at www.pco.gov.uk/output/Page67.asp. The Committee is a sub-committee of the Committee on Science Policy (SCI). It considers issues relating to biotechnology—including those arising from genetic modification, biotechnology in healthcare and genetic issues—and their economic impact; and reports as necessary to the Committee on Science Policy. Policy responsibility for the issues raised in the Committee rest in the main with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

SCOTLAND

  Northern Lighthouse Board
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next intends to meet the commissioners of the Northern Lighthouse Board. [81446]
  164W
  Mrs. McGuire
  Neither my right, hon. Friend nor I have any current plans to meet the Commissioners of the Northern Lighthouse Board.

  Drugs
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of Stat for Scotland what discussions she has recently had with the First Minister on the issue of drugs in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [81448]

  Mrs. Helen Liddell
  I meet regularly with the First Minister and discuss a range of topics.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom she has made recent representations regarding the fishing industry in Scotland. [81449]

  Mrs. Helen Liddell
  I have discussed issues concerning the Scottish fishing industry with my Government colleagues and with the Scottish Executive.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of prospects for employment in the Scottish fishing industry. [81459]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the prospects for employment in the Scottish fishing industry. [81441]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), column 145.

  Voluntary Sector
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what steps she is taking to engage with the voluntary sector in Scotland regarding employment. [81450]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The voluntary sector plays a major role in the Government's Welfare to Work agenda. I am delighted to say that around 8,000 people in Scotland have participated in the voluntary sector option within the New Deal for Young People. I recently addressed the Support Training Action Group on the voluntary sector's role in supporting the Welfare to Work programme.

  Rural Poverty
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policies she is promoting to end rural poverty. [81451]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government are committed to tacking poverty across all sectors of society, including those living in rural areas. We have introduced a number of measures, such as the Working Families Tax Credit, Children's Tax Credit, New Deal, National Minimum Wage and the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners, all of which complement rural initiatives taken by the Scottish Executive.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Scottish Executive to discuss inward investment in Scotland. [81452]
  165W
  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Lady, the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), at column 149.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Mark Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will publish the results of her consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [81453]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will publish the results of her consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [81460]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), at column 143.

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the Scottish economy. [81454]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Despite uncertainty in the global economy the fundamentals of the Scottish economy are sound. The economy grew in the year to June 2002 in the face of an international downturn. Our labour market is healthy, while inflation and interest rates are low. Scotland shares the benefits of macroeconomic stability delivered by the Government while the Scottish Executive are able to exercise their devolved responsibilities to respond to local priorities and economic development opportunities.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the Scottish economy. [81458]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding ways of combating anti social behaviour through United Kingdom-wide legislation. [81455]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues. The Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to combating anti-social behaviour through a range of appropriate measures.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with Postcomm regarding deregulation of postal services in Scotland. [81456]
  166W
  Mrs. McGuire
  I recently attended and gave the closing address at a conference jointly organised by Postcomm and Postwatch, at which a wide range of postal matters affecting Scotland were discussed.

  Media Industry
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the implications for diversity in the Scottish media industry of the Government's legislative programme. [81457]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I meet my right hon. Friend regularly for discussion on a wide range of issues, including the Government's proposals for broadcasting and print media, now reflected in the Communications Bill published last week.

  Creative Industries
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to promote Scotland's creative industries. [81461]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The creative industries are a dynamic and fast growing sector of the Scottish economy. I am therefore pleased to be able to co-host an event tomorrow with Lord Puttnam of Queensgate, Chairman of NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), which will provide an opportunity to highlight the wealth of Scottish talent in this sector.

  Communications Bill
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented within Government in respect of the Communications Bill. [81462]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the DTI, and I am confident that the new regulator, Ofcom, has the capacity to take full account of the consumers and the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors in Scotland. Ofcom will have an overarching duty to take account of the needs of the nations and regions in all its activities. The Communications Bill makes statutory provision for specific Scottish representation on the Content Board and Consumer Panel to be established by Ofcom. Ofcom will also be required to establish an office in Scotland.

  NETA
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation she has initiated about the impact of applying NETA in Scotland. [81463]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government are committed to developing a single wholesale electricity market for Great Britain to ensure a long-term diverse and secure supply of energy for Britain.
  167W
  The Department of Trade and Industry is continuing consultations with this Department, the Scottish Executive, Ofgem, industry and stakeholders in developing appropriate arrangements for the GB electricity market.

  Economy
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she is taking to consult Scottish business and trade union interests on economic issues. [81464]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Macro-economic policy makes an essential contribution to achieving a healthy and successful Scottish economy. As part of my on-going programme of meetings to discuss these issues with key stakeholders, I shall be meeting representatives of business organisations in Scotland and with the STUC General Council on 2 December following the release of the Pre-Budget Report to hear their views on Government macro-economic policy.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his policy is on the extension of postal voting for elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. [81477]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am responsible for the conduct of elections to the Scottish Parliament. Responsibility for the conduct of elections to the National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly lies with the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. The extension of postal voting for elections to the Scottish Parliament was provided for in the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) (Amendment) Order 2001; for elections to the National Assembly for Wales by the National assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2002; and for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.

  School Sport Co-ordinator posts

  School Sport Coordinator Partnerships

  Jarrow Constituency

  1. At Hedworthfield Comprehensive, part of the King George V partnership.

  Partnerships align with LEA, not constituency, boundaries.

  South Tyneside MBC

  4

  1. Centred on King George V School, comprising 4 secondary schools (including Hedworthfield) and 22 primary schools (9 of which are in Jarrow).

  Tyne and Wear1

  19

  5. One in each LEA.

  UK (England)2

  765

  149

  1 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough; Newcastle City Council; North Tyneside Metropolitan Council; South Tyneside MBC; Sunderland City Council.

  2 The School Sports Co-ordinator programme is being rolled out only in England.

  168W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery Funding
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many ex-servicemen's welfare organisations in West Sussex applied for National Lottery funding last year. [83302]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer Monday 25 November 2002]One ex-servicemen's welfare organisation in West Sussex applied for National Lottery Funding last year through the Awards for All scheme: The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association Forces Help— Crawley and East Grinstead Division was awarded £4,928 on 16 May 2001.

  Regional Arts Council Members
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the(a) Regional Arts Council members and(b) National Council members of the Arts Council of England are(i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) disabled, (iii) male, (iv) female,(v) under the age of thirty and (vi) over the age of sixty, and if she will make a statement. [82770]

  Dr. Howells:

  Question

  Regional Arts Council members

  National Arts Council members

  Percentage ethnic minorities

  16.5

  13.3

  Percentage disabled

  8.2

  0

  Percentage male

  51

  60

  Percentage female

  49

  40

  Percentage under 30 years old

  0.9

  0

  Percentage over 60 years old

  13.7

  6.6

  All appointments are made on merit.

  School Sports
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) school sports co-ordinators and(b) school sports co-ordinator partnerships there are in(i) Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) Tyne and Wear and (iv) UK. [82440]

  Mr. Caborn
  The position in September 2002 is laid out in the following table. No School Sport Coordinator partnerships have gone live since that date.

  Seabed Rentals
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what annual rental charges are paid to the Crown Estate for seabed rentals for ferry piers, ports and harbours operated by(a) Caledonian MacBrayne,(b) Shetland Islands Council,(c) Orkney Islands Council,(d) Lerwick Port Authority,(e) Scrabster Harbour Trust,(f) Ullapool Harbour Trustees,(g) Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commission,(h) Argyll and Bute Council,(i) Mallaig Harbour Authority,(j) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar,(k) Clydeport and(I) Aberdeen Harbour Board. [81964]

  Ruth Kelly:
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The Crown Estate cannot release figures relating to commercial leases without the prior consent of the Lessee. Consent is being sought and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Sports Action Zone (Workington)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent in Workington from the Sports Action Zone covering Allerdale, Copeland and Barrow; and on what projects. [82447]

  Mr. Caborn
  Projects in the West Cumbria and Barrow Sport Action Zone from which Workington benefits are as follows:

  £

  Sport Action Zone investment

  Total project cost

  Workington Wards Salterbeck Sports Coordinator

  54,000

  110,000

  Allerdale District

  Allerdale Baton Relay

  2,500

  6,000

  Grassroots Sport SOS1

  10,000

  31,600

  Allerdale Community Chest

  21,000

  21,000

  West Cumbria

  Sport for Health Manager

  30,000

  70,000

  Sport Directory

  11,200

  19,700

  Zone-wide

  Monitoring the impact of sport social wellbeing of communities

  7,320

  14,640

  County-wide

  Adults Other than Teachers Programme

  7,500

  24,800

  1Three year project

  In addition the following projects are currently being developed which impact on Workington:
  Feasibility study to attract the world mountain marathon to the District of Allerdale (Sport Action Zone £3,000);
  Three year dance project in partnership with Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils and Keswick Theatre by the Lake (Sport Action Zone £9,000);
  'Engaging in Football'— A five year programme in partnership with NACRO in West Cumbria. Workington target wards are Salterbeck, St. Michael's; Northside (Sport Action Zone £ 28,000);
  Three year enhancement of passport in the Zone, in partnership with Cumbria Outdoors and Cumbria Sport. Workington target being the Leisure Centre (Sport Action Zone £ 9,000);
  170W
  Two year pilot programme: Bridging the Gap through Sport in the Zone. Two year pilot programme with rugby union, rugby league and tennis. Aims to link the social inclusion agenda and National Governing Bodies of Sport (Sport Action Zone £36,000);
  SAZ Newsletter to raise awareness of the Zone's progress (Sport Action Zone £ 2,000);
  Education through Sport in the Zone. A three year programme aiming to develop five programmes linking education and sport agendas, to increase numbers of coaches; develop Top Tots; training community sports coaches; create opportunities for adult volunteers and increase community exercise instructors (Sport Action Zone £ 40,000).

DEFENCE

  A400M
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce pension provision for part-time soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment. [83044]

  Dr. Moonie
  The employment rights of part-time soldiers serving in the Royal Irish Regiment are currently the subject of applications to the Industrial Tribunal. The right to a pension is one of the issues under consideration. It would be inappropriate to say more at this stage.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of BAE Systems' bid for the position of prime contractor for the new aircraft carrier; how many jobs will be dependent on this procurement; and if he will make a statement. [83229]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme is currently in the Assessment Phase, Stage 2 of which ended on 20 November. The procurement strategy for CVF does not rely on a 'bid' process, rather the two candidate prime contractors (BAE Systems and Thales) have been assessed on a continuous basis over the last three years. It is this continuous assessment that will form the basis of our forthcoming selection of preferred prime contractor. In terms of jobs, it is still too early to be definitive as to the numbers that will be involved but early indications suggest that the CVF programme could sustain and create some 10,000 jobs across the United Kingdom during the design and manufacture of the carriers; this would be true irrespective of which of the two candidate primes is eventually selected.

  Mr. James Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with companies wishing to be the prime contractor for the procurement of the new aircraft carriers; and when the decision will be made. [83223]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have had close contacts with the two candidate prime contractors for the Future Aircraft Carrier (BAE Systems and Thales) throughout the second stage of assessment, which was completed on 20 November. We are currently in the process of compiling the results from our continuous assessment of both contractors and consulting with interested parties; we plan to announce our decision by 31 January 2003.
  171W

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to upgrade or replace the night-vision system on the Apache helicopter. [82124]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]An upgrade of Apache's night vision system has been identified as one of a range of possible enhancements to the helicopter during its service life. No decision has yet been taken on this specific element.

  BAE Systems
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the names are of the secondees from BAE Systems working in his Department; and what work they are engaged in. [81326]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer Monday 25 November 2002]Alan Garwood's appointment as Head of Defence Export Services was announced on 16 September 2002.

  I am withholding the names of the other five BAE Systems secondees, in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. They are respectively engaged with training on Smart Acquisition; support chain management; logistics capability development; research in electronic warfare and warship support. Additionally, on 4 November, a secondee from BAE Systems began work on air logistics support.

  Dates

  Submarine

  Refit work

  April 1970 to May 1972

  Valiant

  First refit and reactor refuel

  June 1971 to October 1973

  Warspite

  First refit and reactor refuel

  December 1973 to October 1975

  Churchill

  First refit and reactor refuel

  May 1974 to October 1976

  Dreadnought

  Second refit, reactor refuel and first decontamination of Primary Loop

  October 1975 to June 1977

  Conqueror

  First refit and reactor refuel

  November 1976 to July 1978

  Courageous

  First refit and reactor refuel

  April 1977 to January 1978

  Sovereign

  Reactor modification

  January 1978 to February 1980

  Valiant

  Second refit and reactor refuel

  August 1979 to March 1982

  Warspite

  Second refit and reactor refuel

  October 1980 to May 1983

  Churchill

  Second refit and reactor refuel

  March 1982 to March 1983

  Dreadnought

  Decommissioning and defuel

  Due to the time elapsed since the closure of Chatham dockyard, further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how nuclear waste was transported(a) within the former Chatham dockyard and(b) externally; and how it was identified. [82525]

  Dr. Moonie
  Within the dockyard, radioactive waste was moved in suitable containers, and under the supervision of an authorised person, in accordance with the Factories Act 1955 and the national regulations on ionising radiations that were in force at the time. Arrangements for the transportation of low-level waste took account of the route over which the waste had to be moved, and the nature of the waste itself. Waste was routinely moved from the Nuclear Complex to the Solid Waste Disposal Facility, a distance of about one mile, by motor vehicle. Within the Solid Waste Disposal Facility, waste containers were moved by fork-lift truck, although some very low-level wastes were moved over

  Canberra PR9
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his procurement strategy for the replacement of the Canberra PR9s. [82215]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 753W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  Chatham Dockyard
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on refit network schedules at the former Chatham dockyard including removal and refurbishment of(a) the reactor/ equipments and(b) associated pipework; and when these refits took place. [82523]

  Dr. Moonie
  Refit work undertaken on nuclear powered submarines at the former Chatham dockyard was subject to a rigorous production control system, which authorised repair work, including the removal and refurbishment of reactors/equipments and associated pipework, as identified in the overall refit network schedule programme. Refit work undertaken at the dockyard from 1970 until its closure in 1983 is shown in the table.

  short distances by a hand-operated electrical lifting vehicle, where this was judged to be safe. Large items of intermediate level waste were usually transported within the dockyard under a police escort.

  Very low-level waste for disposal by the local authority, and low-level wastes for delivery to the National Disposal Service at Harwell and to the national repository at Drigg, were usually transported by road vehicle, although on occasions waste was transported by rail. All transport of radioactive materials on the public highway or by rail was in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency's Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether unclassified workers at the former Chatham dockyard received the same training in respect of radiation exposure as classified workers. [82526]
  173W
  Dr. Moonie
  Prior to first starting work involving radiation, all radiation workers, whether classified or unclassified, received a lecture on the hazards and standard procedures for radiation protection. They were also given a personal copy of a booklet on radiation protection, which reiterated the content of the lecture. In addition, classified workers were given specific instruction appropriate to the nature of their work.

  Visitors making short, supervised, educational or familiarisation visits to radiation areas, at times when the risk was judged to be low, were not required to receive such standard training.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how(a) solid and(b) liquid nuclear waste at the former Chatham dockyard was stored(i) within the nuclear complex and (ii) within the wider dockyard environment. [82527]

  Dr. Moonie
  Solid radioactive waste was stored in the purpose-built Solid Waste Disposal Complex at the eastern end of Chatham dockyard. Other industrial buildings within the dockyard were also used as radioactive waste stores, as and when necessary. These buildings were monitored for radioactive contamination after use and, where necessary, decontaminated. Solid radioactive waste was stored in accordance with the Factories Act 1955, national ionising radiation regulations and Royal Naval instructions for radiological protection that were in force at the time. The arrangements were subject to inspection by the Factory Inspectorate.

  Liquid nuclear waste was disposed of directly to the effluent treatment plant (ETP) in the nuclear complex, or transferred via liquid effluent tanks to the ETP.

  Used resins, which were a mixture of solid and liquid material, were kept in specially designed resin catch tanks. They were stored at the Solid Waste Disposal Complex.

  Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statistical information he has collected concerning the deaths in or near military property since 1990. [80685]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on deaths is routinely collected within the Ministry of Defence in a number of ways. Service casualty branches receive and hold information on injuries and deaths for next of kin and casualty purposes. The Armed Forces Pay and Administration Agency collects information on deaths for pay, pensions and manpower purposes. The Defence Analytical Services Agency collects information for statistical purposes. Detailed information on location is held by the Service casualty branches. However, this is not readily accessible, being held as free text fields in a mixture of databases and paper records.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultants there are in each faculty within Defence Medical Services. [80796]
  174W
  Dr. Moonie
  The number of consultants in each specialty within the Defence Medical Services, as at 1 July 2002, is set out in the following table:

  Consultant specialty

  Current manning1

  General Surgery

  18

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  11

  General Medicine

  20

  Anaesthetics

  23

  Accident and Emergency

  3

  Dermatology

  3

  Paediatrics

  2

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  1

  Neurology

  0

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  0

  Urology

  3

  Burns and Plastic Surgery

  3

  Psychiatry

  10

  Ophthalmology

  3

  Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

  7

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  3

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  6

  Radiology

  10

  Pathology

  5

  Chemical Pathology

  0

  Haematology

  1

  Histopathology

  2

  Microbiology

  2

  Aviation Medicine

  1

  Occupational Medicine

  43

  Public Health Medicine

  8

  Restorative Dentistry

  2

  Dental Public Health

  2

  1 Including command and staff appointments

  Fire Service Cover
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reserve forces are available(a) to assist in firefighting duties and(b) to replace regular service personnel engaged in firefighting duties during industrial action by civilian firefighters. [82908]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]There are currently no plans to call out reservists in response to the firefighters' strike. However, it is possible that volunteers may be used in supporting roles, but in such cases they would not be deployed as firefighters.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the deployment of service personnel to provide fire cover on the ability of the Armed Forces to respond to a chemical, biologial, radiological and nuclear attack in the UK. [82952]

  Mr. Ingram
  Contingency plans, involving the Armed Forces, are in place for responding to a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack. This capability has not been affected by the deployment of Service personnel to provide emergency fire and rescue cover.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sign a Queen's Order conferring rights to call up extra reserves in the event of military action being undertaken before the firefighters' dispute has been settled. [82910]
  175W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Reservists are called out under the legal powers conferred by the Reserve Forces Act 1996.There are currently four extant call-out orders made under that Act, namely: An order made on 28 February 2002 under section 56 to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
  An order made on 3 April 2002 under section 56 to support operations in the former Yugoslavia;
  An order made on 3 April 2002 under section 54 for operations in the region of Iraq in support of the no fly zones and UNIKOM;
  An order made on 14 October 2002 under section 54 for operations in support of the campaign against international terrorism.

  Deaths due to discharge of firearms since 1990, by location

  Year of death

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Great Britain

  8

  4

  3

  3

  5

  7

  Northern Ireland

  10

  9

  11

  11

  4

  7

  Germany

  9

  1

  4

  1

  3

  1

  Other overseas postings

  1

  25

  1

  2

  15

  5

  Grand total

  28

  39

  19

  17

  27

  20

  Year of death

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Grand total

  Great Britain

  6

  4

  1

  3

  2

  2

  48

  Northern Ireland

  4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  61

  Germany

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  Other overseas postings

  7

  0

  0

  3

  8

  4

  71

  Grand total

  17

  5

  1

  7

  10

  9

  199

  Comprehensive information on firearm related injuries is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Firearms Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many firearms deaths since 1990

  Deaths due to discharge of firearms since 1990

  Year of death

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Hostile action and assault

  10

  12

  6

  7

  8

  0

  Suicide and open

  12

  7

  11

  5

  12

  14

  Accidental/other

  6

  20

  2

  5

  7

  6

  Grand total

  28

  39

  19

  17

  27

  20

  Year of death

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Grand total

  Hostile action and assault

  5

  1

  0

  3

  2

  1

  55

  Suicide and open

  9

  3

  0

  0

  3

  2

  78

  Accidental/other

  3

  1

  1

  4

  5

  6

  66

  Grand total

  17

  5

  1

  7

  10

  9

  199

  Notes:

  1.The number of suicides and open verdicts is likely to rise for the later years as outstanding coroners' verdicts are confirmed.

  2.As at 18 November 2002.
  176W
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 4 November, call- out of reservists for any new operational commitment would be the subject of a separate call-out order at the appropriate time.

  Firearms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of Her Majesty's armed services have(a) died and(b) been seriously injured as a result of the discharge of firearms in(i) Great Britain, (ii) Northern Ireland, (iii) Germany and (iv) other overseas postings in each year since 1990. [80680]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2001, 199 service personnel have died as a result of the discharge of firearms. These deaths are shown by location in the following table.

  were perceived to be(a) suicide or self-inflicted deaths,(b) accidental deaths and(c) homicide or other deaths caused by other persons or persons unknown. [80681]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2001, 199 service personnel have died as a result of firearms. The cause of these deaths are shown in the following table:

  Frigate Sales
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which frigate the UK intends to sell to Thailand. [83014]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]No Royal Navy frigates are currently intended to be sold to Thailand.

  Homeless Ex-service Men
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his Department has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Homelessness Unit regarding homeless ex-service men; what welfare policies are in place to prevent young ex-service men becoming homeless; and what plans he has to introduce further policies. [83299]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Since my appointment as Minister for Veterans in March 2001,I have had regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) through the Veterans Task Force which normally meets every six months to give direction to the Government's Veterans Initiative. I have also agreed to become a member of the Ministerial Committee on Homelessness.

  Officials from the Ministry of Defence and ODPM meet representatives of veterans' organisations regularly through the Ex-Service Action Group; in recent times there has been increased contact in order to develop a work placement programme which will be provided in partnership with the Prince's Trust "Business in the Community". The programme will be up and running next year.

  Officials from ODPM are members of a working group on service resettlement established as part of the Veterans Initiative. I have tasked the group with enhancing processes to ensure a more successful transition to civilian life for the small minority of vulnerable service leavers who need support.

  The MOD had a number of discussions with the ODPM earlier this year in order to assume financial responsibility for the housing advice staff provided by the English Churches Housing Group in Catterick Garrison and Shelter at the Military Correction and Training Centre in Colchester.

  Officials from both Departments have also been discussing how best to make local authority housing officers around the country aware of the change in the 1996 Housing Act Priority Needs Categories, issued on 31 July 2002, which extends the groups of homeless people considered to be in priority need of housing to include the few armed forces personnel who are vulnerable to homelessness due to their institutional background. MOD has also been engaging with the appropriate authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that the same issues are taken into account in their future legislative proposals for housing allocations.

  More recently, my officials have been finalising arrangements with the ODPM's Homelessness Directorate and the local authority in Richmond, North Yorkshire, for a project to convert a disused art-gallery
  178W
  into 13 self-contained studio flats. The flats will be used to provide short-term accommodation (six to nine months being the norm) for service leavers who are most vulnerable to homelessness. I met the first residents on 25 November.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the average expected wear time is for a pair of standard issue(a) combat boots and(b) desert boots; and what the actual wear time was for(i) combat boots and (ii) desert boots in each year since 1997; [82537]

  (2) what the average wear time was for a pair of infantry combat trousers in each year since 1996. [82541]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]We expect combat boots to last for about 24 months and desert boots to last for about six months. Combat trousers are expected to last for about 18 to 24 months for light use and about four to six months for heavy use. Central records are not held on actual wear times, but the life expectancy depends on the conditions in which they are worn and how the item is maintained.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received in the last 12 months from infantry soldiers regarding the quality of(a) combat boots,(b) combat trousers,(c) sleeping bags and(d) tents. [82538]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]In the last 12 months the Ministry of Defence has received, from armed forces personnel, a total of 30 complaints regarding combat boots, 15 complaints regarding combat trousers, no complaints regarding sleeping bags and three complaints regarding tents. These comments provide valuable feedback as we continuously seek to improve the products we provide.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry soldiers own their own(a) boots,(b) sleeping bags and(c) tents. [82539]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Service personnel are issued with the clothing and equipment required to carry out their jobs, whatever the environment. We do not maintain records on the number of infantry soldiers who have their own boots, sleeping bags and tents.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times his Department has changed supplier for(a) combat boots and(b) combat trousers since 1997; and what the reasons were for the change. [82540]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Since 1997 the Ministry of Defence has made the following number of supplier changes:Combat Assault Boots— Varied between two suppliers and one. Currently split between the two.
  Cold Wet Weather Boots—No changes.
  Desert Combat Boots—one change.
  Combat Trousers—Consolidated from five supplies to one.
  Desert Combat Trousers—One change.

  The changes were made as part of the standard competitive tendering process.
  179W
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pairs of combat trousers were available to an infantry company every three months in each year since 1996; how many are available now. [82543]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Each service man receives a standard issue of three pairs of combat trousers, and these are replaced as required. Units are issued with replacement stocks in line with the number of soldiers they have. Additional stocks can be ordered if this proves necessary.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to equip service men with suitable personal kit for deployment to the middle east in(a) winter months,(b) spring months and(c) summer months. [82614]

  Dr. Moonie
  The safety and well-being of all service personnel is paramount at all times and they are issued with the clothing and equipment required to carry out their jobs, whatever the environment.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a formal mechanism will be made available for the public to register their views on missile defence with his Department. [83126]

  Mr. Hoon
  Members of the public are welcome to write to the Ministry of Defence with their views on missile defence. I intend to publish shortly some discussion material as an aid to public debate.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) RFA Wave Ruler and(b) HMS Bulwark will enter service. [82210]

  Dr. Moonie
  RFA Wave Ruler is expected to enter service in March 2003.

  On the basis of current information HMS Bulwark is expected to enter service in 2004. However, the exact date is under review with the company, BAES Marine.

  Parachute Accidents
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of Her Majesty's armed forces have died through parachute accidents in(i) Great Britain, (ii) Northern Ireland, (iii) Germany and (iv) other overseas postings in each year since 1990; and what rule procedural changes have been brought about as a result of Board of Inquiry reports. [80683]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1990, 11 members of the armed forces have died as a result of parachuting accidents. To ensure that Service personnel confidentiality is not compromised, it has been necessary to group the data by cause and year, and by location and year, in the following tables:

  Deaths due to parachute accidents by location: between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2002

  Great Britain

  Overseas

  Royal Navy

  1

  0

  Royal Marine

  0

  2

  180W

  Deaths due to parachute accidents by location: between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2002

  Great Britain

  Overseas

  Army

  1

  5

  RAF

  1

  1

  Total

  3

  8

  Note:

  No deaths have occurred in Northern Ireland or Germany.

  Deaths due to parachute accidents by year: between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2002

  All deaths

  1990

  1

  1992

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  1

  1996

  2

  2000

  2

  2001

  1

  2002

  2

  Total

  11

  Boards of Inquiry into military parachuting are conducted by the RAF, who have responsibility for conducting and regulating all military parachute training by members of the armed forces.

  There have been six completed Boards of Inquiry into these deaths. One Board of Inquiry is not yet complete, one death is pending a decision as to whether a Board of Inquiry is appropriate and the status of one is unknown. As two deaths involved personnel who were parachuting while off duty, Boards of Inquiry were not conducted.

  The following procedural changes have been introduced as a result of these Boards of Inquiry:
  (a) Pre-sortie briefings given to the safety boat personnel have been amended to be more specific on the recovery of parachutists from the water.
  (b) Regulations and advice governing carriage of knives by parachutists and safety boat personnel have been amended.
  (c) Regulations have been amended to make it mandatory for all parachutists using square parachutes to carry hook knives.
  (d) Regulations governing the preparation of the parachutist's personal weapon have been amended to reduce the possibility of rigging lines snagging on the weapon.
  (e) Pre-descent briefings to parachutists have been amended to include an explanation of the reasons for adopting a good position on exit from the aircraft.
  (f) Pre-descent emergencies briefing to parachutists has been amended to include actions to be taken in the event that the handle, which cuts away the main parachute and activates the reserve, becomes dislodged from its retaining pocket on exit from the aircraft.
  (g) Guidance on writing air instructions has been amended to ensure that instructions reflect the full nature of the activity to be undertaken.
  (h) Syllabus of training and pre-descent emergencies briefing to parachutists have been amended to warn parachutists that the harness may ride up on deployment of the main parachute.
  (i) Syllabus of training and pre-descent emergencies briefing to parachutists have been amended to instruct parachutists to make visual identification of main parachute cut-away pad and reserve parachute handle before cutting away the main parachute and operating the reserve.
  (j) The incident reporting system was amended to fall under the auspices of the Inspectorate of Flight Safety (now Defence Aviation Safety Centre).

  181W
  (k) Syllabus of training and pre-descent briefings to parachutists have been amended to include action to be taken on encountering turbulence close to the ground.
  (l) Pre-descent emergencies briefings to parachutists amended to include the possibility of turbulance when winds are at the higher end of the permitted range.
  (m) Syllabus of training and pre-descent briefings to parachutists amended to emphasise the minimum operating height of the handle, which cuts away the main parachute and activates the reserve, through better use of visual stimuli.

  Financial year

  Naval Service officers

  Naval Service other ranks

  Army officers

  Army other ranks

  RAF officers

  RAF other ranks

  Officer total

  Rank total

  Total

  2001–02

  219

  1,973

  543

  4,982

  275

  1,740

  1,037

  8,695

  9,732

  2000–01

  167

  1,327

  531

  5,311

  241

  1,690

  939

  8,328

  9,267

  1999–2000

  238

  1,676

  442

  5,314

  213

  1,757

  893

  8,747

  9,640

  1998–99

  164

  1,706

  509

  5,947

  243

  1,742

  916

  9,395

  10,311

  1997–98

  170

  1,754

  458

  5,744

  216

  1,555

  844

  9,053

  9,897

  1996–97

  136

  1,877

  373

  5,851

  192

  1,526

  701

  9,254

  9,955

  1995–96

  118

  1,404

  353

  6,513

  167

  1,838

  638

  9,755

  10,393

  1994–95

  95

  1,087

  254

  6,377

  141

  1,432

  490

  8,896

  9,386

  1993–94

  47

  1,328

  191

  5,571

  178

  1,273

  416

  8,172

  8,588

  1992–93

  146

  1,548

  319

  7,490

  288

  1,791

  753

  10,829

  11,582

  1991–92

  209

  2,289

  590

  8,740

  293

  2,632

  1,092

  13,661

  14,753

  1990–91

  254

  2,919

  704

  10,811

  332

  3,250

  1,290

  16,980

  18,270

  1989–90

  233

  2,654

  769

  12,058

  400

  3,891

  1,402

  18,603

  20,005

  1988–89

  209

  2,118

  691

  11,641

  359

  3,276

  1,259

  17,035

  18,294

  1987–88

  203

  2,454

  723

  10,610

  336

  2,264

  1,262

  15,328

  16,590

  There is no single reason why individuals decide to leave the services and reasons are not necessarily the same across all three services, but some common reasons can be gleaned. These are as follows:

  Current and future job satisfaction;

  Wish to take up another career;

  Better employment opportunities outside;

  Family stability;

  Promotion prospects;

  Separation from family.

  For the Naval Service from the Ratings Notice Giving Survey 2001–02, the following are the most common reasons listed in order of importance as to why people leave the service:

  The desire to live at home;

  Wish to take up another career;

  To marry/raise a family;

  Ability to plan long term;

  Time spent on mundane tasks;

  Level of job satisfaction experienced;

  Extent of family disruption;

  Pay in general;

  Always intended to leave after a number of years.

  The Army routinely carries out a survey of leavers. The six most frequently cited reasons for leaving the Army given by leavers are identified below.

  Lack of job satisfaction;

  Amount of separation from spouse/partner;

  Better civilian job opportunities outside the Army;

  Effect of the Army lifestyle on marriage/relationship;

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have left the armed forces by premature voluntary release in each of the past 15 years; and what the 10 most commonly cited reasons given for premature voluntary release are. [82118]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The number of trained UK regular personnel who have left the armed forces by premature voluntary release/ retirement is as follows:

  Staying longer will make it more difficult to start a new career;

  Compassionate reasons.

  For the RAF, the Command Scientific Support Branch (CSSB) compiles an annual leavers survey that examines why airmen, airwomen and airmen aircrew are leaving the service. They also administer a questionnaire to all officers who have actively decided to leave the RAF, either at an option point or on PVR terms. The findings from the 2000–01 administration show that there is no single prevailing reason for leaving the RAF. However, the main reasons (which are similar across all branches and trades) are as follows.

  For officers the five most important individual items from the questionnaire were:

  Future job satisfaction;

  Employment opportunities outside the RAF;

  Career prospects outside the RAF;

  Current job satisfaction;

  Service morale.

  For other ranks the five issues found to account for the majority of airmen's reasons for leaving were:

  Lack of job satisfaction; Promotion prospects;

  Staying any longer would make it difficult to start a second career;

  Family stability;

  Promotion does not appear to be related to abilities.

  Retired Officer Scheme
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 November,
  183W
  ref. 81662, which employment legislation is driving the abolition of the Retired Officer Scheme; what measures have been taken to recruit into military support posts; and how the terms and conditions of service of those that would have been recruited into the Retired Officer Scheme will be affected by the new arrangements. [82881]

  Dr. Moonie
  The EC Directive on fixed term work places restraints upon the use of fixed term appointments for retired officers, the current method of employment. Following agreement with all key stakeholders, preparations are in hand to make the first appointment by fair and open competition to a military support post in early 2003.

  Normal civil service terms and conditions will apply with, exceptionally, a normal retirement age of 65 as an expedient to help to overcome the current manning deficit.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the(a) RAF and(b) Army indicated when last questioned that they were(i) satisfied and (ii) dissatisfied with the standard of their accommodation; what percentage of those responding this represents; what percentage of actual strength this represents; and if he will make a statement; [82246]

  (2) how many members of the Army indicated when last questioned that they were(a) satisfied and(b) dissatisfied with the standard of their service family accommodation; what percentage of those responding

  Regular Armed Forces deaths by cause since 1 January 1990

  Year of Death

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Grand Total

  Deaths due to Hostile Action &

  Army

  12

  36

  7

  7

  11

  3

  6

  3

  1

  4

  3

  3

  96

  Assault

  Navy

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  8

  RAF

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Suicide and Open Verdicts

  Army

  21

  25

  20

  22

  19

  25

  18

  17

  13

  11

  16

  7

  214

  Navy

  9

  6

  6

  1

  6

  1

  5

  4

  0

  4

  4

  1

  47

  RAF

  14

  8

  7

  9

  5

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2

  7

  0

  65

  Deaths due to Natural Causes

  Army

  48

  40

  50

  39

  29

  24

  16

  25

  28

  21

  23

  20

  363

  Navy

  19

  19

  21

  9

  18

  12

  9

  16

  10

  7

  6

  14

  160

  RAF

  36

  28

  29

  24

  21

  25

  15

  17

  17

  16

  14

  12

  254

  Deaths due to RTA

  Army

  67

  72

  50

  40

  41

  32

  26

  39

  40

  30

  30

  31

  498

  Navy

  13

  13

  17

  22

  8

  7

  9

  9

  5

  8

  7

  11

  129

  RAF

  22

  7

  16

  13

  10

  14

  8

  6

  16

  4

  11

  8

  135

  Other Causes

  Army

  27

  20

  28

  25

  30

  30

  19

  9

  15

  19

  22

  21

  265

  Navy

  9

  14

  4

  12

  3

  10

  3

  8

  11

  7

  7

  7

  95

  RAF

  23

  17

  12

  18

  16

  20

  8

  6

  6

  9

  2

  9

  146

  Grand Total

  320

  311

  267

  241

  219

  207

  146

  165

  165

  143

  153

  144

  2,481

  Note:

  Suicide and open verdicts for 1995 and later are subject to change as outstanding coroners verdicts are confirmed. This could lead to significant increases, particularly for 1999 and later.

  Between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2001, 1,701 members of Her Majesty's armed forces have died in Great Britain; 111 have died in Northern

  Regular Armed Forces deaths by location since 1 January 1990

  Year of Death

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Grand Total

  Great Britain

  Army

  92

  85

  75

  84

  70

  66

  49

  66

  61

  61

  65

  54

  828

  Navy

  45

  47

  44

  32

  34

  27

  25

  34

  20

  20

  20

  31

  379

  RAF

  83

  49

  48

  56

  41

  47

  26

  27

  34

  30

  30

  23

  494

  184W
  this represents; what percentage of actual strength this represents; what areas they indicated were in greatest need of improvement; and if he will make a statement. [82244]

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

  Service Personnel
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of Service personnel went AWOL or deserted in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what the equivalent figures were(a) five,(b) 10 and(c) 20 years ago. [80648]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of Her Majesty's armed forces have died through(a) combat or civil disturbance related incidents,(b) natural causes,(c) road traffic accidents and(d) accidental, self- inflicted and other causes in(i) Great Britain, (ii) Northern Ireland, (iii) Germany and (iv) other overseas postings in each year since 1990. [80682]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2001, 2,481 serving members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces have died. 110 as a result of hostile action and assault; 326 with suicide or open verdicts, 777 due to natural causes; 762 deaths due to road traffic accidents; and 506 due to all other causes (including outstanding coroners verdicts).

  Ireland; 276 have died in Germany; and 393 have died in all other overseas postings. These figures are shown in the table.
  185W

  Regular Armed Forces deaths by location since 1 January 1990

  Year of Death

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Grand Total

  Northern Ireland

  Army

  15

  14

  18

  13

  6

  11

  4

  5

  3

  1

  5

  5

  100

  Navy

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  RAF

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  9

  Germany (BAOR)

  Army

  39

  44

  37

  21

  25

  15

  14

  8

  10

  9

  7

  10

  239

  Navy

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  RAF

  9

  4

  5

  2

  4

  3

  2

  1

  0

  2

  1

  36

  Other overseas postings

  Army

  29

  50

  25

  15

  29

  22

  18

  14

  23

  14

  17

  13

  269

  Navy

  5

  5

  4

  11

  3

  3

  2

  5

  6

  6

  5

  2

  57

  RAF

  3

  12

  6

  5

  8

  11

  4

  4

  6

  2

  1

  5

  67

  Grand Total

  320

  311

  267

  241

  219

  207

  146

  165

  165

  143

  153

  144

  2481

  Strategic Sealift Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred as a result of his ministerial direction regarding the Strategic Sealift programme. [82567]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]No net costs resulted from the ministerial direction. There were some associated management and legal charges, which would not otherwise have been incurred, offset by savings in the terms of the service contract. The shipbuilding contracts themselves had already been negotiated by the service provider and the Ministry of Defence assumed responsibility for contract payments. These will be recovered from the service provider when the ships are completed.

  Suicides
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of his recent review of the definition of a self-inflicted death; what actions he has taken in consequence; and what steps have been taken to compare the rate of suicides in each of Her Majesty's armed forces with information available from the Office for National Statistics from samples of the civilian population and appropriate comparator groups. [80686]

  Dr. Moonie
  The review of the statistical classification of deaths in the armed forces is still underway. Whilst this is going on, the category of "self inflicted deaths", which had been the basis of some Parliamentary Questions and some official statistics, will not be used. This category had included coroner confirmed suicides and open verdicts, broadly in line with the Office for National Statistics definition of suicide, but coroners' verdicts of accidental death and death by misadventure, together with unknown and outstanding verdicts, were also included. This wider "self inflicted" category was often misinterpreted as meaning suicide. One of the aims of the review is to remove such confusion by putting the definitions on the same footing as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) use. This will allow more meaningful comparison between military and civilian populations. Furthermore, in answering future questions specifically about the number of suicides, both coroner confirmed suicides and open verdicts will be shown. The Defence Analytical Services Agency are liaising with colleagues in the ONS, and intend to publish an analysis of trends and method of suicides among the armed forces compared to civilians in the first part of 2003.

  UK Arms Industry
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the total Government subsidy of the UK arms industry in the last year for which figures are available. [81779]

  Dr. Moonie
  As set out in our recent defence industrial policy, our aim is to ensure that our industry is competitive in both the home and overseas markets. This is best achieved through exposure to fair and open competition and it is not our policy to use subsidies, although some limited support, such as the Export Credit Guarantee scheme, is available to the defence industry.

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when British forces will be able to deploy weaponised unmanned aerial vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [82213]

  Dr. Moonie
  We currently have no plans to deploy weaponised unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). However, we are conscious of the need to exploit the significant potential offered by UAVs. The Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP) announced earlier this year as part of SDR New Chapter will therefore look at the operational utility of UAVs in a wide range of areas including the potential for weaponisation.

  Water Containers
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide servicemen with personal back-carried water containers when deployed to warm weather theatres. [82615]

  Dr. Moonie
  Personal Hydration Sets are being procured for personnel deployed on operations in hotter climates.

  West Freugh Airfield
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to restore access to West Freugh airfield for storage of private aeroplanes. [82591]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to do so. Following the cessation of full time air operations at West Freugh, the site operator, QinetiQ, decided that use of the airfield by private aircraft should be discontinued. This was on the grounds that it would have been uneconomic
  187W
  for QinetiQ to provide the resources required to meet the attendant health, safety and other responsibilities, given the infrequent use of the site by private aircraft.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Corporate Parents
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition he uses of the term corporate parents. [83277]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  Corporate parenting refers to the parenting role that councils and therefore councillors take on when they look after a child or young person. Corporate parenting represents the amalgam of functions vested in councils with social services responsibilities by the relevant sections of Part IV of the Children Act 1989. The role does not apply only to the social services department but to the council as a whole on a corporate basis.

  The then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), used the term when he wrote to all councillors at the launch of the Quality Protects programme in 1998. He said:
  "For children looked after, your council has a legal and moral duty to try to provide the kind of support that any good parents would give to their children… the underlying message for you as a local councillor is straightforward: you should do your utmost to make sure that children in the public care get a good start in life. You need to be able to live up to the Government's expectations of local authorities as corporate parents."

  Drugs Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training teachers providing drugs education in secondary schools are required to undertake. [82933]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Funding is available to all local education authorities through the standards fund (£ 15.5 million in 2002– 03) for drug education. Part of the funding, £ 1.3 million in 2002– 03 was set aside to extend the drug, alcohol and tobacco education training package, which aims to support teachers in planning, delivering and monitoring effective drug education by learning from and with other teachers, through teacher observations and collaborative enquiry supported by teaching networks.

  As drug education features within the National Curriculum Science Order, all initial teacher training courses for those preparing to teach science should address the appropriate aspects of drug, alcohol and tobacco education relating to each key stage. Through initial training newly qualified teachers acquire: an understanding of PSHE and Citizenship, through which drug education is usually delivered; working knowledge of their pastoral responsibilities as teachers; and a readiness to promote the well-being of pupils.

  Education (Mining Communities)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will introduce measures to help children from mining communities who underachieve. [82427]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In January 2001, we jointly commissioned research with the Coalfield Communities Campaign that looked into patterns of educational achievement in the coalfields. Evidence showed that coalfield areas are benefiting from the literacy and numeracy strategies at primary level, but attainment declines by Key Stage 3 level (11– 14 years olds) and is well below the national average by GCSE stage. The research also showed, however, that there is no particular 'coalfield effect' and that similar problems occurred in other comparable areas that had experienced industrial economic decline. The full research report is available on the Department's internet site (DfES research report 314) and in the House of Commons Library.

  We have several strategies already helping to raise educational attainment in deprived areas, although we recognise there is still work to be done.

  Coalfield areas are also benefiting from more localised targeted support which provides additional resources for schools serving disadvantaged areas. This includes Excellence in Cities, Excellence Clusters and Education Action Zones We are working with coalfield organisations to clarify issues characteristic to coalfield areas and to agree a joint agenda for action.

  Engineering Trainees
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many companies employ(a) apprentices and(b) other recognised trainees within the engineering industry; what action he is taking about changes in the number of companies employing apprentices and other recognised trainees within the engineering industry; what action he is taking to encourage engineering companies to take on apprentices and other recognised trainees; and what incentives are available to young students who wish to start a career in engineering. [82044]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are firmly committed to its Modern Apprenticeship (MA) programme across all sectors. We value the contribution the engineering sector makes to providing high quality training and acknowledge the key role of EMTA in developing the new Sector Skills Council. Although we do not hold the information requested, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is currently working to obtain a picture of employers participating in apprenticeships as part of improved management information arrangements recommended by the MA Advisory Committee.

  Responses to the LSC's recent national marketing campaign show that engineering MAs continue to be one of the most popular options for young people. In terms of numbers of young people pursuing them, the engineering manufacturing sector has the largest number of Advanced MAs in learning. A new campaign aimed at employers began last month. Engineering is also in the highest MA funding band. Engineering

  189W
  employers are represented on the LSC group which advises on funding rates and 2002– 03 funding increased for Engineering MAs aged 16 to 18.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year,(b) the total number of awards and(c) their administrative costs. [82192]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Department works with over a 1,000 voluntary and private organisations to which grants are made directly. Organisations and individuals can apply to and receive grants via our NDPBs and other agencies, for which we hold no central records. We do not hold information centrally on all the organisations and individuals who apply for grants or the amounts paid. Therefore this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list non-governmental organisations receiving(a) up to £ 5,000 and(b) over £ 5,000 in grants from his Department; to which NGOs he plans to award grants in 2002– 03; and if he will make a statement. [82958]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Department works with over a 1,000 voluntary and private organisations to which grants are made directly. Many more organisations receive grants via our NDPBs and other agencies, for which we hold no central records. Therefore this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Outreach Programmes
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding from his Department has been provided to the Outreach programmes provided by ACFA in financial year 2001– 02; what will be provided in(a) 2001– 03,(b) 2003– 04 and(c) 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [82961]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 25 November]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will provide a reply in due course.

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Open University has spent on funding distance learning courses for prisoners in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [82459]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Students in prison follow the same courses as all other Open University students, although the Open University does incur additional costs in terms of tailoring the presentation of the course to prisoner students. These additional costs in England and Wales, for which assistance is provided by the Home Office and DfES, are shown in the following table:190W

  OU Financial Years

  £000

  1 August-31 July

  1997–98

  94,980

  1998–99

  105,291

  1999–2000

  84,455

  2000–01

  99,014

  2001–02

  108,000

  This does not cover Open University staff time to manage provision of services to prisoners.

  Students in prisons are not entitled to the standard student support arrangements for part-time students. However, the Open University offers fee waivers subject to certain conditions. The following table shows the cost to the Open University of fee waivers for prisoners in the United Kingdom:

  OU Financial Years

  £000

  1 August-31 July

  2000–01

  137,920

  2001–02

  149,150

  2002–03

  1100,648

  1 committed this year to date

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prisoners were undertaking level 1 Open University courses during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [82460]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer November 2002]The following table shows the number of prisoners in each of the countries of the United Kingdom who are taking level 1 Open University courses in 2001– 02. It also shows the total number of students in prison who are studying with the Open University.

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  N. Ireland

  Total UK

  Level 1

  143

  0

  5

  2

  150

  All levels

  420

  3

  17

  14

  454

  Targets
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of progress towards the targets for 2004 agreed between his Department and(a) HM Treasury and(b) the Prime Minister's Department. [81085]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]There is ongoing assessment of progress against Public Service Agreement targets, which are agreed and published as part of the Spending Review.

  The Department has published progress against targets due to be met in 2004 in its spring annual report and will shortly publish updates in its first autumn performance report.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how often and by what means assessments are made of progress towards his Department's targets with(a) HM Treasury and(b) the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit. [81086]
  191W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]There is ongoing assessment of progress against PSA targets with both HM Treasury and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit via correspondence and meetings. The Department publishes progress against these targets in its spring departmental report and will shortly publish updates in its first autumn performance report.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Leg-Irons and Cuffs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstance export licences are granted for(a) over-sized cuffs and(b) leg-irons manufactured in the UK. [82941]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend, the then Foreign Secretary (Mr Robin Cook) announced on 28 July 1997 (Official Report, column 65W) a complete ban on the export or transhipment from the UK of electric-shock batons, stun guns, lasers, leg-irons, gang chains, shackles (excluding normal handcuffs) and electric-shock belts designed for the restraint of a human being. The necessary amendment to the Export of Goods (Control) Order came into force in December 1997.

  All export licence applications for over-sized handcuffs are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria and other announced Government policies. This includes consideration of the risk of the over-sized handcuffs being used as, or converted into, leg irons or shackles.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been given to the United Nations over the killing of prisoners near Kunduz during the war in Afghanistan. [83178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We cannot answer on behalf of the UN. However, it is in the public domain that an investigation by Physicians for Human Rights in January 2002 reported claims from captured Taliban that 1,000 men had suffocated on their journey to Shiberghan prison in late November 2001. Their bodies were allegedly buried in mass graves at Dasht-e-Leili.

  A preliminary UN investigation into the alleged grave sites recommended in May 2002 that a full investigation be carried out, when the conditions for witness protection allowed. In order to protect witnesses the UN cannot release any detailed information at this stage.

  We are concerned about the alleged human rights abuses at Shiberghan. The British embassy in Kabul has raised our concerns with the Afghan Transitional Administration, the UN, the US authorities and the Afghan Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The embassy also recently raised the issue with Afghan Interior Minister Wardak. He agreed the matter was serious and undertook to co-operate in a UNAMA/AHRC investigation. We also welcomed
  192W
  the Transitional Administration's announcement on 21 August that they would fully co-operate with human rights organisations in the investigation of these alleged mass graves.

  Eritrea
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the demobilisation of soldiers in Eritrea. [82821]

  Mr. Rammell
  Over 8,000 soldiers have been demobilised since the IBRD programme became effective on 8 August 2002.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held on 18 to 19 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [83152]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Secretary of State for Defence and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 18 and 19 November 2002. Conclusions were agreed by consensus and no formal votes were taken.

  General Affairs Session

  Progress of work in other Council formations

  The Council took stock of the Presidency report on the work of other Council configurations (doc. 14057/ 02), noting decisions reached at the ECOFIN meeting of 5 November on modifications to the EIB's statute and the increase to the ECB's capital and foreign exchange reserves, in the context of enlargement.

  Preparation of the European Council in Copenhagen

  The Council endorsed the draft annotated agenda (doc. 14257/02) for the European Council, which lists two items only: enlargement and the functioning of the Council in view of enlargement. The European Council will also be updated on the work of the Convention by the Presidency of the Convention and will have its customary meeting with the Presidency of the Parliament.

  The European Council is expected to take all necessary decisions to conclude all negotiations with the 10 candidate countries as identified at the Brussels European Council in October.

  Enlargement

  The Council discussed the way ahead with a view to concluding accession negotiations with 10 of the acceding countries in time for the Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December 2002. The Council decided that their accession would take place on 1 May 2004, allowing acceding countries to participate in European Parliament elections of 2004. The Commissioners from the new Member States will join the Commission upon accession and will fully

  193W
  participate in the forthcoming Inter-governmental Conference, while candidates that are still negotiating will participate as observers.

  Reform of the Council Presidency

  The Council held a broad debate on reform of the Council Presidency, in advance of a report by the Presidency to be given to the European Council. While some Member States indicated a preference for maintaining the features of the present rotating Presidency and extending co-operation between successive presidencies, others underlined that it would be necessary to consider measures going beyond that.

  The Presidency also proposed that the role of the High Representative should be strengthened to help overcome Presidency weaknesses in the area of external relations. Proposals include chairing specific Council meetings, representing the Union in international organisations or in meetings with third countires, negotiating international agreements in the areas of CFSP/ ESDP and supervising EU special envoys.

  Commission's legislative and work programme

  The Council took note of a presentation by the Commission on its legislative and work programme for the year 2003, following the Annual Policy Strategy presentation in February 2002.

  The Commission's work programme is built around three priorities: making enlargement a success; security and stability (fight against terrorism, immigration policy, the new neighbours initiative); and a sustainable and inclusive economy.

  Terrorism: follow-up to the Action Plan

  The Council took note of the roadmap, outlining progress made in the fields identified by the Action Plan on the fight against terrorism, (doc. 13909/02)

  External Relations Session

  Middle East

  Ministers discussed the situation in the Middle East, international efforts and work on the road map. Concern was expressed at the continued violence and further development of settlements.

  Iraq

  The Council welcomed the unanimous adoption of the UN Security Council resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, which paves the way for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq. The EU's objective on Iraq is clear: disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with U. The EU will whole-heartedly support the UN on this.

  Cyprus

  The Council noted the UN Secretary General's presentation on a plan for settlement, regarding the initiative as timely. The Council expressed the hope that the UNSG's proposals would form the basis for a negotiated agreement. The Presidency reiterated its desire to see negotiations reach a conclusion prior to the Copenhagen European Council in December, to allow a re-united island to be welcomed into the EU.
  194W
  Belarus

  The Council re-examined the situation in Belarus, following its 21 October declaration expressing concern. It urged the authorities to avoid disruption of the activities of the OSCE Advisor and Monitoring Group (AMG) in Minsk. The Council noted that most Member States planned to implement measures to prevent entry to their territories by the President of Belarus, the Head of Presidential Administration, the Prime Minister, four government ministers, and the Chairman of the Committee of State Security.

  Korean Peninsula

  The Council reiterated its grave concern at the North Korean revelations concerning a uranium enrichment programme for nuclear weapons. It expressed deep concern that such a programme violated North Korea's international obligations via the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA safeguard agreement, the North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization and the Agreed Framework. The Council urged North Korea to immediately dismantle its programme in a verifiable manner and comply fully with its international commitments. Future international co-operation with the international community would be conditional on this. The Council stressed the EU's commitment to act in consultation with all relevant partners to resolve the situation peacefully.

  Western Balkans

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  The Council welcomed the agreement reached by political leaders in Serbia on 5 November 2002 and urged them to ensure political stability, including a conclusive result for the forthcoming Serbian Presidential election, to allow all vital reforms to continue. The Council recalled that further strengthening of democracy in the FRY and Serbia requires prompt solutions to pending issues. It called on FRY political leaders to abide by democratic principles to ensure the effective functioning of institutions. It also called on them to rapidly adopt the Constitutional Chart and Action Plans on the internal market, trade and customs, to make progress towards the EU.

  FRY/Kosovo

  The Council welcomed the recent free and fair municipal elections in Kosovo and regretted that, following its boycott of elections, the Serb population of Mitrovica had no democratic representation. The Council welcomed the successful Donor Co-ordination Meeting of 5 November 2002 which underlined the need for continued engagement with the international community.

  Arms sales

  The Council expressed its deep concern at recent reports concerning illegal arms sales from FRY, Bosnia and Herzegovina to Iraq and Iran, in clear breach of UN sanctions. Such illegal sales tarnished the international reputation of the countries concerned and complicated their progress toward the EU. Measures had to be introduced to ensure such violations do not recur. The Council called upon all potential candidates for EU membership to adhere to the EU code of conduct on arms exports without delay.
  195W
  The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

  The Council reaffirmed the high importance it attaches to co-operation with ICTY. It expressed disappointment and growing concern at the insufficient co-operation by the FRY, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and in some cases, Croatia. The Council reiterated that failure to comply would seriously jeopardise further movement toward the EU.

  Stability pact for South Eastern Europe

  The Council expressed full support for the Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact, Dr. Erhard Busek. It invited the Special Co-ordinator to present a report on this ahead of the June 2003 'Zagreb Process' Summit in Thessalonika.

  ESDP

  The Council underlined the importance of ensuring co-ordination of the EU's civilian and military crisis management instruments in order to be able to respond effectively when needed. The Council welcomed the Action Plan on this and the intention to complete the strengthening of civil-military co-ordination by the end of the Greek Presidency.

  Military capabilities

  The Council considered all relevant aspects of EU military capability development, including the Rapid Response elements of the Headline Goal, common training and the Mediterranean Dimension. It welcomed the High Representative's report on efforts to reach agreement between the EU and NATO and invited him to pursue his contacts and report back at its next meeting on 9 December. The Council welcomed the PSC's progress report on Military Capabilities and noted that the overall assessment is encouraging. 19 panels are considering the shortfalls to be remedied and will issue final reports, evaluating the military implications of each proposed option, examine ways of filling potential gaps, study possible solutions and identify whether remaining shortfalls impose constraints on the delivery of the Headline Goal, by 1 March 2003. The Council agreed to task the PSC and EUMC to finalise the work on rapid response elements as soon as possible.

  Civilian capabilities

  The Council endorsed the declaration adopted by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs at their meeting in Brussels on 19 November 2002 at a Civilian Crisis Management Capability Conference. The declaration notes that an EU police planning capability already exists and that an appropriate EU planning and mission support capability should be established within the General Secretariat of the Council for the other areas of civilian crisis management as a matter of priority. As a result of the commitments made so far the EU has been able to set up a European Union police mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which will take over from the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) on 1 January 2003. Ministers stressed that the development of the EU's civilian crisis management capacity is an ongoing process. They stressed that a solution to the financing of civilian crisis management operations
  196W
  under title V of the Treaty in European Union would have to be found as a matter of priority in order to meet the EU's ambitions in the field.

  International trade in coffee

  The Council held an exchange of views and expressed serious concern about the situation. Although there were no quick, short-term solutions, initiatives needed to be taken. The issue needed to be looked at in a broader context, including with a view to sustainable development. The Council noted the Commission's willingness to explore possible solutions for the general commodities situation.

  Trade and development

  Trade and poverty reduction

  The Council welcomed the Commission's communication on Trade and Development and recalled the joint Council-Commission Statement on the European Community's Development policy of November 2000, which highlights Trade and Development as a priority of poverty- reducing Community development activities. The Council reiterated that trade liberalisation in itself is not sufficient to combat poverty in developing countries, but must be part of a wider, country-owned poverty reduction strategy combining trade and development objectives with sound domestic policies, including good governance and anti-corruption measures.

  Integrating trade and development strategies

  The Council recalled the Doha Declaration objectives and its commitment to placing development at the heart of the work programme through: better market access for developing countries; balanced trade rules that developing countries can apply progressively and flexibly; willingness to solve the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) problem; and through strengthening the capacity for developing countries to adhere to technical standards and regulations.

  The Council welcomed the outcome of the 2002 Monterrey Financing for Development conference, underlined its strong commitment to the Cotonou Agreement and welcomed the initiation of negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the ACP countries in September 2002. The Council emphasised that the "Everything But Arms" (EBA) initiative demonstrates the EU's leadership on trade and development and calls on other industrialised countries to emulate this.

  Enhancing trade-related assistance

  The Council invited the Commission to ensure that trade-related assistance is stepped up as part of a coherent assistant strategy within Country and Regional Strategy Papers (CSPs and CRSPs). It also endorsed the Commission's proposal to focus trade-related assistance in three main areas: assistance for WTO accession, multilateral and other trade negotiations; support for implementation of WTO commitments; and strengthening capacity to adhere to Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). It invited the Commission to pursue all initiatives that ensure trade, development and environment policies are mutually supportive and urged

  197W
  the Commission to work to ensure an ambitious outcome for the Doha Development Agenda. The Commission will present a comprehensive report on further trade and development recommendations in the first half of 2005.

  Untying of aid

  The Council heard a Commission presentation, based on a recent communication on untying aid. The Commission proposed that all aid should be untied on two conditions: the agreement of the recipient country would be required and full untying would take place only on the basis of reciprocity between donors.

  Follow-up to international conferences

  Monterrey

  The Council held an exchange of views on commitments made at Monterrey (March 2002) and Johannesburg (September 2002) and stressed the need for adequate monitoring of implementation of these in order to meet the Millennium Development goals.

  Humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa

  The Council reviewed the humanitarian situation crisis affecting Southern Africa, and in particular, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The Council called on the Commission and Member States to consider offering further aid in response to UN appeals. The Commission was requested to make a more detailed needs assessment prior to the Council's meeting in December.

  New Neighbours initiative

  The Council adopted conclusions without debate, expressing its wish that the EU put in place further conditions which would allow it to enhance its relations with its Eastern European neighbours: Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. It recognised the need for the EU to formulate an ambitious, long-term and integrated approach towards each of these countries, with the objective of promoting democratic and economic reforms and sustainable development and trade. The Commission and High Representative were invited to prepare more detailed proposals on how to take this initiative further.

  Sri Lanka

  The Council adopted the conclusions on Sri Lanka, undertaking to strengthen the EUs engagement in the peace process in Sri Lanka and participate in the Oslo donor conference on 25 November 2002 and contribute to the donor fund to be established.

  Chile

  The Council adopted a Decision on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of the Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and Chile.

  Justice and Home Affairs

  The Council adopted conclusions on intensifying cooperation on the management of migration flows with third countries, to ensure that an integrated, comprehensive and balanced approach to tackle the root causes of illegal immigration remains the European Union's constant long-term objective.
  198W
  International Cocoa Agreement

  The Council adopted a Decision on the signing and conclusion on behalf of the Community of the International Cocoa Agreement, 2001.

  Liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea

  The Council adopted a Decision authorising the Member States, in the interest of the European Community, to ratify or accede to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1, 1996 (the "HNS Convention").

  Protection of the Communities 'financial interests and the fight against fraud

  The Council adopted conclusions taking note of the annual report 2001 from the Commission on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud. In particular it reiterated the importance it attaches to the participation of third countries, and especially the candidate countries, in action to fight fraud, and to their co-operation with OLAF. It invited the Commission to present a full summary of activities and actions undertaken in this field in the 2002 annual report.

  North Korea
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made(a) directly and(b)through the United Nations Security Council to the North Korean Government on its nuclear weapons. [83250]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have made clear to the North Korean Government our deep concern at their nuclear weapons programme, which breaches a number of international agreements. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued statements to the press concerning North Korea's nuclear programme on 18 October and 15 November. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials made representations to the DPRK Chargé d'Affaires in London on 7 November, and the British embassy in Pyongyang made further representations to the DPRK Government on 11 November. No representations have yet been made through the UN Security Council. The International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors meeting in Vienna on 28 November 2002 will discuss the North Korean nuclear programme.

  Roma
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on securing the rights of Roma people residing in Eastern European countries; and how their rights will be affected by European Union enlargement. [83664]

  Mr. MacShane
  States that wish to join the EU have to sign up to the Copenhagen Criteria. Only countries that meet the criteria, ensuring the basic human rights of all their citizens, can be invited to join. The EU reports
  199W
  annually on the candidate countries' performance against the criteria and these reports are taken into account in the accession process.

  The UK, other member states and the Commission have all put a high priority on Roma minority issues in their pre-Accession support for candidate states. And most countries have initiated separate national strategies for Roma.

  New member states will have to implement the new EU anti-discriminatory directives on accession.

  Sussex Wreck
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with(a) the Junta de Andalucia,(b) the Spanish Government and(c) the Government of Gibraltar in relation to the proposed salvage operations on the wreck believed to be the 17th century warship, Sussex. [82979]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding(a) the role of Zimbabwe in the forthcoming meeting of the ACP-EU, and(b) the presence there of Zimbabwean ministers who are on the travel ban list. [80603]

  Mr. Rammell
  The forthcoming meeting of the European Union-African Caribbean Pacific (EU/ACP) Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a matter for the respective Parliaments. Invitations were made by the co-Secretariat of the EU/ACP.

  Those attending from ACP countries are entitled to certain privileges and immunities under the Lome and Cotonou Agreements. The EU' s Common Position 2002/145/CFSP imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe specifically allows member states to grant exemptions where travel is justified on grounds of attending meetings of international bodies.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Budget

  Outturn

  Budget

  Outturn

  Budget

  Outturn

  Budget

  Outturn

  Budget

  Outturn

  Africa

  306,148

  297,250

  422,655

  398,426

  440,527

  402,025

  589,772

  585,930

  637,500

  501,466

  C. America

  3,850

  3,931

  3,600

  3,554

  4,440

  4,282

  3,820

  3,313

  4,328

  4,208

  Caribbean

  66,850

  70,432

  60,813

  60,062

  68,635

  60,424

  58,182

  58,596

  61,956

  59,551

  S. America

  19,950

  19,072

  19,667

  18,896

  19,310

  20,106

  19,563

  20,086

  31,646

  27,848

  Middle east

  19,675

  13,873

  22,250

  18,560

  26,550

  32,686

  44,300

  42,567

  49,900

  53,990

  Asia

  274,688

  290,960

  324,621

  323,301

  330,250

  311,569

  343,847

  337,508

  461,845

  439,276

  Europe

  40,150

  38,238

  37,955

  30,254

  42,100

  35,287

  40,878

  36,673

  49,250

  44,370

  These figures are on an indicative basis only, as there may be inconsistencies in data recording and there have also been changes in boundaries between divisions.

  Central African Republic
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on efforts to distribute food aid in the northern provinces of the Central African Republic. [82662]
  200W
  On 7 November Belgium alerted EU partners to the request from Christopher Kuruneri, Zimbabwe's Deputy Minister for Finance and Paul Mangwana, Minister of State for State Enterprises, for visas to attend the EU/ACP meeting. Both are on the EU travel ban list. Under the terms of the Lome and Cotonou Agreements, Belgium had a legal obligation to grant these visas, since these agreements override Council decisions on sanctions. The Belgian Government undertook to attach maximum restrictions. The banned individuals were granted visas only for the period 19– 29 November, restricted to the territory of Belgium.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  ACP-EU
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the European Development Fund paid for Zimbabwean Government officials to attend the forthcoming meeting of the ACP-EU. [80604]

  Clare Short
  Following our inquiries the European Commission have made it clear that there was no cost to the European Development Fund.

  Aid Underspend
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what volume of aid in(a) Africa,(b) Central America,(c) Caribbean,(d) South America,(e) middle east,(f) Asia and(g) European countries has been unallocated in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement on underspend in each of these budgets. [80606]

  Clare Short
  DFID's entire budget has been fully allocated over the past five years. Each year our initial budget includes a modest Contingency Reserve, and in some years we have initially allocated funds for separate reserves for geographical divisions, but these reserves have always been re-allocated to specific programmes in the course of the year.

  The budget and outturn figures for each of the named seven regions for the past five years are (in £ 000s):

  Clare Short
  It is difficult to obtain precise information on the humanitarian situation in the Central African Republic particularly in the areas of the country under rebel control. Inter-agency missions to assess the situation further than 30km north of Bangui have not been able to take place due to security concerns. We do know that the World Food Programme (WFP) has sent 45 metric tonnes of food to Northern Bangui and that nine tonnes of this has been distributed in the area directly to the north of the capital, to those
  201W
  most seriously affected by the recent fighting. We are also aware of World Health Organisation and CAR Red Cross society reports indicating that hospitals and health centres in the country's northern provinces are short of medicines.

  Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in the Ituri district of the Democratic Republic of Congo. [82756]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Ituri remains a major cause for concern. We continue to monitor it as closely as possible.

  Some of the civilians displaced by the fighting have reached areas where access is possible. DFID have contributed £ 500,000 to the UN OCHA Emergency Response Fund established to help deal with this kind of contingency.

  We continue to work with the UN to explore options on how to strengthen the presence of MONUC in Bunia. We have also supported UN and EU statements condemning all the violence but especially the ethnic violence in Ituri.

  Eritrea
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on bilateral aid to Eritrea following the agreement between the Government of Eritrea and the European Commission on 15 November. [82759]

  Clare Short
  We do not have a significant bilateral programme in Eritrea but make our major contribution through the EC. We have, however, provided support for humanitarian efforts, the peace process and small projects administered by the recently opened British Embassy in Eritrea. We also fund nearly 20 per cent, of EC assistance. Early next year we will investigate with the Government of Eritrea the scope for support to their Poverty Reduction Strategy process.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to improve the transport infrastructure in Eritrea. [82760]

  Clare Short
  We are not providing any direct support to improve the transport infrastructure in Eritrea. The European Commission agreed a Country Strategy Paper with the Government of Eritrea on 15 November. This provides for support to the transport sector, including support for roads under the short-term rehabilitation programme and preparation of the transport sector study. Previous EC assistance included the rehabilitation of the Massawa-Asmara road. In addition the World bank is providing support under its emergency reconstruction project for transportation, including roads. With the Italian Government, they are also supporting a ports rehabilitation project.

  Ethiopia
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) funding for
  202W
  humanitarian assistance and(b) food her Department is providing to Ethiopia(i) bilaterally and (ii) through the World Food Programme. [82076]

  Clare Short
  So far we have made food and non-food humanitarian commitments of some £ 12.3 million in calendar year 2002 for Ethiopia. The food aid element of this figure is £ 2.4 million, which is made up of a £ 1.4 million bilateral contribution through Save the Children UK and £ 1 million through the World Food Programme. In addition we have contributed to the ICRC 2002 Appeal, which is delivering food aid in Afar region. We have also contributed to a GOAL intervention to provide supplementary food to malnourished children in Afar and are supporting Medecins sans Frontieres in similar work in Amhara region.

  In October the EC made available €23 million for 97,000 metric tonnes of food aid to cover food needs until the end of 2002. In addition to the food aid provision the EC has approved a€4 million programme of humanitarian aid for the victims of drought. Nearly 20 per cent, of the EC support is funded by the UK.

  We are keeping under close review the need to provide more food aid in coming weeks.

  EU Aid
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what volume of aid in the EU's aid budget has been unallocated in each of the last five years for(a) Africa,(b) Central America,(c) the Caribbean,(d) South America,(e) the Middle East,(f) South Asia,(g) the Far East,(h) the Central Asian Republics, and(i) Europe; and if she will make a statement on underspend in the EU aid budget. [80605]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission organises its budget through annual commitment and payment appropriations. Regional budget lines for these funds are set out in the following table. Unallocated funds refers to any part of the initial budget that has not been committed to a project within the financial year.

  The first of the following tables gives information about all overseas development assistance from the European Commission Budget for the areas requested. This information has been taken from the reports of the European Court of Auditors and appears as in the reports.

  The second table gives information regarding payments from the European Development Fund (EDF). This is a non-budget voluntary fund for development programmes in Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries which operates on a multiannual basis. The information provided has been taken from the 2001 Court of Auditors Report.

  The Commission has recognised the importance of resolving the problems caused by outstanding commitments in Category 4 of the budget. It is taking steps to progressively reduce this backlog within the

  203W
  overall reform context. This is proving to be a difficult task. We expect improvements to show once the deconcentration process has reached the majority of

  Amounts and proportion of total European Commission aid unallocated between 1997 and 2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Budge line and description

  Amount unallocated

  %of total

  Amount Unallocated

  % of total

  Amount unallocated

  % of total

  Amount unallocated

  % of total

  Amount unallocated

  % of total

  B7—3 Co-operation with developing countries in Asia, Latin America and southern Africa, including South Africa

  4.6

  1

  37.2

  5

  190.0

  22

  103.3

  11

  75.3

  8

  B7—4 Co-operation with Mediterranean third countries and the Middle East

  22.7

  2

  73.3

  6

  65.0

  6

  137.2

  12

  0.0

  0

  B7—5 Co-operation with countries of central and eastern Europe, the new independent States and Central Asia

  31.3

  2

  46.3

  2

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  38.7

  3

  Note:

  This table gives figures for external aid from the European Commission Fund. This does not include the EFF.

  Amounts in the table are given in millions of euros for all years from 1999–2001. For 1998 and 1997 amounts are given in millions of Ecu.

  Source:

  European Court of Auditors Report annual reports for the financial years 1997–2001.

  Primary and secondary commitments from the EDF from 1997–2001 (euro million)

  Year

  Primary commitments

  Secondary commitments

  Amount unallocated

  Percentage of total

  1997

  600

  950

  0

  0

  1998

  2,300

  2,050

  250

  11

  1999

  2,700

  1,400

  1,300

  48

  2000

  3,750

  2,350

  1,400

  37

  2001

  1,550

  2,250

  0

  0

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 50 million.

  Source:

  European Court of Auditors Report for the financial year 2001

  EU Aid Projects
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the European Union plans to issue calls for projects in 2002 for budget line B7– 6312 Aid for Population and Reproductive Health in Developing Countries. [82807]

  Clare Short
  Calls for proposals for budget line B7– 6312 will be issued by the end of January 2003.

  Sierra Leone
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has allocated for(a) police training,(b) investment in security communications equipment, and(c) police vehicles in Sierra Leone. [82659]

  Clare Short
  We assist the Sierra Leone Police through the Commonwealth Community Safety and Security Project (CCSSP), which has been carrying out extensive police reform since August 2000 with the aim of improving safety and security and respect for the rights of people, especially the poor, by re-establishing the Sierra Leone Police as an effective and accountable civilian police service. This project has allocated £ 1.5 million to provide training for over 9,000 officers. Two senior officers have successfully completed the Strategic Command Course at Bramshill Police Staff 204W
  delegations. It is important that increased rates of spend are matched with evidence of improved effectiveness and impact.

  College, and 28 officers will have successfully completed the International Commanders Programme there by the end of 2002. With the exception of these two courses, all training has been carried out within Sierra Leone.

  We have provided £ 1.25 million for an extensive nationwide police communications network to be installed based on VHP and HF technology. Major cities and towns are linked over HF radio. Over 1,000 personal and vehicle radios are in use, and a modern command and control centre has been developed in Freetown. The system is supported by expert advice and training, spares supply and maintenance procedures.

  We have allocated £ 3.5 million for 155 Land Rovers, 158 motor cycles, 47 medium carriers, 24 large carriers, 10 ambulances/closed vans and 10 cars for the Sierra Leone Police. In addition spare parts for these vehicles and extensive support has been given in areas of fleet management, fuel control and mechanical training.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to tackle the funding shortfall of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone. [82660]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are concerned by the shortfall in funding for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The UK has contributed some £ 500,000, including £ 250,000 in set-up costs.

  We have pressed other donors to support its work; at the World Bank Consultative Group Meeting on Sierra Leone in Paris on 13– 14 November.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  Andrew George
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the names of people within the Honours Nomination and Ceremonial Units who(a) make

  205W
  decisions,(b) make recommendations, and(c) are regularly consulted in respect of gallantry and honours awards; [80757]

  (2) who appoints members of(a) the Honours Nomination Unit and(b) the Ceremonial Unit; [80760]

  (3) what efforts the Government makes to assure the country of the accountability and balance of the numbers and decisions made by(a) the Honours Nomination Unit and(b) the Ceremonial Awards Unit. [80759]

  The Prime Minister
  I am responsible for recommending civilian gallantry and honours awards to Her Majesty The Queen. The George Cross Committee recommends gallantry awards to me. The Committee is chaired by the Head of the Home Civil Service; its other members are The Queen's Private Secretary and my appointments Secretary. The Secretary of the Committee puts forward recommendations to the Committee.

  For honours, I am assisted by assessment committees, whose members include outside experts as well as civil servants. The membership of these committees has remained confidential as under successive administrations. These committees make careful and informed judgements on the merits of all cases put to them. Lists of awards made are published in the London Gazette and are usually fully described in the media.

  The Ceremonial Secretariat incorporates both the Honours Unit and the Nominations Unit. The Secretariat is headed by a senior civil servant, Gay Catto, who is supported by a team of civil servants within the Cabinet Office.

TRANSPORT

  A24
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made concerning West Sussex county council's bid for funding to improve the A24 between Horsham and Capel; when he will announce his decision on funding; and how many accidents there have been on this road in each of the past five years. [82731]

  Mr. Speller
  As with all major local transport scheme bids my officials have discussed the proposal with the promoters, West Sussex and Surrey county councils, prior to the bid's submission. We will announce our decisions on all major local transport scheme bids in December as part of the local transport capital settlement for 2003– 04. The accident figures on this road, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, are set out in the table.

  All accidents on A24 Horsham-Capel, between Great Daux Roundabout and Clark's Green (1997–2001)

  Number of accidents

  1997

  22

  1998

  24

  1999

  26

  2000

  24

  2001

  20

  Aircraft Noise
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment and research has been made by his Department or is planned of the past and potential future impact of(a) changes in noise level permitted from individual aircraft and(b) changes in the size of aircraft upon(i) past increases and future total passenger and freight numbers and (ii) past and future (A) economic (B) environmental and (C) social impacts; and if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library. [81425]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]The appraisal of options for the future of UK aviation contains information on economic, social and environmental impacts. This information is set out in the national airport consultation documents published in July 2002. A complete set of those documents and supporting material is already available in the Libraries of the House.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people work for the Highways Agency in the south-east of England and London. [81257]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Highways Agency employs 235 civil servants in its London office, 180 civil servants in its Dorking office and 30 civil servants in its Hemel Hempstead office.

  London Underground
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains per hour it is safe to run on the Central Line on the London Underground. [81250]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground.

  Proposed Airport (Cliffe)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) in which local authority areas his Department has initiated(a) public meetings, and(b) exhibitions as part of the public consultation in respect of locating an airport at Cliffe; [82497]

  (2) for what reason he has not held public(a) meetings and(b) exhibitions in Thurrock as part of the public consultation on locating an airport at Cliffe. [82787]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not initiated any public meetings about the Cliffe option, or any other option, as part of the current consultation. We considered that public exhibitions about the options where the public could view large scale maps and ask questions of officials and consultants would be the most effective way to inform the consultation.

  Public exhibitions on the Cliffe option were held over four days at different locations. These were on 5 and 7 September at Chatham and Basildon, and on 4 and 5 October at Cliffe and Hoo St Werburgh. The main criteria applied in identifying suitable venues were proximity to the airport option and affected areas, venue capacity, accessibility, and availability.
  207W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will rank in order the closeness by proximity of each district local authority area within a 20 mile radius of prospective airport at Cliffe. [82790]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following list ranks, in order, the proximity of local authorities which are within a 20 mile radius of the central point of the Cliffe option. Only authorities whose central land point is within the 20 miles radius have been included.

  Medway Council

  Castle Point District Council

  Southend Unitary Authority

  Rochford District Council

  Gravesham District Council

  Thurrock Unitary Authority

  Basildon District Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

  Havering Council

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Maldon District Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Bexley Council

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he wrote to local authorities in Kent and Essex formally as part of the consultation exercise, inviting them to submit representations in respect of the proposal to locate an airport at Cliffe; and if he will list the authorities concerned. [82791]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the launch of the consultation on 23 July, local authorities in the South East and East of England were sent copies of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" main consultation document and questionnaire. The authorities in Kent and Essex are listed as follows:

  Kent:

  Kent County Council

  Medway Council

  Ashford Borough Council

  Canterbury City Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Dover District Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Shepway District Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Thanet District Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Essex:

  Essex County Council

  Thurrock Unitary Authority

  Southend Unitary Authority

  208W

  Basildon District Council

  Braintree District Council

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Castle Point District Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Colchester Borough Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Harlow District Council

  Rochford District Council

  Tendring District Council

  Uttlesford District Council

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what coordination he has organised between different Government regional offices on consultation relating to the proposals for a new airport at Cliffe; and if he will make a statement. [83368]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government offices for London, the South East and the East of England were members of the reference and steering groups for the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) study. Both groups met quarterly for the duration of the study.

  Following completion of the SERAS study in May 2002, my Department held regular meetings with the three Government offices in preparation for the consultation on the options for airport capacity in the South East. We continue to meet regularly. Government office officials were also present at the public exhibitions that have been held on the consultation options.

  Rail Projects
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a decision is expected on the proposals being put forward for(a) Crossrail and(b) Central Railway; what steps would then follow; and when legislation will be introduced. [81748]

  Mr. Spellar
  We expect Cross London Rail Links Ltd. to put forward proposals for consideration in the new year. What steps would then follow will depend on the nature and content of those proposals.

  The SRA has now delivered to the Government its advice on Central Railway's proposals. We are considering its conclusions carefully.

  Uckfield Line (Electrification)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the reasons why he has placed a summary of the Booz Allen Report on the electrification of the Uckfield line through Edenbridge in the Library and not the entire report. [81104]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The full report has not been placed in the Library of the House because it contains commercially sensitive material. The summary of the report includes all the key costs and benefits relevant to the Strategic Rail Authority's decision, as well as outlining the effects on passengers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures his Department is taking to encourage companies to employ older people. [81677]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have made a pledge to tackle age discrimination and we are committed to introducing age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance by 2006.

  We are already encouraging employers to adopt non-ageist employment practices through our Age Positive Campaign. The campaign raises employers' awareness of the business benefits of an age diverse work force and encourages a flexible approach to retirement to open up choice and opportunity for individuals to stay in work longer.

  In 1999 we published the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment which sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. The code was developed with leading organisations including the CBI, TUG, the Employers Forum on Age and Age Concern. Evaluation shows that from 1999 to 2001 the number of companies using age in recruitment had already fallen from 27 per cent, to 13 per cent, and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers had dropped from 14 per cent, to 7 per cent.

  Older workers have a wealth of skills and experience that can benefit individual businesses and the economy as a whole. Our policies will help to improve further the employment rate of people over 50, which has risen considerably since 1997.

  Dangerous Incidents
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many dangerous incidents were investigated by the HSE in the last year. [82052]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]It is not possible to separately identify dangerous incidents. However, in 2001–02, the Health and Safety Executive investigated 13,421 incidents reported under the Reporting of injuries, Diseases and dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR)1995.

  Housing Benefit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received on the extension of housing benefit to cover water charges; and if he will make a statement. [81046]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Housing benefit is an income-related benefit designed to help tenants on low incomes meet their reasonable housing costs. These include rent and any compulsory charges that are clearly related to the provision of adequate accommodation. Charges relating to personal needs, such as those for water and other utilities, are ineligible for housing benefit.

  We have received no recent representations on extending housing benefit to cover water charges.

  IT SECURITY
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and(b) 2002. [80768]

  Mr. McCartney
  Security of IT systems is under constant review and a procedure is in place to log, investigate and analyse all recorded incidents.

  The number of cases of digital attack recorded was(a) 8 in October and(b) 122 in 2002.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the evidential basis was for his decision not to increase the earnings disregards for jobseeker's allowance; when this disregard was last increased; and what it would be worth if it had been uprated. [83242]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our policies are giving everybody who can work the opportunity to do so, and providing security for those who are unable to work. We have introduced the national minimum wage, working families tax credit and, from April 2003, the new tax credits to ensure that people are better off in work than on benefits.

  Any decision on increasing the earnings disregard for jobseeker's allowance is a question of fine judgment. We need to balance the benefits of encouraging people into part-time work and maintaining contact with the labour market, against any possible disincentives to full-time work. If the earnings disregard is set too high, then the gap between in-work income and out-of-work benefits becomes so narrow as to discourage people from taking up full-time work.

  We keep the earnings disregard under review, but there is no set mechanism or formula for increasing it. There is, therefore, no basis on which to calculate an uprated value. We have, however, targeted extra help where it is most needed. For example, for lone parents and certain disabled people the earnings disregard was increased from £15 to £20 from April 2001.

  New Deal
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have found and retained work for more than four weeks on the New Deal for Lone Parents. [83513]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  By the end of June 2002,152,230 lone parents had found work through the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  We do not record the status of lone parents four weeks after they have started work. Sustainability of employment is one of the issues that is being examined as part of the evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents, which is due to be published in spring 2003.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of
  211W
  employees who are(a) contracted out and(b) not contracted out of the state pension; and what the corresponding figures were(i) one year earlier, (ii) two years earlier and (iii) five years earlier. [81049]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is in the table:

  Thousands

  1990–91

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of people belonging to contracted-out pension schemes

  14,758

  14,659

  14,566

  14,817

  Number of people belonging to the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme

  7,161

  6,555

  7,115

  7,496

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions' analytical services division.

  Address

  Companies entering the stakeholder pension market after 6 April 2001

  AIG Life (UK)

  Alico House, 22 Addiscombe Road, Croydon

  Direct Line Life Insurance Company Ltd.

  3 Edridge Road, Croydon

  James Hay Trustees Ltd.

  Rowanmoor House, 46–50 Castle Street, Salisbury

  Personal Retirement Account Ltd.

  Oxford House, Oxford Road, Aylesbury

  Capital Cranfield Trustees Ltd.

  Harcourt House, 19a Cavendish Square, London

  Companies leaving the stakeholder pension market after 6 April 2001

  St. Andrew's Life Assurance plc

  PO Box 10, Walton Street, Aylesbury, Bucks

  James Hay Trustees Ltd.

  Rowanmoor House, 46–50 Castle Street Salisbury

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish his Green Paper on pension policy. [82439]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government plan to publish their proposals in a Green Paper on 17 December.

  Reported Deaths
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many reported deaths were investigated by the HSE in the last five years. [82053]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The following table shows the number of deaths investigated by the HSE in the last five years.

  Year

  Members of the public

  Worker

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  124

  258

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  126

  236

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  146

  205

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  148

  267

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  243

  Note:

  The data for members of the public for 2001–02 are not available for release as the information is due for publication on 10 December 2002 and is therefore subject to exemption 10 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.
  212W
  Owing to the implementation problems with the NIRS2 computer system, the 1995–96 tax year is the latest year for which precise information is available.

  When more up-to-date information is available I shall write to the hon. Member and place my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many companies are registered to sell stakeholder pensions to individuals and which companies have(a) entered the market, and(b) left the market, since the product first became available. [81948]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are 47 companies registered as stakeholder pension providers offering a total of 51 registered stakeholder pension schemes. The majority of companies registered to sell SHPs before the product first became available on 6 April 2001. Details of companies that have entered the market and left the market since stakeholder pensions first became available on 6 April 2001 are in the table.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the number of winter fuel payment recipients is lower than the total population aged 60 years and over. [81949]

  Mr. McCartney
  The number of winter fuel payments issued is less than the total population aged 60 and over because, although most people aged 60 and over who normally live in Great Britain in the qualifying week are entitled to a winter fuel payment, there are some exceptions. These are people who, in the qualifying week, have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks; or have been in residential care for more than 13 weeks and receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance; or are in custody under sentence. Also, people subject to immigration control who are not eligible for help from the Department for Work and Pensions are not entitled to a payment.

  In addition, where a couple is receiving the minimum income guarantee or income-based jobseeker's allowance, the claiming partner receives a £200 winter fuel payment for them both.

  Where a person needs to make a claim for their winter fuel payment, it is up to that person whether they choose to claim.

HEALTH

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that female genital mutilation is not carried out in the UK. [82207]

  Ms Blears
  To support our continuing work to educate the practising communities to abandon female genital mutilation (FGM), we increased funding for Forward, the leading organisation working in this field, from April 2002 to an annual total of £90,000.

  We have also been exploring how we might strengthen the legislation governing FGM.

  Agency Fees
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on agency fees in the transfer of temporary agency staff to permanent NHS contracts in each of the last five years, broken down by health authority and primary care trust. [80402]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on seeking to deal with alcohol abuse among young people. [81669]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are determined to tackle alcohol misuse among young people and measures to tackle misuse will form a key part of the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The Government are currently conducting a consultation exercise on the strategy, and the consultation period will run until 15 January 2003. Copies of the consultation document have been placed on the Department's website (www.doh.gov.uk/alcohol/alcoholstrategy.htm) and on the Strategy Unit website (www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/ alcohol/consultationdocument. shtml). The strategy itself will be published in summer 2003.

  British Medical Association
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Chairman of the BMA; and how many meetings he has had with him in the last 12 months. [83263]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health meets the Chairman of the British Medical Association and other representatives of the medical profession, including the medical Royal Colleges, on a regular and frequent basis.

  Clinical Negligence Reform
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the White Paper on clinical negligence reform. [83282]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Potential reforms to the way clinical negligence claims are handled raise complex issues and need to be considered in tandem with the review of the national 214W
  health service complaints procedure, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor's consideration of possible changes in the basis on which compensation is paid. We hope to publish proposals for reform shortly.

  Framework Agreement
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he was informed of the contents of slide 9 of the 'A New Consultant Contract—The Framework Agreement' presentation given by Mr. Andrew Foster Director of Human Resources for the NHS. [81946]

  Mr. Hutton
  I became aware of this slide following publication of the British Medical Association referendum result on 31 October 2002.

  GPs (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners over the age of 65 are working in medical practices in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [81665]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures for the London Borough of Wandsworth are not held centrally. Figures are held for Wandsworth Primary Care Trust and are shown in the table:

  General Medical Practitioners aged over 65 in Wandsworth Primary Care Trust as at 31 March 2002 (boundaries as at 1 April 2002)

  Wandsworth PCT

  All Practitioners1

  209

  of which:

  Aged 66 and over

  8

  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.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated(a) date,(b) cost to his Department and(c) cost to other government bodies is of the mainstreaming of health action zones; and if he will make a statement. [81702]

  Ms Blears
  Since April 2002, health action zones (HAZs) have been aligning locally with primary care trusts (PCTs) and local strategic partnerships (LSPs), and supporting PCT and LSP development. This process is reflected in the recommendations made by the regional co-ordination unit in their action plan for area based initiatives.

  Information is not held centrally about the costs associated with the alignment process.

  Licence Fees
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures have been put in place to ensure correct billing of licence fees by the HFEA; [80691]

  (2) what measures have been put in place to ensure that the National Audit Office can establish satisfactory audit procedures to confirm the accuracy of the licence fee income which should be collected by the HFEA. [80692]
  215W
  Ms Blears
  From April 2002 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) changed from an annual to a monthly invoicing system for the fees paid by licensed centres. Under this new system the invoices issued each month are based on the number of patient treatment cycles reported to the HFEA in that month, making the reporting and the invoicing easier to reconcile. In addition, the HFEA will visit all licensed centres by the end of 2002–03 to ensure that the centres are recording all the treatments they have undertaken in their monthly returns to the HFEA. The National Audit Office is continuing to monitor developments, working with the HFEA to establish how it will be able to rely on the results of these visits in order to draw conclusions on the accuracy and completeness of income due to the HFEA.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospital trusts provide parking spaces for their employees; and whether they are provided(a) free of charge and(b) subject to a charge. [80804]

  Mr. Hutton
  No central record is kept of whether national health service trusts provide car parking spaces reserved for employees. Where car parking is provided it is a matter for the NHS trust whether or not to make a charge using their powers to generate additional income to better provide the health service.

  LIFT Scheme
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the additional capital expenditure that will be generated by the LIFT scheme. [82283]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The Department estimates that the initial investment from the 'first tranche' of schemes across the 42 local improvement finance trust (LIFT) areas will be in excess of £850 million.

  Major Accidents (Fire Strike)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's preparation to deal with major accidents occurring during the industrial action by the FBU. [83307]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]All national health service organisations have major incident plans, which are regularly updated and tested. They are also responsible for ensuring that adequate fire precaution measures are taken and that arrangements are put in place to guard against identified risks. In view of the planned strike action by firefighters, the Department reminded Chief Executives and their Boards of their responsibilities, provided good practice guidance, and asked them to review their local procedures in the light of the changed circumstances during the firefighters strike.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times he has visited East Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82400]
  216W
  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend has not yet visited East Lancashire in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Health.

  Oncology Nursing
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is allocated to address shortages in oncology nursing within the NHS. [81924]

  Ms Blears
  By 2003–4 we will be making an additional £570 million available to support the implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan. These increased resources will enable primary care trusts to decide where National Health Service resources are best spent in line with local priorities in providing high clinical standards and good value for money.

  The Government is implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of all staff, including nurses. Since 1997, the nursing workforce has grown by 31,520. Between September 1999 and September 2001 there was a net increase in nurses working in the NHS of 20,740—the NHS Plan target has been reached two years early. The increase in nurse numbers will enable the recruitment of additional cancer-site specific nurse specialists, chemotherapy nurses, district nurses, palliative care nurse specialists and additional nurses on wards caring for cancer patients.

  Paediatric Oncology
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many paediatric oncology units there are within the NHS; [81932]

  (2) if he will make a statement on NHS funding for pediatric oncology units within the NHS. [81934]

  Ms Blears
  Specialist cancer care for children is concentrated in a national network of paediatric oncology centres, under the umbrella of the United Kingdom children's cancer study group (UKCCSG). There are 16 National Health Service paediatric oncology centres in England. These are:

  St James's University Hospital, Leeds

  Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool

  Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle

  Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield

  Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham

  Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge

  Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham

  St Bartholomews & The Royal London NHS Trust, London

  Great Ormond Street, London

  University College, London

  The Royal Marsden, Surrey

  John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford

  Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol

  Southampton General Hospital, Southampton

  Paediatric oncology centres provide specialist and complex treatment for children with cancer. In addition, there are paediatric oncology shared care units around the country that can provide support, including certain

  217W
  investigations and treatment, nearer to the child's home. This reduces travelling and disruption to families, without compromising quality of care or outcome and provides support to the paediatric oncology centres. The Department does not hold details of this type of unit.

  The Cancer Plan set out the Government's commitment that an extra £570 million would be made available for cancer services by 2003–4. The Department does not collect figures on the cost of services provided by the NHS in a way that enables an accurate estimate of funding for paediatric oncology to be calculated.

  Pain Management
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review his policy regarding the parallel use of opiate pain killers and strong sedatives with older people. [80116]

  Mr. Lammy
  The older people's national service framework (NSF), which was developed with input from front-line staff and patients and published in March 2001, describes how the use of medicines for and by older people can be improved. The aim is to ensure that older people:gain maximum benefit from their medicines to maintain or improve their quality and duration of life;
  do not suffer unnecessarily from illness caused by excessive, inappropriate or inadequate consumption of medicines.

  The NHS Plan set a target for all primary care trusts to have schemes in place so that, by 2004, people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines.

  Opiates are liable to abuse and diversion. They are subject to the controls required by the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. Some painkillers, for example diamorphine, are classified as schedule 2 controlled drugs. Accordingly there are strict controls over prescription, requisition, storage and supply.

  The general principles for the safe and secure handling of medicines are covered, for primary and secondary care, by the Department's controls assurance standard. The systems for clinical and cost effective use of medicines are covered by the Department's medicines management performance management framework.

  Local treatment guidelines, including those for strong opiates and sedatives, should be in place and overseen by local drug and therapeutics committees.

  Public Health Laboratories
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost benefit analysing has been carried out of the transfer of public health laboratories to host NHS trusts. [82141]

  Ms Blears
  The benefits of transferring laboratories of the Public Health Laboratory Service to national health service trusts include:it is essential to create a comprehensive, coherent surveillance system, as described in the Chief Medical Officer's strategy. "Getting Ahead of the Curve";
  it will broaden the number of clinical staff required to report the occurrence of infectious diseases;
  it will place a duty of care on all microbiology laboratories to report for public health surveillance purposes; and
  generally, the transfers will bring public health activities within the mainstream of the NHS.
  218W
  The transfers are being implemented at no overall cost.

  Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give a breakdown by unit of NHS funding allocated to the Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton; [81920]

  (2) if he will make a statement on dedicated cancer funding for the paediatric oncology unit at the Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton. [81921]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals National Health Service Trust that the budget for the Royal Alexandra Hospital for 2002–03 is £9.69 million. The breakdown of funding is as follows:

  £3.77 million, paediatric medicine,

  £3.42 million, paediatric surgery,

  £1 million to neonatology at the hospital, plus a further £1.8 million allocated to the Trevor Mann Baby Unit at the Royal Sussex County Hospital,

  £0.64 million, paediatric intensive care,

  £0.4 million, dentistry,

  £0.36 million, clinical support.

  These are rounded figures so the combined total will not match the total budget.

  The total budget for paediatric oncology for 2002–03 is £664,000. This represents an increase of 8.85 per cent., on the budget for 2001–02.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on nursing and medical staff vacancies at The Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton; and what measures are being taken by his Department to fill them; [81922]

  (2) if he will make a statement on vacancies within the paediatric oncology unit at The Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton; and what measures are being taken by the Department to fill them. [81923]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority that Royal Alexandra hospital, part of Brighton and Sussex University Hospital's National Health Service Trust, currently has a vacancy rate of 11 per cent. Of staff working specifically in oncology, the vacancy rate is currently 17 per cent.

  Recruitment to staff vacancies is undertaken locally, building on the Government's national recruitment campaign and other initiatives to improve recruitment and retention. Local recruitment measures include advertisements in the professional nursing press targeted at paediatric specialist staff. Furthermore, extra places in the staff creche are soon to come on stream, increased rates of pay for bank nurses are being examined and more flexible working patterns are being introduced. Additionally, the Royal Alexandra hospital is due to run a recruitment fair on 5 December.

  Smoking
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will adopt rules for the use
  219W
  of(a) colour photographs and(b) other illustrations to depict and explain the health consequences of smoking, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 10 (2) of the EU Tobacco Directive [81681]

  Ms Blears
  Article 11 of the European Union Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products requires the European Commission to adopt rules concerning the use of pictorial health warnings on tobacco products by 31 December 2002. The Department is working with the European Commission to develop the use of these warnings.

  St. George's Hospital
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled at St. George's Hospital, Tooting, in the last 12 months [81670]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons by quarter—St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Year

  Quarter

  Last minute cancellations

  2001–02

  Q3

  282

  2001–02

  Q4

  256

  2002–03

  Q1

  37

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMNG/QMCO

  A last minute cancellation is one that occurs on the day a patient is due to go into hospital or after they have arrived in hospital or on the day of their operation.

  TB Action Plan
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish an action plan on TB. [81773]

  Ms. Blears
  In the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO's) recent report, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", tuberculosis was identified as a key infectious disease problem requiring intensified control measures to reduce illness and death.

  A new updated and targeted action plan will be submitted to the CMO by the end of 2002.

  Tobacco Products
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department expects to have received from manufacturers and importers of tobacco products a list of all ingredients, and quantities thereof, used in the manufacture of those tobacco products by brand name and type, in accordance with the proposals laid down in the EU Tobacco Directive. [81682]

  Ms Blears
  The European Union Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products requires manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to supply the Secretary of State with a list of all ingredients per brand, together with their known health effects. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State will make and lay regulations shortly before Parliament to transpose the Directive. The Department will write to manufacturers once the regulations are laid, asking that the information be supplied in accordance with the timetable specified in the regulations.
  220W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department sent a list of approved testing laboratories to test the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields of cigarettes to the European Union in accordance with the proposals in the Tobacco Directive. [81680]

  Ms Blears
  The European Union Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products was due to be transposed into United Kingdom law by 30 September 2002. The UK is slightly late in implementing the Directive and has notified the European Commission of this delay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make and lay regulations before Parliament shortly and the Department will then send a list of approved laboratories to the Commission.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  House building
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons were employed in the house-building profession in(a) 1999,(b) 2000,(c) 2001 and(d) 2002 [82808]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2001, 91,400 persons were employed by firms registered for VAT and classified as house builders. Information for 2002 is still being collected and will be published during summer 2003 in the Construction Statistics Annual. Separate figures for house-builders are not available for 1999 and 2000

  BAE
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance she has given to BAE to help it export to Thailand. [83015]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The Department, through British Trade International including the commercial section of the British embassy in Thailand, have assisted BAE Systems in their efforts to do business in Thailand.

  Representative from BAe Systems attended an Investment Seminar in the United Kingdom and the British Tai Business Group Meeting, in Bangkok, in 2001. Both events were co-sponsored by the Department.

  BAE Systems have not participated in any Outward Trade Missions or the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad Scheme to Thailand in the past two years.

  On 18 October the ambassador signed a Joint Minute on Defence Co-operation with the Thai Deputy Prime Minister in Bangkok.

  The Joint Minute referred to a commercial agreement between BAe System and the Royal Thai Government, the details of which are to be worked out between BAE Systems and the Royal Thai Government.

  Ballistic Missile Proliferation (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional measures she proposes to
  221W
  take to implement the restraints in the(a) development,(b) testing and(c) spread of(i) missiles and (ii) space launch vehicles, in the new Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. [83461]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom subscribed to the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC) on 25 November, which I announced to the House by means of a written Ministerial Statement today. Her Majesty's Government are already well placed to implement the undertakings in the Code. We already have strong measures in place for tackling the proliferation of ballistic missiles. The United Kingdom scrutinises export licence applications for any possible diversion of the goods to a missile programme of concern. We play an active part in the Missile Technology Control Regime, that co-ordinates national export controls on missile-related technology. Bilaterally, the United Kingdom encourages countries to show restraint in missile programmes and testing, emphasising the adverse effects they have on regional stability.

  In implementing the ICOC, in line with Part 4 of the Code, the United Kingdom will exchange with other subscribing states pre-launch notifications on ballistic missile and space launch vehicle launches and test flights. Also, in line with the Code we will share annual declarations on the United Kingdom's ballistic missile and satellite vehicle policies and launches.

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps she takes to ensure that BNFLs engagement with US political parties and their representatives is consistent with(a) the national interest and(b) the interests of public funds; [80843]

  (2) if she will take steps to prevent donations by BNFL to US political parties or lobbyists. [80872]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]BNFL is a public limited company and its Board is free to run the company day-to-day within the overall strategic framework set by HMG. Its activities are funded from its commercial activities, and not from public funds. I have raised this issue with the company and it has assured me that it has no intention of making any further political donations to US political parties.

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Competitiveness Council held in Brussels on 14–15 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [82242]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I represented the UK at the Competitiveness Council on 14 November in Brussels.

  Following on from the Nyborg Informal Council held in October, there was a debate about the structures needed to bring together the internal market, industry and research elements of the new integrated Competitiveness Council.
  222W
  There was a presentation by the Commission covering Better Regulation and its plans to improve the quality of European legislation.

  There was a presentation by the Commission on the Internal Market Scoreboard, which shows progress towards achieving a single market. In particular, it reports member states' performance on transposing European single market directives into national law. The UK has a good record, being one of only five member states to meet the target that 98.5 per cent, of directives should be transposed on time.

  A presentation on the joint work programme of three presidencies (Danish, Greek, and Italian) covered the internal market elements of the Competitiveness Council's work. Greece explained that in December they would present an integrated plan of their entire programme to the General Affairs Council.

  Discussions on the Community Patent proposal, which aims to create a single EU-wide patent, continued but no conclusion was reached.

  There was broad agreement for a common approach on a proposal to harmonise conditions under which computer programmes may be patented. The presidency concluded that the text should now await the European Parliament's first reading.

  The Commission presented its new proposal for a Takeovers Directive.

  There was an initial debate on the Free Movement Of Citizens Directive.

  All member states welcomed the recently published Winter report on corporate governance.

  The council welcomed the proposal for a directive on Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications as part of the Lisbon agenda and there was considerable support for improved mobility within labour markets and more efficient recognition of qualifications. Delegations endorsed the consolidation, simplification, and rationalisation of current structures and legislation, a freer system for the cross-border provision of services, and improving information and support for migrants. Delegation also recognised the need to balance consumer protection and consumer choice. Discussions will continue at official level.

  The Commission presented a proposal for a Consumer Credit Directive to replace and update the 1987 Directive. The Council welcomed the dossier and called for a thorough examination at official level.

  The Commission gave a progress report on the consultation and work to date following the follow-up Communication to the Green Paper on Consumer Protection.

  The following agenda items were approved with little discussion: conclusions for the Competitiveness Council's contributions to Sustainable Development, the Internal Market Strategy for Services, and the proposed Motor Insurance 5th Directive.

  Consignia
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance was allocated to(a) Northern Ireland,(b) Wales,(c) England and(d) Scotland as part of Consignia's Urban Network Reinvention Programme; and if she will make a statement. [83655]

  Mr. Timms
  Unlike the schemes to improve and sustain post offices in deprived urban areas for which separate funding provision has been made for England and for each of the three devolved Administrations, Post Office Ltd.'s Urban Network Reinvention Programme is a single UK-wide programme. Neither the Government nor Post Office Ltd. have pre-allocated funds for the Urban Reinvention programme to countries or regions within the UK.

  East Midlands Development Agency
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the grant given to the East Midlands Development Agency. [82353]

  Alan Johnson
  The East Midlands Regional Development Agency has been allocated a net budget of £101,247,000 for expenditure on the agency's Single Programme in 2002–03. Grant in aid paid to the agency by the Department of Trade and Industry includes contributions from four other Government Departments.

  EC Energy and Industry Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters in respect of nuclear power policy are on the agenda for the EC Energy and Industry Council on 25 to 26 November. [83248]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Council agenda states that the Commission intends to make a presentation on their package of measures for a Community approach to nuclear safety in the European Union. The Commission proposals were published on 6 November and include a directive on the safety of nuclear installations during operation and decommissioning, a directive on spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste and a draft decision authorising the Commission to negotiate an Agreement between Euratom and the Russian Federation on trade in nuclear materials. Discussion of the proposals at the Council is not envisaged. The Commission will need to seek the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee and the group of experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty before taking the directives forward in the Council.

  Further information on the proposals can be found on the Commission website at http://europa.eu.int/ omm/nuclear/new—package.htm

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on preparations for a major incident at(a) chemical plants, and(b) nuclear installations during the period of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. [82413]
  224W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Chemical Industries Association (CIA), member companies and operators of nuclear installations have been carrying out contingency planning since strike action by the firefighters became a real possibility, and keeping the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) informed.

  The CIA has discussed with member companies the need to review the adequacy of existing plans and procedures, and to consider any additional steps they might take in the absence of emergency assistance from the Fire Brigade. The nuclear operators are likewise acting in the light of their responsibilities for safety on their sites and for emergency preparedness, and are keeping under review the implications of possible further strike action for their day-to-day activities.

  The Health and Safety Executive has offered advice to employers operating onshore major hazard sites and nuclear licensed sites. In essence, this advice is for businesses to review their risk assessments in the light of the changed circumstances and consider what additional actions might be necessary. Overall, the HSE view is that the existence of a strike should not, of itself, cause the vast majority of legitimate industrial or commercial activities to be curtailed, since emergency plans and evacuation should not be dependent on the presence of the fire brigade. The HSE's advice, and other advice to relevant industries, is available on HSE's website: www.hse.gov.uk/firefighters.htm

  Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will provide assistance to small businesses who are(a) finding it difficult to obtain insurance and(b) being charged premiums that are substantially higher than before; and if she will make a statement; [82827]

  (2)what plans she has to meet representatives from the Association of British Insurers to discuss recent increases in the cost of insurance cover for business; and if she will make a statement; [82831]

  (3)what assessment she has made of the impact of the rise in public liability and employers' liability insurance premiums over the last year on the competitiveness of UK businesses; and if she will make a statement. [82826]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answers 25 November 2002]The ABI has not specifically requested a meeting on this topic.

  Officials have had discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses as well as with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association to explore how affordable cover can be provided. The DTI, Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions are closely monitoring the effect of insurance premium rises on UK firms of all sizes.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect of the events of 11 September 2001, on insurance requirements for small and medium sized architecture businesses. [83350]
  225W
  Nigel Griffiths
  A number of businesses—particularly small businesses—are experiencing increases in liability insurance premiums, and in some cases difficulties in obtaining cover. Insurance premiums are rising across the board at present for a variety of reasons, not least the tragic events of September 11 last year, which had a severe effect on the global insurance market.

  The DTI, Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions are closely monitoring the effect on SMEs of insurance premium rises. We are exploring with Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association ways to ensure that affordable cover is available.

  Nuclear Industry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial support has been given to(a) the nuclear generating sector,(b) the nuclear waste sector,(c) nuclear fusion and(d) other parts of the nuclear industry in each year since 1972. [80863]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]Funding to the UK nuclear industry has been provided primarily in the form of grant and grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Over the period in question, the funding enabled UKAEA to undertake civil nuclear research programmes and to discharge liabilities arising from past programmes.

  00A3; million

  Grant and grant-in-aid

  1971–72

  43

  1972–73

  48

  1973–74

  61

  1974–75

  62

  1975–76

  87

  1976–77

  122

  1977–78

  118

  1978–79

  131

  1979–80

  144

  1980–81

  158

  1981–82

  164

  1982–83

  215

  1983–84

  204

  1984–85

  196

  1985–86

  169

  1986–87

  163

  1987–88

  148

  1988–89

  247

  1989–90

  196

  Funding for UK nuclear fusion research was not shown separately from UKAEA funding prior to 1990:

  £million

  Grant and grant-in-aid

  Nuclear fusion

  Other nuclear

  1990–91

  94.3

  26.9

  1991–92

  68.7

  20.7

  —

  1992–93

  1126.2

  16.7

  —

  1993–94

  1128.7

  16.3

  —

  1994–95

  1131.3

  15.7

  —

  1995–962

  199.3

  15.9

  —

  1996–97

  166.5

  12.1

  —

  1997–98

  174.5

  16.6

  8.5

  226W

  £million

  Grant and grant-in-aid

  Nuclear fusion

  Other nuclear

  1998–99

  285

  12.6

  5

  1999–2000

  194.4

  14.4

  3.3

  2000–01

  223.4

  14.3

  3.5

  1 Grant payment.

  2 Prior to 1995, UKAEA was a trading fund with a negative external financing requirement.

  Note:

  Grant-in-aid to the UKAEA includes provision for its running costs

  Source:

  Government Expenditure Plan Reports.

  In the nuclear waste sector, costs of Nirex are met by subscriptions from its members (UKAEA, BNFL and British Energy).

  Funding for the nuclear generating sector was provided under the NFFO (Non Fossil Fuels Obligation) and the Non Fossil Fuels Levy (NFFL).

  £million

  Premium income

  1990–91

  1,265

  1991–92

  798

  1992–93

  864

  1993–94

  895

  1994–95

  892

  1995–96

  699

  At the time BNFL acquired Magnox Electric in 1998, Magnox Electric benefited from the NFFO and NFFL. Any sums received by Magnox Electric under the NFFO and NFFL were received as part of its trading revenues in the ordinary course of business. Magnox Electric applied these sums in the ordinary course of funding its business of the generation and wholesale supply of electricity, and the de-fuelling and decommissioning of closed Magnox nuclear generating stations.

  The NFFL and NFFO also applied in Scotland and had implications for Scottish Nuclear. In 1996, following the flotation of British Energy, the premium payments from SP and SHE under the Nuclear Energy Agreement were ended. The price controls were modified to remove the 'Nuclear Premium'. In 1996–97, the Nuclear Premium for Scotland was £50 million.

  BNFL, as a commercial company, does not receive support from Government. However, the Secretary of State announced last November HMG's intention for a Liabilities Management Authority to be established to take responsibility for those BNFL and UKAEA civil nuclear liabilities and associated assets that are properly the responsibility of the State.

  The Government are providing British Energy with a credit facility of up to £650 million in respect of the period up to 29 November, and has taken security for the loan over the company's assets. The facility has been provided in respect of the company's working capital requirements and cash collateral for trading in the UK and North America.

  Nuclear Safety Directorate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether the Nuclear Safety Directorate has formal contingency arrangements in the event that a site operator is declared insolvent or put into administration; and if she will place a copy of these arrangements in the Library; [82506]

  (2) whether the licence agreements that the Nuclear Safety Directorate negotiates with site operators contain provisions to deal with a site operator being declared insolvent or being put into administration; and if she will place a copy of the relevant clauses in the Library. [82507]

  Mr. Wilson
  Nuclear site licences contain no provisions regarding the insolvency of a site operator and HSE does not have formal contingency arrangements in the event that a site operator is declared insolvent or put into administration. I understand that HSE is considering how it might increase its surveillance of the safety of nuclear operations and monitor developments on affected sites in such circumstances. My officials are continuing to work closely with the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to ensure the overriding priority of the safe operation of British Energy's nuclear power stations.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the licence agreements that the Nuclear Safety Directorate negotiates with site operators contain provisions to deal with the accumulation and storage of nuclear waste material; and whether renegotiation of a licence agreement would be required where a site operator implemented a change of policy on nuclear waste material. [82505]

  Mr. Wilson
  A "licence agreement" is not a recognised instrument of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended). However, the Act does allow the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to attach conditions to nuclear site licences in the interests of safety or with respect to the handling, treatment and disposal of nuclear material and within the arrangements made by licensees under those conditions the HSE does use formal "agreements" to effect its permissioning role. Any activity on a licensed site requiring HSE's permission is subject to there being an adequate safety case.

  Any changes, on the part of a licensee, relating to the storage of nuclear waste at the site would be subject to the acceptance of a revised safety case by HSE. Such changes would need to meet Licence Condition 32, which specifically addresses the accumulation of radioactive waste within the standard set of 36 conditions,. In enforcing this and other licence conditions, HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate takes into account Government policy on radioactive waste management, as set out in Cm2919.

  Additionally the licensee's policy on the management of radioactive waste is reviewed through the quinquennial review process, as required by Government policy. Changes in licensee's policy will be identified by this process and assessed by HSE. The results of HSE's
  228W
  assessments and the full set of licence conditions are available on the HSE website http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/index.htm.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the offshore oil and gas industry in implementing the requirements of the Working Time Directive for the sector, with particular reference to the issues of(a) holiday pay,(b) annual leave,(c) paid travel time,(d) work cycles, and(e) health and safety for offshore workers. [82769]

  Alan Johnson
  The Horizontal Amending Directive (HAD) (2000/34/EC) entitles workers in the offshore sector to the full provisions of the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC). The HAD was formally adopted on 1 August 2000 and is required to be implemented by 1 August 2003.

  The Government is consulting on its proposals to implement the HAD through amendments to the Working Time Regulations. The consultation which can be found on the DTI website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/ work time regs/handconsulthtm began on 31 October 2002 and will run until 31 January 2003

  Priority Areas
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 20 November, reference 81766, which wards in Sittingbourne and Sheppey have been selected as priority areas. [83463]

  Mr. Timms
  For its investment in broadband provision SEEDA prioritises those parts of the region where provision is relatively poor. In general terms, these are areas, including Kent, in the eastern part of the region and rural areas across the region as a whole. The investment is not prioritised on a ward basis.

  Small Firms Loans Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conclusions she has reached as a result of her review of the small firms loans guarantee scheme; and whether it will be extended to(a) services and(b) those with limited work or credit records. [83462]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am considering improvements to the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. A review of this scheme has been completed and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Tear Gas Exports
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent export licences have been granted to(a) Paines Wessex and(b) other companies for the export of tear gas to Zimbabwe. [82260]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on 14 November 2002. A copy of my letter was placed in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Coffee Imports
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that coffee products sold in the UK are labelled to indicate coffee quality. [80946]

  Ms. Blears
  Specific quality claims are not required for coffee products and there are no plans to make them so. Where voluntary claims are made they must comply with the provisions on misleading or false descriptions or claims set out in the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

  "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" Campaign
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent on the "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" publicity campaign since 8 July 2001, broken down by country. [82409]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Approximately £421,000 has been spent on the "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" campaign, launched on 8 July 2002. Some of this money was spent on preparatory work and research prior to the launch.

  The campaign deliberately targeted British travellers and holidaymakers, and was not aimed at specific third countries. Therefore there are no costs broken down by country. Our posts abroad have been helping, for example by displaying some posters and distributing leaflets with visa applications.

  20-day Rule
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the 20-day rule. [82221]

  Mr Morley
  Industry organisations and individual farmers have made a number of representations about the impact of the 20 day standstill. Ministers and officials regularly meet industry representatives to discuss their views on the current animal movement controls.

  Air Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Government spent in the last year for which figures are available, on monitoring air pollution. [80849]

  Alun Michael
  Spending by Government in 2001–02 was divided between ambient air quality monitoring (£4.79 million) and air quality monitoring in relation to regulated industrial processes in England and Wales undertaken by the Environment Agency (£2.40 million). Around £2.09 million was recovered by the Agency from process operations in 2001–02.

  Airport Security
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which(a) seaports
  230W
  and(b) airports are being targeted by her Department for additional checks on passenger baggage and freight for illegal imports; and what assessment she has made of the work done in the last 12 months. [82411]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Additional checks began at two major seaports at the beginning of October this year, and at a third seaport at the beginning of November. Teams have been recruited and are currently in training at two major airports. They are expected to be operational before the end of November. One of these teams will also operate at other airports around the country.

  Specific details of staff and ports of operation could benefit potential smugglers.

  It is too soon to make an assessment of the impact of these additional checks.

  Animal Welfare Bill
  Mr. Alan Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the organizations which(a) departmental officials and(b) ministers are meeting to discuss details of the proposed Animal Welfare Bill, and what matters will be discussed. [83017]

  Mr. Morley
  The consultation on the proposed Animal Welfare Bill commenced in January 2002. Since that time I have met a wide range of individuals and animal welfare organisations. These meetings are continuing.

  We have also organised a series of stakeholder meetings on the Bill. The following organisations have already attended stakeholder meetings:-

  British Egg Industry

  British Poultry Council Ltd

  National Pig Association

  Soil Association

  National Farmers Union

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Meat & Livestock Commission

  Royal Agricultural Society of England;

  Country Land & Business Association (CLA) Countryside Alliance

  Compassion In World Farming British Association for Shooting and Conservation

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Game Farmers Association

  National Gamekeepers Organisation

  Union of Country Sports Workers

  Association for the Study of Reptilia and Amphibia

  Barnet Association of Responsible Dog Owners

  Pro Dogs

  Cat Association of Britain

  Governing Council of the Cat Fancy

  National Mouse Club

  Rabbit Welfare Association

  British Koi-Keepers' Society

  International Herpetological Society

  British Goat Society

  National Association of Registered Petsitters

  Sustainable Users Network

  Society for the Protection of Aviculture

  Hawk Board

  231W

  Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd

  Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain

  Rona Brown and Associates

  RSPCA

  Animal Defenders

  Captive Animals 1 Protection Society

  Born Free Foundation

  Pet Care Trust

  Cage and Aviary Birds

  Arkgroup

  Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association

  Professional Koi Dealers Association

  Companion Animal Welfare Council

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Greyhound Rescue Wales

  National Canine Defence League

  British Greyhound Racing Board

  National Greyhound Racing Club

  Retired Greyhound Trust—Lincoln

  Greyhounds—UK

  British Veterinary Association

  British Small Animal Veterinary Association,

  British Equine Veterinary Association

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  British Veterinary & Zoological Society

  Society of British Greyhound Veterinarians

  The following have been invited to future meetings:

  British Horse Society

  International League for the Protection of Horses

  Friends, Families & Travellers Advice & Info Unit

  Thoroughbred Rehabilitation Centre British Horse Industry

  Confederation

  The Gypsy Council

  National Equine Welfare Council

  Anti-docking Alliance

  Council of Docked Breeds

  The Kennel Club

  Cat Association of Britain

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Police Federation of England & Wales

  Mike Radford (UoA)

  LACORS

  Chartered Inst of Environmental Health

  Home Office (SOU & PLPU)

  Lord Chancellors Department

  Trading Standards Institute

  Association of Port Health Authorities

  HM Customs & Excise

  National Animal Sanctuary Alliance

  National Federation of Badger Groups

  Safewings

  British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council

  Mayhew Animal Home

  The Monkey Sanctuary

  Federation of Zoos

  National Association of Cats and Dogs Homes

  Animal Aid

  Birds First

  League Against Cruel Sports

  CAP Subsidies
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations her Department has received concerning the average payment per hectare from the common agricultural policy's production subsidies for(a) organic farmers and(b) non-organic farmers within the UK. [81830]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have received no such representations recently.

  Cod
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the figures which demonstrated that landings of cod did not increase in line with landings of nephrops. [80637]

  Mr. Morley
  I have placed in the Library a graph which summarises the data which we submitted to the Commission last year on the relationship (or lack of it) between landings of cod and landings of nephrops.

  Community Supported Agriculture
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefit of community supported agriculture to local communities. [82788]

  Mr. Morley
  In response to the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food's report, a local food working group, made up of officials from the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency, the Countryside Agency, the Regional Development Agencies and Defra has been set up. This group is considering the evidence relating to the impacts of local food initiatives, including community supported agriculture, and the wider issues relating to local food so that Government policy in this area can be developed as appropriate. The working group expect to report their findings in spring 2003.

  Dairy Farmers (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the financial impact of the 20 day movement standstill on Lancashire dairy farmers. [82201]

  Mr. Morley
  We have commissioned independent researchers to carry out a detailed cost-benefit analysis into the 20 day standstill in order to gain a better understanding of the economic impact of the current rules. We expect the researchers to examine the impact of the rules both on the livestock industry in aggregate and on individual sectors and sub-groups, including those facing special difficulty. This may include regional impacts, but will not necessarily be broken down by county.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the size was of the average dairy herd in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [82202]
  233W
  Mr. Morley
  Number of holdings, number of cows in dairy herd and average number of these dairy cattle on holdings in Lancashire 1997–2001.

  Year

  Holdings

  Cattle

  Average

  1997

  1,386

  89,687

  64.7

  1998

  1,358

  88,571

  65.2

  1999

  1,292

  89,015

  68.9

  2000

  1,186

  84,600

  71.3

  2001

  1,116

  85,092

  76.3

  Notes:

  1.Years 2000 and 2001 refer to main and minor holdings. 1997–99 refer to main holdings only

  2.A dairy cow is defined as a cow or heifer in the dairy herd that has calved.

  Source:

  June Agriculture and Horticultural Census.

  Dangerous Wild Animal Licences
  Mr. David Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when the Government intends to publish the results of its review of Dangerous Wild Animal Licences; [80458]

  (2) if she will make it her policy not to require a Dangerous Wild Animal Licence to be held for wild ruminants kept for agricultural purposes. [80457]

  Margaret Beckett
  We expect to publish proposals early in the New Year on making the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 more effective. These proposals will draw on the findings and recommendations of independent consultants who were commissioned to examine the Act's effectiveness, and the views of the public who were invited to comment on the consultant's report.

  The results of the New Year public consultation exercise will help us to decide which animals should be subject to control.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees work on matters formerly within the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. [82896]

  Alun Michael
  There are approximately 5,170 employees (excluding casuals) that work in policy areas formerly within the responsibility of MAFF. This figure excludes staff that work in central service areas that support the entire Department.

  In addition, there are approximately 5,760 employees in the Department's executive agencies which were sponsored by the former MAFF.

  Diet and Lifestyle
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent efforts have been made to educate the public about promoting(a) a balanced diet and(b) a healthy lifestyle. [81061]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.
  234W
  The Food Standards Agency is engaged in a wide range of activities to promote the uptake of a healthy, balanced diet. Details of these are available from the agency's nutrition action plan on the agency's website (www.food.gov.uk). This encompasses work in schools, information and advice to consumers, including through the agency website and funding research and surveys on barriers to uptake of a balanced diet and how these can be overcome.

  The Department's initiatives, as highlighted in the "NHS Plan" (2000), address both access and information. Actions on the latter include generating awareness on breastfeeding, a Five a Day programme to promote fruit and vegetable consumption, support for healthy weight maintenance and initiatives in schools and elsewhere to promote a balanced diet and physical activity.

  Farm Animals (Health)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent representations her Department has received concerning(a) the health of farm animals in the United Kingdom and(b) the need for revised regulations governing the health of farm animals in the United Kingdom; [81904]

  (2) what plans she has to revise regulations governing the health of farm animals in the United Kingdom. [81905]

  Mr. Morley
  The two FMD inquiries commissioned by the Government made a number of recommendations relevant to the health of farm animals and regulation in this area, and the Government's response to the inquiries was published on 6 November 2002.

  The suggestion that there might be a general review of animal health legislation is being taken forward by the Department in partnership with the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government in the development of a comprehensive animal health and welfare strategy for Great Britain in consultation with stakeholders. The scope and nature of future legislation will be addressed next year following the publication of the strategy.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of(a) benefits to local farming communities of farmers markets and(b) the impact that farmers markets have on retailers. [82789]

  Mr. Morley
  The most recent assessment of farmers' markets in England and Wales was a business survey carried out by the NFU in July 2002. This reported that the 450 regular farmers' markets currently operating have an annual turnover of approximately £166.3 million with the average earnings of each stallholder being around £8,700. With average farm incomes for 2001 of £7,861, the economic benefits for local farmers participating in farmers' markets are clear.
  235W
  The business survey did not specifically consider the impact of farmers' markets on retailers but it did report that 80 per cent, of locations had seen increases in trade for neighbouring businesses. This supports the findings of an earlier study carried out on behalf of the Countryside Agency in 2001 on farmers' markets in the South East. This reported that in the opinion of those market organisers and town centre managers that responded most considered that local shops had benefited.

  Flood Defence (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying her assessment of the likelihood of a further flood defence scheme in Shrewsbury. [82872]

  Mr. Morley
  Both DEFRA and the Environment Agency have a responsibility to all taxpayers to ensure that value for money is obtained for investment in flood alleviation schemes. My understanding that there is

  £ million

  Exports

  Imports

  Year

  Indigenous

  Non-indigenous

  Total exports

  Indigenous

  Non-indigenous

  Total imports

  1992

  6,322

  1,055

  7,378

  7,705

  5,603

  13,308

  1993

  6,913

  1,254

  8,167

  7,836

  5,917

  13,754

  1994

  7,620

  1,443

  9,063

  8,222

  6,620

  14,842

  1995

  8,473

  1,598

  10,071

  9,130

  7,227

  16,357

  1996

  8,378

  1,669

  10,046

  9,921

  7,848

  17,769

  1997

  8,233

  1,740

  9,973

  9,574

  7,680

  17,255

  1998

  7,511

  1,691

  9,202

  9,732

  7,322

  17,055

  1999

  7,276

  1,604

  8,880

  9,923

  7,291

  17,214

  2000

  7,216

  1,486

  8,702

  10,088

  6,740

  16,828

  2001

  6,943

  1,494

  8,438

  10,952

  7,030

  17,983

  Note:

  The above data include an estimate of below threshold data, but exclude an estimate for non-response

  Source:

  H M Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD. DEFRA.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on plans to review her policy on compensation and slaughter premium payouts during the foot and mouth outbreak. [80139]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has reviewed the position and has recently written to those who inquired about compensation and slaughter premium, to confirm that the subsidy itself is not payable in respect of animals culled due to foot and mouth disease because the scheme criteria were not met, and that no adjustment is needed to compensation which was based on market value.

  Foxes
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has of the fox population in urban areas in England. [80871]
  236W
  little likelihood that a further flood alleviation scheme could be justified in Shrewsbury is based on the Agency's judgement that the costs of providing such schemes would outweigh the benefits, using the currently agreed methodology. However this methodology is subject to review next year and the Agency will consider any impact on the viability of defence measures for parts of Shrewsbury.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the value of(a) all foodstuffs and(b) temperate foodstuffs (i) exported from and (ii) imported into the United Kingdom. [80448]

  Margaret Beckett
  The following table shows the value of UK trade in indigenous and non-indigenous food, feed and drink between 1992–2001. Exports of non-indigenous foods are mainly exports of processed foods manufactured from imported non-indigenous ingredients.

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]The Department does not routinely collate data on the levels of urban fox populations, but commissions research into the subject from time to time. A report issued in 1997 estimated the UK urban fox population at 33,000

  Illegal Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations on and discussions she has had with television companies and airline companies about showing her Department's information videos on illegal imports. [82360]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The Central Office of Information (Col) is responsible for arranging for the distribution of the information videos on behalf of Defra.

  Col have in the past few weeks, telephoned all major UK broadcast media and major airlines operating out of the UK, and sent copies of the information videos to them. Discussions are on-going with the broadcasters and airlines. We will get reports on usage on a quarterly basis.
  237W
  The videos have been produced as "fillers" which are used when broadcasters do not have enough paid advertising. They are shown on a goodwill basis. Airlines usually prepare their in-flight programming up to three months in advance.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what extended powers have been granted to enforcement authorities to search and seize illegal imports of animal products in commercial consignments and personal baggage; and when those powers were granted. [82410]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Enforcement officers were granted extended powers under Regulation 8 of the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports)(England) Regulations 2002, which came into force on 22 May. Enforcement officers were given the power to:

  enter any border inspection post or premises (except houses) to inspect anything.

  open any bundle, package, packing case or item of luggage.

  inspect any produce or equipment.

  take samples.

  Ivory
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the CITES agreement reached in November on the sale of stocks of ivory. [81822]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The agreement provides South Africa, Botswana and Namibia with the prospect of a one-off sale of legal stocks of raw ivory after May 2004 provided that a number of strict conditions have first been met. These include verification of trading partners by the CITES Secretariat (to prevent illegal ivory entering legal markets), a requirement that baseline data on population and poaching levels is available from the MIKE system (Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants) and any funds raised must be used for elephant conservation. If any of the conditions are not met, the sale will not take place.

  The Government believe that the agreement strikes the right balance between meeting the legitimate expectations of the southern African states that they should be able to engage in sustainable utilisation of their natural resources, whilst establishing strict controls to secure the conservation of wider elephant populations.

  Mapping
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the accuracy of(a) digital mapping and(b) Ordnance Survey maps. [83386]

  Alun Michael
  Digital mapping is an electronic version of Ordnance Survey (OS) large scale maps. These maps are produced to a very high standard.

  The accuracy of digital mapping, as in the case of paper maps, depends on the scale and the quality of the original survey and the methods employed.
  238W
  Statistical information about the accuracy of Ordnance Survey mapping is published on the Ordnance Survey website at www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what consultations she had with meat producers in the North of Scotland prior to the authorising of meat inspection contracts; [80781]

  (2) what criteria were used to decide to award a contract for meat inspection in Northern Scotland to a company based in York; [80783]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact on veterinary practices in Northern Scotland of the decision to award the contract for meat inspection in Northern Scotland to a company based in York; [80782]

  (4) what consultations she undertook with the Scottish Executive prior to the award of the contract for meat inspection services in Scotland. [80780]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Meat inspection in Scotland is a devolved matter and Ministerial responsibility rests with Scottish Ministers.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many times she has visited east Lancashire in her official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82397]

  Alun Michael
  The Secretary of State was in Lancashire on 20 September 2002 this year to officially open the Millennium Ribble Link on behalf of British Waterways.

  Mobile Slaughtermen
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many licensed mobile slaughtermen operate in England and Wales. [80461]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised on food safety issues by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  The licensing of slaughtermen in Great Britain is carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), an Executive Agency of the Food Standards Agency, who took over this task from some 300 local authorities on its establishment in 1995.

  No separate licence is issued for mobile slaughtermen.

  As at 19 November 2002, there are 7,014 valid slaughtermens' licences in Great Britain.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many acres of oil seed rape were grown in England and Wales in 2002. [82733]
  239W
  Mr. Morley
  Defra is able to provide data for England only. Figures for Wales are a matter for the devolved authority. In England 404 thousand hectares (997 thousand acres) of oil seed rape were grown for harvest in 2002. This includes 79 thousand hectares (195 thousand acres) grown for industrial use on set-aside land.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the salary is of the chairman of the Parrett Catchment Project for 2000–01 and 2001–02; and whether his salary has been agreed for 2003. [83389]

  Mr. Morley
  The Parrett Catchment Project is an independent body. I am advised that no salary is paid by the project to the chairman. He is currently entitled to a fee of £150 per day for his work on the project.

  He received no fees or expenses at all from the project up to June 2001. From June 2001 to the end of June 2002, he was paid £ 3,000 in fees, a £ 1,000 honorarium for extra-contractual work on the successful Intereg 3 bid for EU funds, and £ 724 in expenses. He has received no payments for fees or expenses since 1 July 2002.

  Pet Travel Scheme
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pet owners used the pet travel scheme in the past 12 months. [82370]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures are not kept on the number of owners using the scheme. Between 1 October 2001 and 30 September 2002, the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, 38,603 dogs and cats entered England under the pet travel scheme.

  Prestige Sinking
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what early assessment she has made of the long-term environmental impact of the sinking of the Prestige off the Spanish Atlantic coast.
  [83003]

  Mr. Morley
  It is too early to assess the long term impacts of this oil pollution. Much will depend on the fate of the oil still in the holds of the wreck, and wind and sea conditions in the area. The primary responsibility for assessing the impact will rest with the Spanish authorities. Defra's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has contacted the scientists working on impact assessment and has offered any technical assistance they may find helpful Our current assessment is that it is extremely unlikely any oil from the Prestige will reach the British coast.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is serving on the(a) Advisory Committee on New Foods and Processes,(b) Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee,(c) Apple and Pear Research Council,
  240W
  (d) British Potato Council,(e) Consultatative Panel on Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis,(f) Environment Agency Board,(g) Farm Animal Welfare Council,(h) Food Advisory Committee,(i) Food from Britain,(j) Harbour Commission,(k) Home Grown Cereals Authority,(l) Horticulture Research International,(m) Meat and Livestock Commission,(n) Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal,(o) Regional Floods Defence Committee and(p) Sea Fisheries Committee; and what remuneration they receive. [82344]

  Alun Michael
  Information on(a) The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and(h) the Food Advisory Committee is available from the Food Standards Agency, who report to Parliament through Health Ministers.

  Responsibility for appointments to Harbour Commissions was transferred to the Department for Transport in October 2001.

  The information requested on the remaining bodies has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the second progress report on the Rural White Paper. [82786]

  Alun Michael
  We now publish a quarterly update on implementation of the Rural White Paper. The most recent update reported progress up to 31 August 2002. The next update will report progress as of 31 December 2002 and will be published in January.

  The Rural White Paper Implementation plan is available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ruralwp/rwpttable/

  Science and Regulatory Agencies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place copies of the reviews of her Department's science and regulatory agencies in the Library of the House; and if she will make a statement. [81165]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to announce the outcome of the Agency Review before the Christmas recess when copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Seals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to improve reporting and monitoring practices in respect of seals; [80855]

  (2) how many seals have been killed(a) deliberately and(b) accidentally by humans in each year since 1972; and of those killed deliberately, how many were despatched pursuant to section 9 of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970; [80857]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the discharge of her responsibilities in relation to seals under(a) the EU Habitats Directive,(b) Article 8 of the Berne Convention and(c) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; [80853]
  241W
  (4) what steps she is taking to encourage(a) fishermen and(b) fish farmers to adopt the use of non-lethal means of seal deterrence; [80854]

  (5) what plans she has to review section 9 of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. [80856]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]The Department has no current plans to amend the reporting practices in respect of seals. The status of seal populations in the UK is reported annually by the National Environment Research Council (NERC) based on data produced by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), University of St. Andrews. The activities of SMRU include seeking improvements in the methods used to collect information about seals.

  The Department does not keep a record of the total number of seals killed deliberately or accidentally by humans each year.

  Article 3 of the EU Habitats Directive requires the UK to identify and select special areas of conservation (SAC) for common seals and grey seals that will make a significant contribution to conserving these species in their natural range. Regulations prohibit certain indiscriminate methods of killing seals, including the use of devices capable of killing or stunning, explosives, crossbows, semi-automatic or automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition.

  The obligations of Article 8 of the Bern Convention are implemented by the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Conservation of Seals (England) Order 1999.

  Under the Wildife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to use a snare to trap any mammal, including seals.

  The Department has no plans at present to influence what methods fishermen or fish farmers should use when deterring seals from their nets.

  There are currently no plans to review section 9 of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970.

  Second-hand Machinery
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make it her policy to allow second-hand machinery to be bought with processing and marketing grants; [80446]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact on the competitiveness within the EU of British farmers, of the policy of not allowing processing and marketing grants to be used for the purchase of second-hand machinery. [80447]

  Margaret Beckett
  EU Commission Regulation 445/2002, in the detailed rules on processing and marketing grants, restricts expenditure eligible for aid to new machinery and equipment.

  Slaughter Premium Scheme Payments
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Scottish Executive during her review of slaughter premium and compensation. [80140]
  242W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA officials have been in regular touch with colleagues in the Scottish Executive about FMD compensation, including the treatment of slaughter premium.

  South-East Asia (Exports)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from British companies seeking to assist South East Asia countries export farm produce to the UK. [83013]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]None. The Government are keen to promote exports of agriculture and food products from the United Kingdom. Promotion of exports to the United Kingdom is a matter for the authorities of the country or countries concerned.

  Sustainable Farming and Food Group
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Sustainable Farming and Food Group last met; and if she will lay a copy of the minutes of that meeting in the Library. [81157]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, Chaired by Sir Donald Curry, published its report "Farming and Food—a sustainable future" on 29 January. The Commission last met on 22 January, when it agreed the final text of its report and details of its publication launch.

  The formation of an Implementation Group, chaired by Sir Donald Curry, was announced on 25 October. The group will oversee the delivery of the Governments' Strategy on Farming and Food. The Implementation Group will work with the farming and food industries and Government to drive forward those changes.

  The group had its first meeting on 28 October at which it discussed a draft of the Governments' forthcoming Farming and Food Strategy, and agreed timings of future meetings and work plans. The group also agreed to establish a website. Summaries of the outcome of meetings will be posted on this once it is established.

  Water Buffalo
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which abattoirs in the United Kingdom are licensed to kill water buffalo. [80456]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any abattoir licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended) to slaughter bovine animals may slaughter water buffalo, provided it has the capability to handle these animals.

  The list of abattoirs licensed to slaughter bovine animals has been placed in the Library. Those known to slaughter water buffalo are shown in bold type.

  Wild Mammals (Urban Areas)
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations and discussions she has had regarding the protection of wild mammals in urban areas. [82422]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The Department has not received representations about the general protection of wild urban animals, including urban species, which occur in urban areas on a regular basis. However, we have recently received a number of representations about a licence granted under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for the purpose of preventing damage to property in East Sussex.

  Species are protected by a number of pieces of legislation. The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 protects all mammals from indiscriminate methods of killing or taking. In addition certain species, including all birds, are protected from intentional killing by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Badgers, which can occur in urban and suburban areas, are protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the number of wild mammals in urban areas by species. [82423]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]At present there is no comprehensive, standardised national monitoring of British mammals that embraces the full range of important species. However, this is being addressed by a GB-wide research contract. "Design and pilot a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring project". The overall aim will be to design and pilot, using a volunteer network, a winter monitoring project involving both visual recording of mammals and recording their signs. It is intended to form a building block for an integrated mammal-monitoring system.

  In addition Defra has sponsored research into fox populations (report issued in 1997), which estimated the UK urban fox population at 33,000 and an assessment of the level of mice and rats in domestic properties. The results from the last survey, undertaken in 1996, showed that 1.8 per cent, of properties had house mice; 1.7 per cent, of properties had rats outside; 0.4 per cent, of properties had rats inside.

  The latest survey was conducted in 2001 and the data from this will be examined shortly. However, due to the vast amount of data collected results are not anticipated until late 2003.

  In addition to research carried out by Government, the Mammal Society also runs national surveys looking at the population and distribution of mammal species through the UK and is currently running a "Mammals in Your Garden?" Survey. This survey is looking at the number and variety of mammals seen in gardens. This survey will be annual and will give information about urban mammal populations; the results from the first year should be available early next year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers purportedly from Afghanistan and granted permanent settlement in the last 12 months have subsequently been found to have originated in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement] [82548]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that information is not available on the number of asylum applicants claiming to be from Afghanistan who have been granted asylum (and therefore settlement), and are subsequently found to have originated from Pakistan. The information could only be obtained by examination of individual case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  Asylum applicants are subject to screening processes designed to test the accuracy of the information that they supply as the basis of their claim, including their origin.

  Where a person has obtained leave to enter by deception, they are an illegal entrant and liable to removal under the powers contained in the 1971 Immigration Act. Where someone has obtained leave to remain by deception, they are liable to removal under section 10 (1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his policy to remove Afghan asylum seekers who have failed to gain asylum. [82081]

  Beverley Hughes
  Under the Tripartite Agreement on voluntary return to Afghanistan signed by the Government, the Transitional State of Afghanistan and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) on 12 October 2002, it was agreed that those found not to be in need of international protection, following proper consideration of their asylum claim would be offered a two month window to choose voluntarily to return to Afghanistan. If they choose not to return voluntarily they will be subject to removal to Afghanistan at a later date.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are awaiting an initial decision after more than(a) six and(b) 12 months at the latest date for which figures are available. [82088]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at the end of June 2002 the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision for more than six months is estimated to be 19,600, of which 15,800 cases were outstanding after more than 12 months. This includes cases that are currently under consideration and compares with 34,000 and 20,400 such applications as at the end of June 2001.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose cases are outstanding or whose appeals have failed, and who are in detention or prison, are pregnant women. [82093]
  245W
  Beverley Hughes
  Pregnant women are not normally detained under the Immigration Acts unless there is a clear prospect of early removal from the United Kingdom and medical advice suggests no question of confinement prior to this. In addition, women in the early stages of pregnancy may be detained briefly at Oakington Reception Centre as part of the fast-track asylum process.

  The latest available information on persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers relates to 29 June 2002. As at that date, there were less than five women in detention who were known to be pregnant, all of whom were asylum seekers at Oakington Reception Centre.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose cases are outstanding are(a) detained and(b) detained in prison; and what proportion of each category has been charged with or convicted of a crime. [82094]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on the number of people detained solely under Immigration Act powers is for 29 June 2002 and is contained in the table.

  Number as at 29 June 20021

  Asylum seekers2detained

  1,440

  Of whom, detained in prison establishments

  105

  1Figures are rounded to nearest 5.

  2Persons recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

  I regret that information on those detained under Immigration Act powers that have been charged with or convicted of a crime is not available. Information on whether a case is outstanding would be available only by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  The next quarterly information on detainees will be published in "Asylum Statistics: 3rd quarter 2002" on 29 November 2002 on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Car Parking
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and(b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81854]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Within the proposed central London charging zone there are:

  97 car parking spaces available to employees of the Department, and

  33 car parking spaces available to visitors to the Department.

  A further 124 spaces are available for use by either staff or visitors as required.

  CBRN Incidents
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and(b) firefighters have been trained in dealing with a CBRN incident in each local authority. [82553]
  246W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The ability of police forces to respond to a terrorist attack involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) materials is being strengthened through the increased provision of specialist police training. Home Office funding is being made available to meet the full running and equipment costs involved. Information about specific numbers of trained police officers in each local authority area is not at present held centrally, but in each police force, four senior officers have so far received training to Gold and Silver Command level. The total number of CBRN trained officers in London to date is approximately 1,100, with approximately 1,250 further officers CBRN trained in police forces in the United Kingdom. The training programme is on-going and I will update these figures on a regular basis.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that individual records for firefighters training are not available centrally. Interim guidance on dealing with contaminated casualties following a CBRN attack was issued in December 2001. The majority of Fire Service personnel will have received training in these interim procedures, and approximately 120 of the Services' senior commanders have received multi-agency training, which is on-going.

  All sides in the current firefighters dispute have agreed to provide cover for large scale terrorists or other civil contingency incidents.

  Drug Offenders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time residential treatment places are available for drug offenders; and how many were available in each of the last three years. [82095]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Residential places within the drug and alcohol sector are not set aside for specific groups of drug misusers such as offenders. However, they will have access on the same terms as anyone else with a drug misuse problem to the approximate 3,100 residential places that were available in 2001. We do not hold central figures for the previous two years.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the European Arrest Warrant. [81501]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A draft Extradition Bill, containing provisions to give effect to the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, was contained in a consultation paper published on 27 June. Copies of the responses that were received have been placed in the Library and on the Home Office website.

  The Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a report on the draft Bill (Twentieth Report of Session 2001–02, HC 1140) and a number of members of the public have written about the European arrest warrant.

  The Extradition Bill was introduced on 14 November 2002.

  Illegal Immigration (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been apprehended in East Sussex in the last 12 months. [80716]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am sorry but this information is not readily available and could only be obtained by examination of individual records at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Immigration (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to deal with illegal immigrants to Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland. [82710]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]A common travel area exists between the UK and the Republic of Ireland which, in general, allows free movement between the two countries. There is legislation which imposes conditions of stay on certain categories entering the UK from the Republic of Ireland, but no passport control at the border to. physically prevent the entry of any who might be inadmissible.

  There are measures to deal with those who do enter orremain unlawfully. As with the rest of the UK, the UK Immigration Service (UKIS), takes enforcement action to remove persons who are in Northern Ireland unlawfully. The Belfast UKIS office regularly receives intelligence from various sources indicating the whereabouts of potential offenders, and after evaluation, such intelligence is often acted upon. In the past 12 months, UKIS staff have removed a total of 94 persons who were in the province unlawfully. (Some of these were illegal workers, others had overstayed their permission to remain). No detailed statistics exist revealing how many of these entered via the Irish Republic but it is known that a significant number did.

  In addition UKIS staff routinely liase with the Irish authorities over these and other immigration problems. The Irish authorities do regularly refuse entry to foreign nationals arriving at their ports in transit to Northern Ireland (or the rest of the UK) who are not acceptable here. As an example in the past year they have refused entry to a number of Lithuanians at Dublin Airport who would otherwise have come to Northern Ireland to work illegally.

  I am aware of a recent BBC documentary highlighting cases of illegal workers in Northern Ireland who have entered via Dublin Airport. UKIS officials are in discussion with the Irish authorities to identify ways of ensuring that fewer offenders gain entry to the UK via Dublin Airport.

  UKIS staff also liase closely with the Police Service for Northern Ireland with a view to apprehending offenders, disrupting and prosecuting those who facilitate the entry of immigration offenders.

  An investigation involving the IS National Criminal Intelligent Service (NCIS) and police officers from two constabularies led last December to the closure of the ABT college in Bristol. This week the individual behind the fraud was sentenced to three and a half year's
  248W
  imprisonment. The investigation provides a good example of the government's determination to stamp out such activity.

  Entry Clearance Officers overseas and immigration officers at UK ports ensure that those seeking entry as students meet the relevant criteria as set out in the Immigration Rules (HC 395). During 2001 some 150,600 applications were received at UK missions for student visas. Of these, some38,400 were refused. In addition, 1,945 individuals were refused entry at UK ports having unsuccessfully sought entry as students.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the trafficking of illegal immigrants into Northern Ireland for the purpose of slave labour. [82784]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The Government have set out its strategy for tackling organised immigration crime: trafficking and smuggling in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", published in February. New criminal offences and penalties for trafficking and smuggling were introduced by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, carrying heavy terms of 14 years imprisonment.

  We have established Reflex as a multi-agency response to organised immigration crime into the UK, including Northern Ireland. Reflex is led by the National Crime Squad and engages all the key agencies involved in combating organised immigration crime, including police, immigration services, security and intelligence agencies and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), in building up intelligence and planning operations against the traffickers. Reflex feeds into the Organised Crime Strategy Group, chaired by the Home Office, on which Northern Ireland Office officials sit, and in turn into the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force, established by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which co-ordinates multi-agency activity against organised crime in Northern Ireland.

  The scale of illegal immigration into Northern Ireland does not appear to reflect national trends. While the number of applications for asylum have increased significantly in recent years, they are very small in comparison with the rest of the UK. However, a strategic project to examine organised immigration crime in Northern Ireland is currently being undertaken by Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) in co-operation with a number of other Government and law enforcement agencies through the offices of the Organised Crime Task Force. This aims to provide a baseline understanding of the scale and potential growth of the problem.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been intercepted on entering Northern Ireland since 2000; and what action he proposes to take to deal with illegal immigration. [82838]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]A common travel area exists between the UK and the Republic of Ireland which, in general, allows free movement between the two countries. There is legislation which imposes conditions of stay on certain categories entering the UK from the Republic of Ireland, but no passport control at the border to
  249W
  physically prevent the entry of any who might be inadmissible. Accordingly it is not surprising that no illegal immigrants have been intercepted on entering Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland since 2000.

  There are however measures to deal with those who have entered or remained unlawfully. As with the rest of the UK, the UK Immigration Service (UKIS), takes enforcement action to remove persons who are in Northern Ireland unlawfully. The Belfast UKIS office regularly receives intelligence from various sources indicating the whereabouts of potential offenders, and after evaluation, such intelligence is often acted upon.

  In the past 12 months, UKIS staff have removed a total of 94 persons who were in the province unlawfully. (Some of these were illegal workers, others had overstayed their permission to remain). No detailed statistics exist revealing how many of these entered via the Irish Republic but it is known that a significant number did.

  In addition UKIS staff routinely liaise with the Irish authorities over these and other immigration problems. The Irish authorities do regularly refuse entry to foreign nationals arriving at their ports in transit to Northern Ireland (or the rest of the UK) who are not acceptable here. As an example in the past year they have refused entry to a number of Lithuanians at Dublin airport who would otherwise have come to Northern Ireland to work illegally.

  I am aware of a recent BBC documentary highlighting cases of illegal workers in Northern Ireland who have entered via Dublin airport. UKIS officials are in discussion with the Irish authorities to identify ways of ensuring that fewer offenders gain entry to the UK via Dublin airport.

  UKIS staff also liaise closely with the Police Service for Northern Ireland with a view to apprehending offenders, disrupting and prosecuting those who facilitate the entry of immigration offenders.

  Immigrants (Health Checks)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of health checks at ports of entry to identify those seeking leave of entry who are suffering from infectious diseases. [82563]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Under the Immigration Act 1971, immigration officers are able to refer persons seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom (UK) to Medical Inspectors at ports of entry.

  The immigration rules state that immigration officers should refer anyone who mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for coming to the UK, or who appears not to be in good physical or mental health.

  In addition, those seeking leave to enter the UK for a period of more than six months should normally be referred. Immigration Officers also have discretion to make referrals in any other cases.
  250W
  This action at ports of entry is complemented by work done by the national health service (NHS) at local level. The NHS follow up any cases of infection that are identified by the Medical Inspector and arrange any necessary testing which is unavailable at the port.

  It is also intended that asylum induction centres will provide basic health screening. To evaluate the specification and benefits of this service, a pilot commenced at Dover Induction Centre during the summer of 2002. The results of the pilot have yet to be evaluated.

  Immigration (Shoreham Harbour)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which ships entering Shoreham Harbour in each of the last two years had immigration crew lists which were submitted by Shoreham Port Authority acting as agents. [83312]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]We do not collect the information requested.

  Crew lists for commercial vessels using Shoreham are submitted to the UK Immigration Service at Newhaven by the United Kingdom based shipping agents. Shoreham receives no passenger services, but between 10 to 15 commercial vessels arrive each week originating in the United Kingdom, Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. Crew lists for vessels using Shoreham and Newhaven are retained alphabetically by name of vessel for those ships starting their journey in Europe.

  Language Schools
  Mr. Oliver Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the level of student visa fraud; [82561]

  (2) what checks there are in place to prevent the facilitation of illegal immigrants by language schools; [82560]

  (3) what action is taken against language schools found to be issuing certificates of enrolment in exchange for cash payments. [82562]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The Immigration Service (IS) is developing an intelligence-led strategy to deal with abuse of the United Kingdom's immigration laws. Where such intelligence suggests that immigration offences are being committed by any college or language school, the IS will pursue, with other agencies as appropriate.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is provided, and how long members of the emergency services will be trained to operate under full NBC protection. [82552]

  Mr. Blunkett
  All three emergency services have officers equipped and trained in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) suits. These suits allow them to attend an incident where there has been a release of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) material, and to proceed to carry out their jobs without becoming contaminated themselves.
  251W
  Since their roles at a CBRN incident vary, the emergency services carry different specifications of PPE suits. The Fire Service, who work in the area of highest contamination, carry the highest grade of PPE suits, which include breathing apparatus. The precise length of time during which the emergency services can operate in a CBRN contaminated environment depends on the nature, volume and method of dispersal of the contaminant, as well as the location of the incident and other environmental factors.

  All three services are continuing to increase their numbers of CBRN trained and equipped officers. The Government do not reveal precise details of our response capabilities for reasons of security.

  All sides in the current firefighters dispute have agreed to provide cover for any large-scale terrorist or other civil contingency incidents.

  Marie Star Cafe
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been conducted by the Home Office regarding the issuing of work permits, before 1 September, to workers at the Marie Star Cafe, Belfast; whether the Department of Employment and Learning followed Home Office practice with respect to work permits issued to workers at the Marie Star Cafe before 1 September; and whether the application for work permits specify that they would be lap-dancers and pole-dancers at the Marie Star Cafe, Belfast. [82442]

  Beverley Hughes
  Before 1 September 2002, the Department of Employment and Learning held responsibility for the issuing of work permits for Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Home Office did not carry out any investigations regarding work permits in Northern Ireland relating to permits issued before that date.

  I understand from the Department of Employment and Learning that they followed the same work permit criteria as that used by Work Permits (UK) in the Home Office.

  The applications from the Marie Star Cafe specified the job title as "Professional Stage and Pole Dancers".

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the paperwork relating to the issuing of and re-applications for work permits for workers at the Marie Star Cafe has been passed from the Department of Employment and Learning to the Home Office. [82443]

  Beverley Hughes
  Yes. Northern Ireland's Department of Employment and Learning transferred all available paperwork relating to work permit applications made in Northern Ireland to Work Permits UK in early September 2002. However, the work permits for the Marie Star Cafe had by that time already been issued by the Department of Employment and Learning.

  National Asylum Support Service (Liverpool)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private landlord properties in(a) Leeds and(b) Leeds West are used by NASS; and if he will make a statement. [81489]
  252W
  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is as follows:

  Leeds: 501

  Leeds West: 20.

  Prison Visitors (Drug Smuggling)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress in the initiative to ban visitors found smuggling drugs into prisons; and how many visitors were banned during the last six months; [82146]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of introducing CCTV in visits areas on the amounts of drugs smuggled into prisons; [82145]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect on drug availability in prisons of passive and active drug dogs; [82144]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of the low furniture initiative in prison visits areas on the amount of drugs being smuggled into prisons. [82181]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service is taking a number of steps to stifle the availability of drugs in prisons. These measures, which include mandatory drug testing, operate alongside a comprehensive treatment framework and the provision of voluntary drug testing. The overall impact on drug use is demonstrated by the reduction in the positive rate of random mandatory drug tests from 24.4 per cent. (1996–97) to 11.3 per cent, (year to date). The complementary nature of some supply reduction measures, e.g. drug detection dogs, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and low furniture in visits areas, and the complex nature of drug supply make it difficult to determine the impact of any single factor in reducing the availability or use of drugs.

  Prisons continue to use the visit bans initiative to take firm action against visitors suspected of smuggling drugs. In 2001–02 (the latest period for which figures are available) a total of 2,815 visitors received a ban.

  Prisoner Data
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect centrally information on where prisoners served previous sentences. [82824]

  Hilary Benn
  Prisoner records are held locally at each establishment and, since 1988, this information has been held on the computerised 'Inmate Information System' (US) which provides a central view of prisoners held in England and Wales. Although some pre-1988 records have been placed on the US, 'historical' information remains largely paper-based but is still accessible if required, subject to the normal disposal regime for obsolete files.

  Programmes are being developed to extend centralised, electronic record keeping in the Prison Service and other parts of the Criminal Justice System.

  probation Service (Surrey)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of Government grants to the Surrey Probation Service was in each of the last five years. [82091]
  253W
  Hilary Benn
  Home Office Grant to Surrey Probation Service (Surrey local area from April 2001) for the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is in the following table.

  £

  Home Office grant

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Total grant

  Revenue grant

  2001–021

  6,533,000

  Nil

  6,533,000

  2000–0l2

  5,065,608

  1,256,402

  6,322,010

  1999–20002

  4,735,765

  1,183,941

  5,919,706

  1998–992

  4,605,734

  1,151,433

  5,757,167

  1997–982

  4,673,058

  1,168,264

  5,841,322

  Capital grant

  2001–021

  374,293

  Nil

  374,293

  2000–0l2

  43,307

  10,827

  54,134

  1999–20002

  37,482

  9,370

  46,852

  1998–992

  85,009

  21,252

  106,261

  1997–982

  34,882

  8,720

  43,602

  1 he National Probation Service was established on 1 April 2001 and 100 per cent, grant funding was provided by the Home Office to local probation areas.

  1Prior to April 2001, the Home Office provided 80 per cent, grant funding to probation services. Local authorities funded the balance of 20 per cent, from grant provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

  Public Enquiry Office, Lunar House
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were dealt with at the PEO at Lunar House on Monday 11 November. [81502]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 1,129 callers to Croydon's Public Enquiry Office on 11 November 2002.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authorities (Fraud)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) local authority staff and(b) members of the public were found to have been involved in fraudulent activities against local authorities in each year since 1997; and at what financial cost. [83270]

  Mr. Leslie
  Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission have been instructed to report to the commission all cases of fraud over £ 1,000 in value. Benefit frauds of up to £ 5,000 can be reported jointly, but those over £ 5,000 are reported individually. The number of fraud cases arising from staff actions (some of which involved more than one member of staff) were:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Total value (£)

  Including number of benefits cases

  Value of benefits cases (£)

  1997–98

  1,372

  5,093,871

  729

  1,126,680

  1998–99

  936

  3,409,833

  369

  809,039

  1999–2000

  877

  4,212,967

  405

  762,907

  2000–01

  1,304

  4,378,461

  722

  1,838,833

  Totals

  4,489

  17,095,132

  2,225

  4,537,459

  Figures on the exact number of members of the public involved in fraudulent activities against local authorities
  254W
  are not held centrally. The number of fraud cases arising from actions outside of local authorities (for example members of the public, suppliers etc.) were:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Total value (£)

  Value of benefits cases (£)

  1997–98

  231,540

  83,605,802

  76,792,355

  1998–99

  229,826

  100,985,614

  93,891,266

  1999–2000

  145,302

  96,258,275

  91,683,235

  2000–01

  111,890

  100,005,357

  92,948,383

  Totals

  718,558

  380,855,048

  355,315,239

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what proportion of the standard spending assessments in each local authority in England and Wales was financed by total external support in(a) 1996–97,(b) 1997–98 and(c) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement; [82816]

  (2) what the level of(a) total external support and(b) standard spending assessment was in each individual local authority in England and Wales in(i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 2002–03. [82812]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures for the proportion of the standard spending assessments in each local authority in England that was financed by total external support in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2002–03 have been placed in the House Library. Figures for Welsh authorities are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government.

  The figures for the level of total external support and standard spending assessment for each individual local authority in England in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2002–03 have been placed in the House Library. Figures for Welsh authorities are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Total external support consists of revenue support grant, redistributed national non-domestic rates, central support protection grant, SSA reduction grant, principal formula police grant and GLA general grant.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in North Devon; and if he will make a statement. [83780]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will announce the new system for distributing Formula Grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government has allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the level of central funding by his Department of(a) Cheshire county council,(b) Chester city council,(c) Vale Royal borough council and

  255W
  (d) Crewe and Nantwich borough council in each of the last five years; and what the average funding of county, city and borough councils in England was in those years. [81263]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information on funding provided by my Office for the local authorities for which figures were requested is given in the tables.

  Cheshire county council

  £ 000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue funding

  Revenue support grant

  245,586

  156,322

  160,037

  152,227

  166,347

  Redistributed business rates

  190,219

  136,007

  148,064

  168,034

  163,467

  Beacon council grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  Invest to save budget1

  —

  —

  —

  235

  235

  Total revenue funding

  435,805

  292,329

  308,101

  320,496

  330,088

  Capital funding

  Basic credit approvals issued

  6,515

  6,160

  6,831

  6,554

  4,237

  Reorganisation costs SCA2

  2,169

  1,980

  —

  —

  —

  Capital challenge— non-housing SCA2

  1,285

  1,525

  550

  —

  —

  Social housing grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Total capital funding

  9,969

  9,665

  7,381

  6,554

  4,250

  1 25 per cent, is capital funding

  2 SCA = supplementary credit approvals

  Chester city council

  £ 000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue funding

  Revenue support grant

  3,430

  3,390

  3,381

  3,223

  3,458

  Redistributed business rates

  3,812

  3,824

  4,082

  4,521

  4,412

  Central support protection grant

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  Housing revenue account subsidy1

  4,989

  4,341

  3,807

  2,220

  72

  Supporting people grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Total revenue funding

  12,231

  11,555

  11,370

  9,964

  7,962

  Capital funding

  Basic credit approvals issued

  —

  —

  2,163

  2,628

  624

  Capital challenge— non-housing SCA2

  1,218

  491

  —

  —

  —

  Capital receipts initiative— non-housing SCA2

  —

  159

  —

  —

  —

  Capital receipts initiative— housing SCA2

  310

  1,090

  964

  —

  —

  Cash incentive scheme SCA2

  140

  65

  —

  —

  —

  Social housing grant

  53

  20

  235

  —

  321

  Housing defects grants— loan charges: repurchase3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Single regeneration budget4

  672

  912

  897

  745

  706

  Total capital funding

  2,395

  2,739

  4,261

  3,375

  1,653

  1 HRA subsidy figures for 2001–02 are estimates, as payments have yet to be completed. Chester city council has been given permission to close its housing revenue account, but has not yet done so.

  2 SCA = supplementary credit approvals.

  3 Eligible for housing defects grant in 2000–01 and 2001–02, but not claimed.

  4 Paid to Chester city council as the accountable body for the regeneration of West Chester project. This excludes any SRB funding paid to the council as project deliverer.

  Crewe and Nantwich

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue funding

  Revenue support grant

  3,107

  3,258

  3,166

  2,996

  3,289

  SSA reduction grant

  284

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redistributed business rates

  3,606

  3,646

  3,924

  4,359

  4,289

  Central support protection grant

  —

  —

  98

  —

  —

  Housing revenue account subsidy1

  3,781

  3,379

  3,044

  2,520

  5,677

  Supporting people grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Total revenue funding

  10,778

  10,283

  10,232

  9,875

  13,275

  256W
  The figures included in the tables exclude funding provided by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions for areas of work that are now the responsibility of the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
  257W

  Crewe and Nantwich

  £ 000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Capital funding

  Basic credit approvals issued

  914

  650

  752

  2,747

  447

  Capital receipts initiative— non-housing SCA2

  —

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Capital receipts initiative— housing SCA2

  256

  900

  747

  —

  —

  Social housing grant

  24

  —

  41

  44

  206

  Housing defects grants for loan charges:

  reinstatements3

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  Housing defects grants for loan charges: repurchase3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Total capital funding

  1,248

  1,654

  1,594

  2,845

  707

  1 HRA subsidy figures for 2001–02 are estimates, as payments have yet to be completed.

  2 SCA = supplementary credit approvals.

  3 2001–02 housing defects grant figures are provisional.

  Vale Royal

  £ 000

  1997–95

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue funding

  Revenue support grant

  1,936

  1,935

  1,819

  1,557

  1,809

  SSA reduction grant

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redistributed Business rates

  3,640

  3,696

  4,014

  4,485

  4,442

  Central support protection grant

  —

  —

  132

  —

  —

  Housing revenue account subsidy1

  2.979

  2,268

  1,721

  1,321

  4,953

  Neighbourhood warden team

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  Supporting people grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Invest to save budget2

  —

  —

  —

  48

  —

  Total revenue funding

  8,585

  7,899

  7,686

  7,411

  11,247

  Capital funding

  Basic credit approvals issued

  697

  193

  603

  2,570

  707

  Capital receipts initiative— housing SCA3

  303

  1,048

  901

  —

  —

  Cash incentive scheme SCA3

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total capital funding

  1,017

  1,241

  1,504

  2,570

  707

  1 HRA subsidy figures for 2001–02 are estimates, as payments have yet to be completed.

  2 25 per cent, is capital funding.

  3 SCA = supplementary credit approvals.

  The following table gives information on the combined total of revenue support grant and redistributed businesses rates paid to shire county councils and shire district councils in each of the last five years.

  Revenue support grant and redistributed business rates

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Shire counties

  6,478

  10,048

  10,545

  11,036

  11,524

  Shire districts

  1,348

  1,346

  1,377

  1,430

  1,496

  Average amount per authority

  Shire counties

  190.5

  295.5

  310.1

  324.6

  338.9

  Shire districts

  5.2

  5.7

  5.8

  6.0

  6.3

  Planning (Surrey)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning Surrey County Council's Spatial Strategy; and if he will make a statement. [83446]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since the publication of the draft Spatial Strategy in July, the First Secretary of State has received almost 250 representations from Surrey residents about possible housing development north east and north west of Guildford and south of Woking.
  258W
  We will consider what representations to make on the Deposit Draft Structure Plan, if any, when it is issued for public consultation.

  Population Estimates
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the population of each standard region of England; and for what reasons the standard region is being used as the basic unit for elected regional assemblies.[82727]
  259W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Annex A of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511) includes the most recent population figures for each region at the time of the publication of the White Paper in May 2002. These figures were drawn from "Regional Trends 36" (Office for National Statistics, 2001). The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, as published in "Regional Trends 37", will be placed in the Library.

  Chapter 6 of the White Paper makes clear that these regions represent the existing administrative boundaries used by the Government Offices for the regions, the regional development agencies and other parts of central Government, as well as being the standard statistical regions used by the Office for National Statistics. These regions have existed for various planning and statistical purposes since the Second World War, with minor changes over time. They are also a credible size to support a regional assembly and to differentiate the assembly from local government in the region.

  Regional Assemblies
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the ways in which elected regional assemblies will increase democratic accountability; what proposals he has to encourage voter interest in regional assembly elections; and if he will make a statement. [82726]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A detailed assessment of the ways in which elected regional assemblies will increase democratic accountability is set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511), particularly in chapters 1 and 3.

  Publicity about voting in elections for regional assemblies will be a matter for the Electoral Commission. More generally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has embarked upon an ambitious programme of electoral modernisation pilot schemes, of which the aim is to make voting more straightforward, efficient, secure and above all readily accessible to all electors.

FOREIGN OFFICE

  Organised Crime
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  A successful ministerial Conference on Organised Crime in south eastern Europe, hosted by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, was held on 25 November in Lancaster House.

  Fifty-seven delegations including all EU member states and the European Commission attended, as well as the five countries of the EU's Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP) and other countries from south eastern Europe and beyond.

  The conference noted that the serious impact of organised crime in the region is felt far beyond its borders—including the EU. The conference agreed a wide range of actions to tackle the problem effectively. The focus was on meeting European standards, building wide public support for the necessary measures, and improving regional co-operation.

  Each of the countries of the region additionally announced a number of areas of priority action in the fight against organised crime. These actions are both specific and measurable.

  The UK, in full co-operation with EU, International and regional partners will now work to ensure the implementation of these actions. The incoming Greek EU Presidency set out a series of specific actions against crime to be carried out in the first half of 2003. The Greek Presidency has called a summit meeting next June to review progress.

  The conference was an important step forward in the effort to defeat organised crime in south eastern Europe.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism Act
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.

  Immigration Rules
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The domestic violence concession was introduced on 16 June 1999 in an effort to help foreign spouses or unmarried partners who wish to leave their partner because of domestic violence before completion of the probationary period. It was introduced subject to review after a two-year period.
  6WS
  Under the terms of the concession a person would be allowed to settle in the UK, provided they meet certain criteria, even though they are no longer living with their sponsor. The criteria require that the domestic violence must have occurred while the marriage or relationship was subsisting and the applicant should provide evidence of the violence in the form of:
  an injunction, non-molestation order or other protection order made against the sponsor (other than an ex-parte or interim order);
  a relevant court conviction against the sponsor;
  full details of a relevant police caution issued against the sponsor.

  As a result of our review and representations received, the Government have decided that the types of evidence acceptable to meet the terms of the concession should be widened. If evidence in some form of court order or police caution is not available, we will accept more than one form of evidence from the following list:
  a medical report from a hospital doctor confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being the victim of domestic violence;
  a letter from a family practitioner who has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant has injuries consistent with being the victim of domestic violence;
  an undertaking given to a court that the perpetrator of the violence will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the violence;
  a police report confirming attendance at the home of the applicant as a result of a domestic violence incident;
  a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence;
  a letter of support or report from a women's refuge.

  The domestic violence concession will be incorporated into the Immigration Rules to be laid today. This will ensure that domestic violence cases attract a right of appeal and that the facts of the case leading to the decision can be considered by the Appellate Authorities.

  Au Pair Scheme
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The au pair scheme is an arrangement under which nationals of listed countries aged between 17 and 27, unmarried, and without dependants, may come to the UK for a maximum of two years to learn the English language and live with an English-speaking family. During their stay they may help with domestic tasks for a maximum of 25 hours a week in return for accommodation and pocket money.

  The list, which is given in the Immigration Rules, currently includes 16 countries, including six of the 12 EU candidate countries. We have decided to extend the list to include those EU candidate countries which are not presently covered. These are Republic of Bulgaria, Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland and Romania. It is planned to lay the necessary amendments to the Immigration Rules today, coming into force on 18 December.
  7WS
  From that date, young people who are nationals of these additional six countries will have the opportunity to spend some time in the UK to learn English and to gain an insight into our culture and way of life.

  Visas
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that visa regimes only apply to those nationalities where there is a clear immigration need.

  Having reviewed the regimes on nationals from Maldives, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea it has been decided that these visa regimes are no longer necessary. We have therefore made a change to the Immigration Rules today lifting the requirements for nationals of these three countries to hold a visa before they visit the UK. This change will take effect on 18 December.

CABINET OFFICE

  COI Communications
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have set COI Communications the following key performance targets for the financial year 2002–2003.

  Financial:
  To achieve break even on an accruals basis
  Efficiency:
  To demonstrate continued improvement in efficiency and effectiveness on behalf of their clients
  Quality:
  To pilot an enhanced customer feedback system.

TREASURY

  Aviation Insurance
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Government's Troika aviation insurance scheme ceased to write new policies from midnight on 31 October 2002, thus bringing to a close Government involvement in the provision of aviation insurance, which had been prompted by the collapse in the commercial market for third party war and terrorist cover following the terrible events of September 11th 2001.

  It was always the Government's stated aim to withdraw from the provision of insurance in this sector once there was a return of a functioning commercial market.

  The ending of the scheme was in line with the decision taken by the European Commission to end automatic state aid approval for state backed aviation insurance schemes, from 31 October; a decision which recognised the return of the commercial market in this sector.

  All UK air carriers and aviation service providers were able to purchase replacement cover from the commercial market prior to the expiry of the Government scheme.
  8WS

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION & SKILLS

  Tameside College
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis)
  The Department for Education and Skills, in co-operation with the Learning and Skills Council, has conducted an investigation into allegations that the Principal and Corporation of Tameside College did wilfully and against legal advice conduct its business in a manner not in accordance with its Instrument and Articles of Government.

  The investigation has reported that those allegations are confirmed. In particular that:
  insufficient written notice was given of a meeting to discuss the removal of the Clerk to the Corporation and, subsequently, the motion of no confidence in the then Chair of the Corporation;
  the appropriate 'Special Committee' process was not carried out in removing the Clerk to the Corporation;
  contrary to rules of governance, the Principal remained at, and actively participated in, the meeting removing the Clerk to the Corporation; and
  again contrary to rules of governance, the Staff Member of the Corporation was excluded from participation in the motion of no confidence in the then Chair of the Corporation.

  As a consequence, I have written to the Chair of the Corporation strongly censuring the Corporation's activities in breach of corporate governance and requiring the Corporation to conduct its future business in strict accordance with its Instrument and Articles of Government. I have also written to the Learning and Skills Council asking it to appoint an additional Member to the Corporation to ensure that it does so. I will review this arrangement after one year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Thirteen foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, one in October 2002 and a further one on Saturday 23 November.

  Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 11 remain in detention.

  The persons detained have been detained under a primarily immigration power. They are not being held pending criminal charges.

  All of those detained have had access to legal advice throughout the detention period. There is no limit to the number of legal visits the detainees may receive.

  My decisions to detain these individuals were made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. That evidence will be examined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when the individuals' appeals are heard, as provided for under the ATCS Act. The Commission is equivalent to the High Court. It has the power to overturn my decisions.
  9WS
  Where terrorism is concerned our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. So long as the public emergency subsists, where a person is suspected of terrorism but cannot currently be removed and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option, we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  Ballistic Missiles
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The United Kingdom subscribed to the International Code of Conduct (ICOC) against Ballistic Missiles at its launch in The Hague on 25 November. I represented HMG at the launch.

  The ICOC is a politically binding agreement designed to tackle the proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. It does so by promoting transparency and confidence building among States. It consists of principles, commitments and confidence-building measures. It will establish international norms for the first time in the area of ballistic missiles. The Code will complement the existing range of international instruments against WMD.

  The non-proliferation commitments in the Code include a commitment not to contribute to, support or assist any ballistic missile programme in countries which might be developing or acquiring weapons of mass destruction in contravention of international obligations. Also to exercise vigilance in assistance to Space Launch Vehicle programmes, given that these can be used to conceal ballistic missile programmes. The Code also calls for maximum possible restraint in the development, testing and deployment of ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.

  The confidence-building and transparency measures are designed to promote confidence through information sharing, in the form of both pre-launch notifications and annual declarations about ballistic missile and space launch programmes. The aim is to boost confidence for instance that space launch vehicle programmes are not being used as cover for ballistic missile programmes.

  The Code represents a significant step forward for the international community in the area of arms control—in this case the control of one of the delivery systems of choice for weapons of mass destruction. The UK has played a leading role in the development of the ICOC since its inception. We are calling on all States to subscribe to the Code.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Healey)
  As the Minister responsible for HM Customs and Excise, I can confirm that in the light of the 10WS
  circumstances that yesterday led to the prosecution offering no further evidence in a series of linked prosecutions relating to London City Bond which were being heard at Liverpool Crown Court, the Attorney-General (as Minister responsible for Customs and Excise prosecutions) and I will be asking a High Court judge to consider:
  The circumstances that led to the termination of those cases and, having regard to changes in relevant procedures and guidelines and to changes in practice within HM Customs and Excise that have taken effect since 1995,
  To review the practices of HM Customs and Excise in the recording, retention, revelation and disclosure of material which may be relevant to the prosecution of its criminal cases; and in respect of HM Customs and Excise criminal investigations
  To review current compliance with best practice in the use of investigation techniques and the management and control of cases to the extent these are relevant to the discharge of the prosecution's obligations in any subsequent criminal proceedings.

  The full terms of reference for the review are attached and a copy of the statement made by prosecuting counsel in court will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO DISCLOSURE, ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND CASE MANAGEMENT IN HM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE'S CRIMINAL CASES

  Terms of Reference

  To consider the circumstances that led to the termination of the LCB cases heard by Grigson J in Liverpool Crown Court and the lessons to be learnt from those circumstances.
  And, having regard to changes in the law or practice as indicated below, changes in relevant procedures and guidelines and to changes in practice within HM Customs and Excise that have taken effect since 1995:
  To review the practices of HM Customs and Excise in the recording, retention, revelation and disclosure of material which may be relevant to the prosecution of its criminal cases.
  In respect of HM Customs and Excise criminal investigations, to review current compliance with best practice in the use of investigation techniques (e.g. the classification and handling of individuals providing information) and the management and control of cases to the extent these are relevant to the discharge of the prosecution's obligations in any subsequent criminal proceedings.
  To make recommendations.
  The review will be conducted by a High Court Judge

  Scope of the review

  The review:

  Will have regard to the relevant statutory framework (such as the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000), the Attorney General's Guidelines on disclosure, relevant legal precedent and best practice.
  Will focus on current departmental provisions and practice while having regard to the conduct of past cases and lessons to be learnt from them insofar as not already incorporated in current practice; and
  Will examine the parts that should be played by officers, solicitors and counsel in the preparation for and the presentation of cases for court and in the disclosure process.

  The Review will report to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as the Minister responsible for HM Customs and Excise and to the Attorney-General.
  11WS
  The Review will have unrestricted access to HM Customs and Excise staff, papers and facilities. It is being asked to report not later than June 2003. A summary of the Report and its recommendations will be laid before Parliament.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I am announcing today a significant devolution of power to local government. This includes the steps that the Government intend to take to follow up the results of the Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPA) of county and unitary authorities which the Audit Commission is due to publish in December. This will mark a significant milestone in completing the proposals in the Local Government White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". I have placed copies of our proposals in the House Libraries.

  Our aim is progressive improvement in authorities' performance as measured by the CPA. Our package means that there will be greater freedom for local councils to allow them to meet the needs of their communities, support where it is needed and effective action to tackle failure. The nature of the action will vary between the different CPA categories.
  12WS
  Overall there will be greater devolution of power to local government from central Government control. It means greater freedom for councillors and those on the front line to take decisions locally to shape and improve services and respond to local needs.

  All councils will have greater control over how they spend their money with a reduction in the level of ring-fencing in Government revenue grants and an increase in the funding for capital going through the single capital pot. We will also reduce current requirements to produce separate plans by over 75 per cent.

  For the best councils there will be a set of more radical changes. These will include even greater flexibility to decide how to spend money received from central government (other than money which has to be passed to schools); no requirement to produce plans for central government; and a three-year holiday from most inspection activity.

  The announcement also sets out further details about how we shall work with local government on a package of support for councils, with central Government matching pound for pound the additional funding agreed with the LGA for capacity building.

  For the weakest authorities we are confirming the principles for tackling poor performance on which we consulted earlier in the year. The Government will engage directly with all such authorities from an early stage.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Biological Weapons
Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans for an alternative regime to encourage compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention if the fifth review conference fails to reach agreement on a monitoring protocol.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am happy to say that the fifth review conference reached unanimous agreement on a way forward. The agreement is based on an international programme of work for the next three years, aimed at strengthening the convention. This programme includes work on a number of alternative ideas contained in the Government's Green Paper on the threat from biological weapons, published in April this year. The Government warmly welcome this successful outcome.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that cheering news in a sometimes depressing world and I appreciate how hard the Government have worked to bring it about. Will she place a copy of the new proposals in the Library? May we assume that the American Administration are now persuaded that if they want to discourage other countries from proliferating weapons, it is counterproductive to practise proliferation themselves, and that in any event co-operating with the international community is more rewarding than sitting alone in a corner?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am pleased that I am able to give a more cheerful report after this international meeting than I have been able to do previously on these issues. I have already asked for the proposals to be put in the Library. I hope they are there already, but if not they will certainly be there during the course of today. I hope the United States will feel able to enter fully into the discussions that we are proposing in 2004 on the adoption of international measures and mechanisms that will strengthen the convention. They may also then wish to put forward their own suggestions after the completion of the programme of work.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what is the Government's view about lax security arrangements for biological stores in the CIS?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government's view is that security arrangements
626
anywhere—in saying this I am not signing up to the noble Viscount's allegation about lax arrangements—should be very firm and should be properly enforced.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in these dangerous times in which we live, the Government are to be commended on the work they are doing on persuading the United States Administration to understand that the well-being of their own people, no less than that of people elsewhere in the world, depends on effective multilateral cooperation in these areas?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that these are very dangerous times. I am grateful for the opportunity to commend the work undertaken by officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by Ministers, who engaged fully in bilateral discussions before the meeting on 15th November, not only with the United States, but with other countries where perhaps there was not a full commitment to signing up to the programme of work that I have outlined to your Lordships. A great deal of work was undertaken and I am happy that it has had such a cheerful outcome.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, do the Government recognise that one of the most difficult issues on biological weapons is the problem of foreign research students and foreign researchers in British, American and other universities? Does the Minister also recognise that it is very important that we encourage the development of an international community of well informed and reliable scientists so that other states are well informed about the dangers of biological warfare? Does joined-up government in this case mean that the Foreign Office liaises closely with Britain's scientific community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased when he sees the work that is to be undertaken in 2003 on the adoption of necessary national measures to establish and maintain security and oversight of pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins. He will also be pleased that the work outlined for 2005 will include work on the content, promulgation, adoption and enforcement of codes of conduct for scientists.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the positive news that the noble Baroness brings about biological weapons discussions and the efforts to strengthen the convention is welcome. Does she agree that the American concern with the traditional convention procedures and the way they were not operating was well justified and that the Americans were right: to bring forward a much tougher protocol than the original one, which was not agreed? Will she undertake to ensure that we back the very tough American proposals? As we are on the subject, how does the

627
recent Russian use of nerve gas against terrorists—not by terrorists—fit into the overall approach, given that Russia is a signatory to the convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are sympathetic to the views put forward by the United States but we do not share their concerns to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, believes. I have had discussions with my opposite numbers in the State Department, particularly with Mr Bolton, about the concerns that were put forward and have tried to explain to him why the United Kingdom Government took a rather different position on the protocol. However, we have accepted that we need the United States on board in the matter; hence our willingness to try to secure the programme of work that I outlined to your Lordships.
As regards the Russians using nerve gas in the recent Moscow siege, on that occasion a terrorist outrage had occurred that we believe could have resulted in the loss of a great deal more human life than was already unfortunately the case. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government understand the position that the Russian Government were in on that occasion.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that by any objective assessment—for example, that reached by the International Committee of the Red Cross—these commitments fall well short of meeting current and potential new threats from biological weapons?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we would have wished the protocol to have been adopted. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I have argued for that in your Lordships' House. That was the ideal position. However, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good. We have a good understanding with the other states parties on a way forward. We can work with that. We can work to strengthen what is happening within countries in the way that I described to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We can also work for better international understanding on the matter. The outcome is not ideal but, my goodness, it is a great deal better than I have been able to report to your Lordships on previous occasions.

Private Finance Initiative
2.44 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will clarify further the use to which the private finance initiative can be put.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government use the private finance initiative where there is a clear value for money case to do so. The Government will continue to encourage partnerships
628
to modernise public services and to ensure that the private sector is properly accountable in order to provide a real incentive to deliver services on time and to budget and a clear level of service locked in for the life of the contract at a fixed price. Specific procurement decisions are a matter for individual departments concerned.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I also thank him for his apology in a Written Answer on the final day of the previous Session in which he stated that on the previous occasion he responded to me on the matter he was slightly wrong when he said that the cost of PFI was an extra 0.25 per cent rather than between 1 and 3 per cent. I take it from his Answer today that his apology did not cover the rest of his response in which he indicated that the sole criterion for the policy was not to take liabilities off balance sheet but rather to obtain value for money. But, surely, it is not possible to say that. Is it not more sensible for my noble friend to accept that the Government select PFI projects primarily to increase public services and public expenditure? That is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my Answer made clear that value for money is the primary consideration, not whether a matter is off or on balance sheet. I have said that before and I repeat it now. But in one respect my noble friend Lord Barnett is right. The private finance initiatives that we are undertaking are additional to an increased programme of public sector investment. As my noble friend suggests, the total of PFI and public sector investment constitutes an enormous increase in investment in the public sector.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify one aspect of this matter that I have always found difficult to follow? Who bears the risk in the case of a typical PFI project? In particular, is there any implicit or explicit financial liability to the Government involved in a typical PFI project? Will my noble friend assure us that the Government bear no risk at all?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the private finance initiative. If that is my fault, I apologise. The impression appears to be getting around that we are making a change as between entirely public sector activity and privatisation. Neither of those is the case. Even without the private finance initiative, public sector investment is carried out by the private sector. We do not have public sector building firms building hospitals or schools. That is done by the private sector. The difference we are discussing is that the private sector contractors who build the schools or hospitals, or whatever it may be, are responsible for the maintenance of what they build over the life of the asset. That is the risk transfer that justifies the private finance initiative.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the closest parallel to PFI is one of those old-fashioned

629
hire purchase agreements by which people used to buy cars? The only real difference is that in this case the purchaser has also agreed to have the car serviced, polished and cleaned by the hire purchase company at rates that are not necessarily the most competitive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that that is a good analogy. As I said to my noble friend Lord Peston, if a private sector firm designs, builds and hands over a hospital to the public sector but there is no redress against that private sector contractor if anything goes wrong afterwards, the risk is held by the public sector. That is what happened with the Jubilee Line extension and with the modernisation of the Central Line on the London Underground. That was a very poor deal for the taxpayer. But if a private sector contractor is locked into maintenance over the life of an asset, there is indeed a transfer of risk. That is worth a considerable amount to the taxpayer.
Lord Newby: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that a relatively small number of companies are bidding for many PFI projects and that that is the result of a relatively small number of companies winning them? Will he also acknowledge that that runs the serious risk of overstretch in terms of management and the balance sheet? Further, if one of the companies goes bust, who picks up the pieces?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the position about whether any contractor goes bust is no different whether that occurs under the private finance initiative or previous arrangements; someone has to pick up the pieces. That is true whether or not there is a continuing contract with the company. On the risk of private sector contractors going bust because they are doing too much, accounting officers and departments will have to take that consideration into account.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister has just apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for the errors contained in a Written Answer. Is that a result of the fact that, as he himself said, there is much misunderstanding about PFI? Does he agree that, given the extreme sensitivity about the level of government borrowing—we shall hear more about that tomorrow—the Government should accept an independent audit of the Government's borrowing forecast?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even the question of whether there is extreme sensitivity about government borrowing I shall leave for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to elaborate on tomorrow. I shall not anticipate even by implication anything he might say.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the PFI is off the balance sheet and does not enter into the public sector borrowing requirement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. A very large number of PFI projects are on balance sheet. For
630
example, all of the PFIs for English prisons are on balance sheet. Whether the result is on balance sheet or off balance sheet is not a consideration for us or accounting officers when deciding whether a particular contract should be let under PFI There is no risk to public accounts with any PFI project being on balance sheet.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether any government research into, or evaluation of, the effectiveness of PFI schemes is being undertaken? Is it the Government's intention to issue good practice guidance in relation to PFI schemes, given the wide variety of schemes that exist?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the primary evaluation of PFI schemes has been carried out by the National Audit Office, which does not report to government. We do not control what it does. However, the matter has been debated in the House previously. The NAO has reported on a substantial number of schemes. The assistant auditor general, Mr Jeremy Colman, is on record as saying that,
"the evidence is that on the whole PFI deals deliver to time and to …budget. You get what you want, you get it when you want it and it costs you what you thought it was going to cost. Conventional public projects have a very bad record in that respect".
We have no fear of any evaluation of public finance initiatives.

European Monetary Union
2.53 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the five economic tests for entry into the euro include the exchange rate for sterling at which the United Kingdom would enter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on 6th September the Treasury sent to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons a paper that made it clear that the preliminary and technical work, which will be published alongside the assessment of the five tests, will include analysis of the sustainable real exchange rate, which is a key indicator of convergence and of obvious importance to the convergence test and all of the tests.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and I am glad that the Government are showing some interest in the importance of the exchange rate for our possible membership of the euro. Is not the importance of the subject shown by the example of Germany, which is now stuck with a fixed, certain and

631
unsuitable exchange rate apparently for all time? Largely as a result of that, it is no longer the motor of the euro-zone economically but one of the laggards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to comment on issues of German economic policy. I rather doubt the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, draws from his premise.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when five years ago—almost to the day—the Chancellor launched the five tests, he also explicitly said that, regardless of the results of the five tests, the Government would contemplate joining only a successful monetary union? Given that, during the four years that have elapsed since the euro, growth in the euro-zone has been considerably lower than that in the United States and in countries in the European Union that are outside the euro-zone, by what criteria will the Government decide whether or not monetary union has been successful?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, tempts me to anticipate the conclusions of the analysis of the five tests, and I am certainly not going to do that. The criteria by which the Government will make their judgment at the conclusion of the period will be set out in the publication in which the decision is reached.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that those five tests were set out in 1997—five years ago—against a background of high unemployment and high interest rates? They were understandable then but the situation has changed considerably since then. We now need to look to the really important aspect of entry into the euro mechanism; that is, the value of the pound. If we get the value of the pound wrong, there will be severe constriction on our development and investment for several years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sheldon is right to draw attention to the fact that, over the past five years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been responsible for a remarkably successful macro-economic policy. It is true that the five tests that still apply were drawn up in 1997. However, the conclusions on the five tests will be reached on the basis of the economic situation as we see it in 2002 and 2003. The fact that the wording of the tests was drawn up five years ago is no disadvantage.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, as the exchange rate has, for a long period—some 75 years—been a source of major economic and political upheavals and convulsions, and as it is therefore one of the key issues, would it not be sensible for the Government, if they decide to enter, to announce a range of between perhaps 1.25 and 1.45 euros to the pound as a basis for negotiation for entry, which should in itself have a considerable influence on the market?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, 75 years is far too short a period for controversy on exchange
632
rates. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, reminds me of the Oxford college bursar who attacked the college's investment policy on the ground that the past 200 years had been wholly exceptional. I turn to the question whether a series of options on exchange rates should be advanced by the Government. When a decision on the five economic tests is reached, that will be one of the options that the Government will consider.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind the fact that if a country surrenders its own currency, it will lose control of internal inflation and can no longer protect its economy and the standard of living of its people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply disagree; the shared sovereignty that would be involved in accession to European monetary union has a very wide range of advantages and, of course, it has some potential disadvantages. The situation is by no means as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, believes.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is not the proposition lying behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, correct to the extent that the final negotiation on the exchange rate at entry cannot be decided before a referendum because it has to be decided with the deliberation that we are going to enter? Therefore, the referendum has to be conducted on the basis that there will have to be negotiation afterwards about the exchange rate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why the exchange rate is not a sixth test and why I was so cautious in my response to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Blaker.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, during our debate on the economy last week in response to the Queen's Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, said that the exchange rate was not simply a sixth test. I believe that he described it as the "supreme test". In the same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said that the exchange rate would be determined by a political decision. Does the Minister agree with either of them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friends are always wise in economic management and judgment and I agree with much of what they say.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is frankly dishonest of the Government to set economic tests for what is clearly a constitutional project? On the off-chance that he does not agree with that, will he at least agree, since no single currency area can hold together for long without a mechanism for fiscal transfers from rich to poor zones within the area, that one of the economic tests must be a realistic calculation of the additional tax

633
which the United Kingdom, as one of the euro-zone's richest areas, would have to pay in order to support the poorer zones for the area?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are always such a complex inter-related structure of misunderstanding of economic and political issues that it is very difficult to know where to strike. But I start and finish by saying that of course there are constitutional implications. We have always said so, and I have just made that clear by talking about pooled sovereignty.

The Dome
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the future of the Dome.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, a 26,000-seat capacity arena for London is to be built inside the Dome with associated leisure, retail, exhibition and other facilities. Contracts were signed between English Partnerships and Meridian Delta Limited on 29th May this year for the sale of the Dome and the development of much of the Greenwich peninsula for residential, commercial and other community uses. The deal is conditional primarily on planning permission. Meridian Delta Limited is preparing to submit a planning application before Christmas.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we are within five weeks of two years of the closure of the Dome. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the latest information on this long, sorry tale. But between July 2001 and July 2002, English Partnerships incurred costs of £21·4 million in the upkeep of the Dome. What have been the costs to public funds since July 2002?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not in a position to give any detail on that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are talking about July this year. The £21 million consisted of management, care and maintenance costs for the year. It also consisted of one-off costs, such as decommissioning the contents of the Dome and costs connected with the sale process. It included nearly £7 million associated with previous competitions to find a long-term use for the Dome. The average monthly care and maintenance costs are around £250,000. Therefore, I imagine that the cost of upkeep has been approximately £250,000 a month since the end of July because all the other costs were one-off costs.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, might not an immediate use for the Dome be staging the Miss World
634
competition and pageant, which has had to move to London at very short notice from Nigeria? That might also bring glamour to the Greenwich peninsula, about whose future the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been so concerned.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can say that much glamour is on, and will be brought to, the Greenwich peninsula without the Miss World contest. A variety of short-term uses are always being sought by English Partnerships. The Dome was used on New Year's Eve in 2001 and another event is planned for this New Year's Eve. Of course, a couple of smaller operations have also taken place in the Dome on a temporary basis, but that is a matter for English Partnerships.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords., does the Minister feel that it would be wise for me to try to book the planned auditorium for the centenary of the diocese of Southwark in July 2005, or might that be taking a risk?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, the planning application for the arena inside the Dome is due to be submitted before the end of the year. I understand that it is planned that the arena should be constructed inside the Dome and opened during 2005.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, was not an undertaking given by English Partnerships to provide 3,500 low-cost dwellings as part of the development of the peninsula? Can the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, say whether that is still the case and over what period those dwellings are to be provided?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have already stated that a planning application is due to go to the Greenwich local authority before the end of the year. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on that matter. The application has not yet been submitted or published and I am not privy to it because I am not the planning Minister for the Dome. However, for some time the developers have been taking a road-show around Greenwich for the residents of the area. There are plans for approximately 9,000 to 10,000 homes, 3.5 million square feet of commercial property, a Four or five-star hotel, a secondary school, open space and parkland, and 20,000 permanent jobs. Of course, negotiations and discussions will take place as to how many of the homes are affordable in the sense that we understand that term.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in view of the action taken by the Attorney-General of New York state, will the Minister say whether the Government are still satisfied as to the financial standing and probity of Anschutz Entertainment?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, English Partnerships deal with Meridian Delta Limited. It will sub-contract the operation of the Dome to Anschutz Entertainment Group. Therefore, the contract is with Meridian Delta. The full amount of due diligence has been

635
applied to this transaction, as is normal and necessary. The contractual relationship with Anschutz Entertainment Group is unaffected by anything that happens in the United States.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, when the arena is built, the Government's involvement with the Dome and its related costs will come to an end?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, the application will be submitted before Christmas but it will be up to the planning authority to decide when permission is granted. At the point at which planning permission is granted, other aspects of the contractual arrangements will come into play; in other words, ownership of the site will transfer to the new developers. The long-term feedback to the Government was made clear by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer during his Statement on 29th May concerning the transfer of government responsibilities. I believe that in the long term it is planned that that feedback will be approximately £500 million over a period of 20 years—that is, £240 million at present net value.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in view of the complexity of developing such major sites in London, can the Minister promise that completion of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Dome will proceed at least as rapidly as the comprehensive redevelopment of the site at Battersea power station?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we shall use our best endeavours. This is a major project in a major part of London. It is intended to provide jobs for thousands of people and homes for thousands more as the beginning of the Thames Gateway. It will be a private sector development, assuming that everything goes ahead as planned. Ministers will give it all the support that they can during that period, and we hope that it will be very successful.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.8 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which Minister now speaks for the Government at the Convention on the Future of Europe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary continues to have overall responsibility for government policy on the European Union, including the convention. The Secretary of State for Wales is the Government's representative to the convention and will therefore report to Parliament on his role in the convention.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Minister who speaks for the Government in the convention is involving himself
636
and, indeed, this country in huge decisions about our future, including a written constitution, a brand new charter of rights, which is to be brought into the centre of this constitutional treaty, and a whole series of other major issues? Is it not vitally important that this Minister is properly accountable to both Houses? Can she explain how he, or the person to whom he delegates his activities, answers to the other place and to your Lordships about these major issues?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course my right honourable friend Mr Hain has enormous responsibilities but in this respect he exercises them under the supervision of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Mr Hain last gave oral evidence to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee on 20th November. That session focused exclusively on the convention. He will also participate in an Adjournment debate on the convention which is scheduled to take place on the Floor of the House of Commons on 2nd December. He is accountable to the House of Commons and, as your Lordships know, I answer for these matters in the House of Lords.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government's position in the convention is an absolute model of clarity by comparison with the views of the Conservative Party? One has Mr Heathcoat-Amory having left the European People's Party because he dissents from its views and the Conservative Members of the European Parliament in the convention remaining within the European People's Party taking a totally different view? One is clear; the other is absolutely obscure.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Well, my Lords, it is a matter for the party opposite as to how it wishes to be represented at the convention. I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Tomlinson has said. Mr Hain has been working very hard on the convention for some eight months. There are a further seven months to go before the convention reports. I think that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was quite right when he judged that UK interests were best served by a continuity of the principal Minister involved in the convention.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I recognise the central role of the Commission's executive power in delivering the agreed goals of the European Union, but would the Government's representatives be reacting favourably to proposals from the convention that are designed to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of that executive role by strengthening the Commission's own democratic basis?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government believe that it is very important to strengthen the democratic basis under which Europe operates. We also believe that it is very important to have a clearer understanding of the respective roles of

637
the Commission and, for example, national parliaments. I very much hope that in the many working groups that have been set up—some of which have already reported, others of which are due to report by Christmas this year—we shall have some clear guidance for those of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who have been participating in these discussions.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government's policy is magnificently clear. Would she care to enunciate the Government's attitude towards each of the major proposals that have so far been put forward by Mr Giscard d'Estaing and the convention?
Baroness Symons off Vernham Dean: My Lords, we were discussing the representational issues which were clear. The noble Lord may laugh at this point, but if he had been listening to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, he would have heard that the contrast was drawn, not between clarity or lack of it on policies but between clarity or lack of it on representation.
There are 11 working groups. I do not really think that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, wants me to go to every single one of them now on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord is nodding his head, but I am afraid that the clock would be against me and the Leader of the House would be very upset. Instead, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I understand that the British Government's representative has submitted a number of papers to these working groups. Can the noble Baroness tell us what steps the British Government have made to draw the attention of members of their own national parliament to the existence of these papers and to make them available for them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have indicated that the Government have reported to Parliament on a regular basis. The Government remain committed to informing Parliament about the work of the convention. The parliamentary representatives, as well as the Ministers, have given evidence to the appropriate scrutiny committees of both Houses on a number of occasions. I am sure that they have drawn attention to the various pieces of work that have been submitted to the convention. A full list of such representations is readily available.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, bearing in mind the point raised by my noble friend Lord Howell, these are very important matters. I quite understand that the noble Baroness does not have the time at the moment to answer the points raised by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. Would it not be helpful for this House to have a debate on the convention as soon as possible during this Session, and if possible before Christmas, in order to discuss and air the issues raised?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is, as always, a matter for the usual channels to decide.
638
I would be very happy to participate in such a debate. There are 10 working groups that either have reported or will report by Christmas. A further eleventh group has just been set up on social Europe. There is a great deal to discuss.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister explain where Mr Denis MacShane fits into all this?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my honourable friend Dr MacShane is doing all the work that is normally undertaken by the Minister for Europe when there is not a convention running. Dr MacShane currently deals with the EU's central, southern and eastern European countries, Russia, the Balkans, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe and economic relations. He has a full portfolio.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given the enormous importance of the constitutional issues which are being considered by the convention, will the United Kingdom Parliament be free to accept or reject whatever the convention comes up with, or will it all be subject, as before in the progress of the European Union, to the treaty-making powers of the Royal Prerogative, which make this Parliament in to a rubber stamp?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, having participated with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in debates on the Nice Treaty and before that on the Amsterdam Treaty, it has never been my feeling that Her Majesty's Parliament is in any way a rubber stamp.
After the convention has reported, which will be in June next year, there will be an opportunity for debate by national parliaments before any treaty is drawn up. At that point I am absolutely certain we shall hear a great deal from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the role of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, at the convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Scotland is an alternative to Mr Hain. She is undertaking work in particular as the United Kingdom representative on the working group on justice and home affairs. She is also responsible as the representative on the working group on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. She is working very hard and is an invaluable member of the UK team.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the Mr Hain who speaks for the Government in the convention is the same Mr Hain who when he was the Minister for Europe tried to persuade the people of Gibraltar to vote for the Government's proposals on Gibraltar by referring to

639
a recent important piece of Gibraltar legislation as a "scam". Do the Government have confidence in his judgment?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is, I believe, referring to some difficulties that arose in relation to pensions on Gibraltar. Time does not permit me to expand on that issue, but I should be very happy to write to the noble Lord on that point. The Government—indeed all Ministers—have absolute confidence in Mr Hain.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the fire dispute.
On today's business, I remind the House that the target time for finishing is 10 p.m. We have done the calculations. We shall conveniently finish by that time if Back-Bench contributions are restricted to around 10 minutes.

Business of the House: Debate, 27th November
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Baker of Dorking set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 5th December next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl of Onslow to be taken before the affirmative instruments.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
640
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders and subordinate provisions orders laid under that Act, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,

B. Carnegy of Lour,

L. Dahrendorf (Chairman),

L. Desai,

L. Harrison,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Temple-Morris,

L. Tombs,

L. Wigoder;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the committee or a sub-committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I apologise for the state of my voice. If in fact it conks out before the end of my opening speech. I shall ask my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham to take over. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has very kindly agreed to make my winding-up speech.
Citizens of and visitors to this country want greater flexibility to be able to enjoy drink or a meal at a time they choose. More than 90 per cent of men and 85 per cent of women enjoy alcoholic drinks. The vast majority behave responsibly. If they want to go for a drink after watching a film or a play at 11 p.m. they should have that option. This Bill will deliver greater choice for consumers, those with families in particular. It will make our country more attractive to tourists and our great cities better able to compete for international events with cities such as Berlin, Rome and Tokyo. It will also remove perverse influences on

641
drinking culture, such as fixed, artificially early closing times that can lead to problems of violence and binge drinking.
At the same time, we recognise that issues of public disorder and anti-social behaviour have always arisen when large groups of people gather for popular pastimes, especially late at night. The Bill's aim to provide greater choice is tempered by its provision of strengthened protection. Modern laws are required to ensure that people may enjoy their leisure time while being adequately protected, without fear of violence, intimidation or disorder. The Bill provides measures to deliver strengthened public protection and complements other schemes across central Government and the public and private sectors.
The current system for the licensing of alcohol, public entertainment and late-night refreshment in England and Wales is an outdated amalgamation of legislation dating back centuries. It is complex, difficult and contains much unnecessary red tape. The Bill represents the first wholesale reform of the licensing regime for 40 years. It will benefit business across the piece, from restaurants and cafes, traditional pubs and clubs to theatres and cinemas. It will make it easier for operators to provide a wide range of leisure options within a single premises.
The licensing of alcohol sales in England and Wales dates back to the time of Henry III, but the present system was developed in 1828. It was made even more restrictive during the Great War. The law introduced then aimed to keep the workforce productive, while ensuring that we were not all blown to kingdom come when workers showed up drunk in munitions factories. Apart from the introduction of afternoon opening in 1988 and other minor tinkering, the system remains unchanged since then, while society has changed immeasurably. There are now more than 50 statutes impacting on the licensing of alcohol, public entertainment and late-night refreshment. The system is badly in need of streamlining.
The Government have been committed to reform the licensing system since we came to power. The Home Office, then responsible for licensing, undertook a two-year review of the existing regime, consulting a range of stakeholders including local authorities, residents' associations, industry, retailers, magistrates, churches, Members of Parliament, lawyers and private individuals. That culminated in the publication of a White Paper in April 2000. More than 1,200 organisations and individuals responded to the White Paper. The responses showed strong support for the proposed reforms.
The Government's efforts to consult and involve all interested parties in the development of the Bill have continued. Ministers and officials have held numerous meetings with many interested organisations. We have established an advisory group on the Bill that has met many times over recent months and will continue to do so as the secondary legislation and guidance are developed and plans for transition to the new regime put in place.
642
Under the new regime, licensing powers will be transferred from licensing justices to committees of democratically accountable local authorities. We recognise the concerns that some parts of industry have about that reform, and have developed safeguards to address them. Four clear objectives will underpin the new system, ensuring clarity and consistency. They are prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; prevention of public nuisance; and protection of children from harm.
The Bill, informed by the objectives, will enable local authorities to ensure that responsible adults are able to enjoy their leisure time in a safe and pleasant environment, while at the same time providing powers to clamp down on the crime and anti-social behaviour that can blight local communities. The Bill will ensure thorough, professional and expert scrutiny of applications. Expert bodies, such as the police, tire authorities, health and safety and environmental health officers and others, will be statutory consultees on every application for a new licence or variation of existing licences. Those bodies, along with local residents and businesses will be consulted when the licensing authority frames its policy.
Our plans to enable local residents to make representations about any applications for new or varied licences will give them a greater say than ever before in licensing decisions. We have gone further still. Local residents and businesses, as well as expert bodies, will have the power to request that the licensing authority review existing licences where problems arise. Such a review could result in the modification of the licence, its suspension, or, ultimately, revocation.
To ensure a fair balance for the industry, licensing authorities will only be able to impose conditions that are necessary to promote the licensing objectives. Furthermore, the licensing authority's discretion comes into play only in cases where representations are made. Setting fees centrally, as we propose, will also help ensure a level playing field. As an additional safeguard for all those who make representations, all decisions of the licensing authority will be subject to appeal to the magistrates' court.
The Bill will make it easier for licensing authorities to act in the interests of local residents against poorly performing premises, introducing a flexible range of sanctions, including limiting hours or excluding certain activities. At present, the fact that there are only two choices available—to do nothing or to revoke the licence—often results in no action being taken.
The Bill is about modernisation and reform to stimulate a richer range of leisure opportunities for the consumer and provide a regulatory environment within which the industry can thrive. However, the increased freedoms that the new system will deliver are carefully balanced by a corresponding suite of safeguards. The Bill contributes to the Government's overall strategy on alcohol-related disorder and antisocial behaviour. Other tools of the strategy include police powers to issue fixed penalty notices—currently being piloted with some success; the power of local authorities to designate public areas to restrict antisocial drinking; imaginative local initiatives, such as

643
Manchester's "City Centre Safe" scheme; and voluntary codes of practice, for example the Portman Group code of practice on marketing of alcohol to young people, which is dealing effectively with alcopops. Some of that work will be co-ordinated under the aegis of the national alcohol harm reduction strategy, led by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit and the Department of Health. The work will include an examination of town centre management.
The Bill contains specific measures to clamp down on crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. The police will have the power to close down immediately and for 24 hours any licensed premises or temporary event that has become the focus of disorder or a source of public nuisance, including noise. Such closure can lead to review, and ultimately, revocation of the licence. In addition, the police will be able to apply to a magistrates' court to close down all licensed premises in a particular area where disorder is occurring or is expected to occur—for example, surrounding a particular football match. It will be possible to prevent the sale of alcohol on specified train services where there is, or is expected to be, disorder, and there will be new requirements in the wake of the Thames Safety Inquiry for licensing boats travelling within England and Wales.
The Bill will also introduce major benefits for business by sweeping away unnecessary red tape. It will amalgamate six existing licensing regimes covering the sale of alcohol, provision of public entertainment and late night refreshment and replace them with a single system of premises licences. Businesses will be able to apply for a single premises licence to cover all the licensable activities that they wish to provide. Because only in cases where representations are made will a hearing be required, unnecessary administrative and legal overheads will be cut back. Unless a particular duration is requested, the new premises licence, until revoked or surrendered, will not be time-limited. Nor will it be subject to renewal every three years, as is currently the case for liquor licences, or annually, as in the case of public entertainment licences.
The Bill will, in what is perhaps the best known of all its proposals, abolish standard drinking hours, increasing the options available to people for how to spend their leisure time and encouraging the development of a more diverse late-night economy. Again, it is not just about liberalisation and consumer choice: the new system represents a vast improvement over the old and will remove some of its unintended adverse effects. For example, under existing legislation, establishments may sell alcohol late at night only if it is ancillary to other activities, usually music and dancing. That has led to the development of a relatively narrow night-time economy, patronised for the most part by the young. Our proposals will improve the diversity of provision, leading, we hope, to a broader demographic profile late at night, with potentially desirable associated benefits. Ending fixed closing times will remove the incentive to drink as much as possible before 11 p.m. and reduce the density
644
of drinkers on the streets, at take-aways and at taxi ranks at peak times, something that, we know, contributes to crime, disorder and nuisance.
It is equally important that people should be safe when they go to a place of public entertainment. Badly run entertainment can be a nuisance, and the Bill provides for modern, light-touch controls here, too. We understand concern about the effect of the abolition of the "two in a bar" rule, under which pubs did not have to obtain a public entertainment licence to put on live music by one or two performers. We are removing that rule because it is anachronistic. It is perfectly possible for a single performer using amplified instruments to generate more noise than, say, a chamber quartet of unamplified musicians. It is unfair on performers and on local residents.
The Bill's provision for a single, integrated licence means that premises wishing to put on live music need not, as is currently the case, apply for a separate permission, often at great cost. Costs can vary across England and Wales by thousands of per cent. In some places, a public entertainment licence can cost as much as £20,000. Instead, a permission to provide entertainment in that way would be an integral part of the premises licence, so there would be no additional cost for live music above the cost of the premises licence itself, regardless of how many musicians are involved. If the industry makes full use of the reforms on offer, there will be a huge increase in the opportunities for musicians to perform.
The new premises licence will make it easier for businesses to develop family-friendly facilities. We will make access to licensed premises by children the default position, in line with the position that many of us would recognise from our experience abroad. It no longer makes sense to ban all children from bar areas. The fact that families must leave children in the car park or at home places obstacles in the way of family entertainment and compounds the mystique around adult drinking. The presence of children in licensed premises may, of itself, have a positive effect on the ambience in those premises.
However, we recognise that safeguards must be put in place to balance this liberalisation. The Bill therefore sets out, as a clear licensing objective: the protection of children from harm. Sensible applicants will set out in their operating schedule how they propose to manage access to the premises by children responsibly. Those controls will form part of the conditions of the licence. Following relevant representations, the licensing authority will also have the power to impose conditions preventing or moderating access by children, where the theme of the venue demands it.
The current law relating to the sale of alcohol to children is confused and confusing and often provides inadequate protection. For example, it is legal to purchase alcohol on behalf of children as young as five years old for consumption in beer gardens. The Bill will clarify the position, making sales of alcohol to under-18s illegal anywhere. Consumption by under-18s will be illegal on all licensed premises and in

645
qualifying clubs, with a single exception: the consumption of beer, wine or cider, purchased by an adult, by 16 or 17 year-olds at a table meal, when accompanied by an adult, will be permitted.
We recognise the value to the community of registered members clubs, such as working men's or political clubs. The country can be rightly proud of the club movement. We also recognise that such clubs are private premises to which access is restricted and where alcohol is not supplied for profit. We intend to protect the special position of such clubs. Although they will have to promote the licensing objectives in the same way as other licensed premises, they will not require the full premises licence. Instead, a club premises certificate will supply the appropriate permissions for qualifying clubs to continue to play their important role in society. The Bill will, however, bring clubs into line with other premises in relation to sales to and consumption by children.
The premises licence will be complemented by a new system of personal licences. Separating the issues associated with the premises from those with individuals authorised to sell alcohol is a critical element of the scheme set out in the Bill. It is designed to deliver greater management flexibility for the industry. The issue of personal licences will be a streamlined administrative process, in most cases. Personal licences, which will have a lifetime of 10 years, will be issued automatically to applicants who are 18 and over, have not been convicted of relevant criminal offences, have not forfeited a licence in the previous five years and possess an accredited licensing qualification.
The Bill will introduce a new system of temporary permissions to enable individuals to hold occasional temporary events that involve licensable activities. Different limits apply, depending on whether a personal licence is held and on how often the premises is used. For personal licence holders—for example, publicans running bars at wedding receptions—the number of occasions that could be covered by those arrangements in any year would be subject to a limit of 50. Those who do not hold personal licences, such as individuals wishing to sell home-made wine at a fate, will be able to do so on no more than five occasions in a calendar year.
Although the system, in keeping with the theme of better regulation that runs through the Bill, is designed with a light touch, safeguards will be put in place to prevent abuse. The arrangements will apply only if the number of attendees is lower than 500. If there are more, a full premises licence will be required. No premises may be used more than five times in one calendar year. The local police will have the chance to object to or modify, by agreement with the premises user, the conditions under which the event is to take place. That will minimise the regulatory burden on small events, while retaining appropriate controls over major events like pop festivals, raves and concerts. Furthermore, small events, such as the village fete, which are often run by charitable organisations to
646
raise funds, are an important part of community life. Reflecting that, the Bill will deregulate the use of alcoholic drinks as prizes in raffles and tombolas.
In keeping with the aim of the Bill, the temporary event system will provide a simple regime for individuals and businesses. In providing a framework of necessary safeguards, we have been alive to the needs of industry, and nowhere more so than in the transitional arrangements. An estimated 180,000 businesses will have their existing rights preserved under the new system. It will be a major project, and a period of transition will be required. All new licences and club premises certificates will come into force on the same day, and the date will be determined by the Secretary of State. That will ensure that no business gains an unfair competitive advantage. We envisage that the transitional period will last 12 months. That should give the new licensing authorities—of which there will be around 400—sufficient time to carry out the necessary work.
The costs of the new system will be recovered by the licensing authorities through the setting of fees at an appropriate level. We are consulting representatives of local authorities and industry on the level of fees. The transitional arrangements will make special provision for existing licensees. Because we recognise the level of expertise of those already in the industry, current holders of justices' licences to sell alcohol will be entitled to a personal licence under the new system without having to possess an additional qualification, provided that they have not been convicted of any relevant offence since their justices' licence was last granted or renewed.
The arrangements for new premises licences have also been designed to make the transition as smooth as possible and avoid creating a climate of uncertainty. Existing licences and conditions will be guaranteed following a simple registration process, subject to consultation with the police in those exceptional cases where their circumstances have changed materially since the last grant or renewal of the licence. Businesses will be encouraged, at the same time, to apply for variations of existing conditions, such as those relating to extended opening hours or the admission of children, to derive maximum benefit from the reforms.
I hope that the modernisation, reforms and safeguards described serve to demonstrate one of the key features of this Bill—that it is a balanced package. We have consulted widely. We have taken a broad range of views into account, and the product is the sensible, pragmatic system I have set out today. We are committed to building a modern, dynamic and competitive society that can stand up against the best in the world. However, we are also about protecting the interests of citizens and consumers. The Licensing Bill will deliver on both counts. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I would like to begin by offering my sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the loss of her voice. I hope that she finds it soon.
We support more liberal licensing laws and genuine deregulation. We believe that change in our licensing laws, which date back to the Licensing Act 1964, is long overdue. There has been a significant shift in our culture which, in turn, has led to a shift in consumer demand; for example, late night and, in many cities, 24 hour shopping has become the norm and an enormous increase in flexible working hours has led people to want to enjoy leisure activities outside traditional hours. More people of all ages and walks of life choose to spend more leisure time outside the home and those changes in lifestyle demand more flexibility of provision from the entertainment and leisure industries.
Those in the industry are anxious to provide a service that their customers want. The present system is rigid and puts different forms of activities into completely different compartments; for example, the idea of having a drink before seeing a film and then having supper afterwards in the same premises is alien to our present structure. Many of us would like to have the choice of being able to linger over another glass of wine after 11 p.m. when we have finished our meal in a restaurant. The present law does not allow for that.
We recognise the many problems related to the uniform last orders regime, followed by a mass exodus onto our streets and the resulting fights in the bus queues and at the kebab shop. An analogy would be telling a group of children that they have half an hour within which to eat as many sweets as they can. The result would he a lot of, albeit temporarily, sickly children and a mess for someone else to clear up.
The aim of the Bill is, we understand, to simplify and unify a complex system under one piece of legislation by which licensing may function with maximum efficiency and minimum red tape. However, we fear that, in practice, the new system may lead to higher costs and more regulation rather than the reverse. While we accept the need for change and support the broad thrust of the Bill, we have a number of important concerns—some of which I shall raise today.
We question whether local authorities will be given the necessary powers to manage an altered and extended night time economy. In addition, will there be sufficient safeguards for local residents, particularly in areas where there will be a high concentration of late night drinking establishments? That point brings me to one of the key issues in the Bill; namely, the transfer of responsibility for issuing licences from magistrates' courts to local authorities.
We are not convinced that the case has been made by the Government for that radical change in procedure. We have nothing but praise for the magistrates who give up their time for no reward and their clerks without whom the magistrates' court system could not operate. However, the Government
648
are determined to introduce the change. We have more than a sense that this change is driven by the Government's determination to phase out magistrates altogether. Indeed, outside organisations have told us that they have been briefed by Government officials that that is so.
While we are confident that the local authority, controlled by elected councillors, is well placed to take on that responsibility and, in so doing, represent the interests of their respective communities, we shall want to examine carefully whether that will work well and equitably in practice. Under Clause 5, each licensing authority must publish a licensing statement setting out its policy with respect to its licensing functions. The licensing statement must cover a period of three years. In preparing that licensing statement, the authority must consult with the police, the fire authority and various representatives of the industry in the locality and representatives of residents in its area.
Those residents all have votes. Any local authority ignoring the views of residents one might suppose would do so at its peril. However, there has been widespread fear among local authorities that the guidance described in Clause 177, and to be imposed by the Secretary of State, may fetter their discretion to respond to local concerns. The role of residents and councils will be diminished in the process. Conversely, industry representatives understandably fear that the process will be politicised and the not-in-my-backyard syndrome will work unfairly against local businesses and consumer choice.
In Clause 6 we learn that not more than 15 councillors may make up a licensing committee. Are we to understand that that number is limited even in the case of city councils that will have a huge number of cases to consider? Might that not lead to a licensing system that is inordinately slow and inefficient? Will uniform fees make sense? In addition, we fear that a one year transitional period for implementing the new system is insufficient to manage the process of change.
Two further issues in the Bill stand out as examples of ill consideration on the part of Government. First is the issue of national guidance. It is untenable that the guidance which is to explain the detailed regulations and actual nuts and bolts of implementation, including the functions and powers of licensing authorities, police and magistrates, is not on the face of the Bill and therefore not subject to scrutiny.
The draft guidance was made available only a week ago. Perhaps I may quote an example to highlight my concern. Paragraph 14 claims that the national guidance,
"would … provide for a proper separation of the planning and licensing regimes to avoid duplication and inefficiency".
It appears that it is in the guidance that the issue of "saturation" is to be regulated, an issue that has caused much concern from both local councils and the industry.
Will the Minister indicate today when the crucial guidance is to be published in its final form? We are not content to accept the prospect of regulations

649
introduced by delegated powers covering many of the key implications of the Bill. A governmental fait accompli without proper democratic scrutiny is a depressing, albeit now familiar, prospect.
Our second cause for concern is the management of behaviour on our streets as a result of flexible drinking hours. None of us knows what will happen. We can predict only what will be required to respond to change. I am talking in terms of the likely impact on our public services such as transport, street cleaning, policing and accident and emergency. Will the Minister state today what evidence the Government have to show that our public services will be able to cope without a significant increase in resources?
The Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, stated in a press release on 15th November this year:
"The Bill is also good news for the hospitality industry—it should Lad to savings of nearly £2 billion in its first ten years by cutting out red tape.
How so? Has there been a cost benefit analysis for this?
I clearly recall the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, welcoming the "evidence-based approach" to scrutinising draft legislation made by the Joint Industry Committee on the draft communications Bill. We trust therefore that this approach has been followed by the Secretary of State with regard to licensing reform.
Local communities are rightly concerned by the implications of the change. We also see the complete overhaul of legislation as a leap in the dark by the Government and would therefore welcome some hard evidence to assuage our fears concerning the impact of longer drinking hours or else some mechanism for monitoring the effects of the legislation.
We believe that the Government may turn to the Isle of Man for conclusive evidence that liberalising licensing laws reduces the incidence of anti-social behaviour. Perhaps I should warn the Minister that we have also received helpful research from the Isle of Man and it does not entirely support the claim.
On a more positive note, we approve of the new system that makes a distinction between premises licences and personal licences. However, the principle of splitting the licence is severely undermined by the requirement to name the personal licensee on the premises licence and treating a change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence. This could lead to a considerable and possibly difficult paper chase every time there was a change of manager or tenant.
The White Paper stated that, on taking up responsibility for a business, the licensee should normally simply register with the police and local authority. The introduction of the term "Designated Premises Supervisor" and the consequent bureaucratic convolutions has made this process confusing and unnecessary.
We are also troubled by one of the qualifications for the grant of a personal licence. The licensing authority must not grant a personal licence if the applicant has been convicted of what is called a "relevant offence". There is nothing wrong with that. However, a conviction for a violent offence or an offence under the
650
Theft Act 1968, or an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 is to be disregarded if a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 30 months was not imposed. That seems to us surprising. We seriously question whether it is right that someone convicted of a violent offence and sentenced to 18 months, perhaps even for an offence committed on Licensed premises, should be allowed to hold a personal licence.
In addition, the whole proposal to remove discretion, being the current "fit and proper person" test in determining suitability seems a somewhat rash move and is hardly conducive to producing quality personal licensees. We also wonder why no distinction is made in the Bill between an applicant setting out to run an off-licence and one with a busy nightclub in a sensitive area. We believe it would be more sensible to have some form of recognition, at least in the training system, to reflect this.
We would also prefer to see a single, central or national system for granting the personal licence. Given that the personal licence will be valid for 10 years, and given also the fact that people in the trade often move for career advancement, it makes no sense for the relevant authority, the holder of that information, to be where an individual first applied for his or her personal licence. A centralised system would also help prevent abuses such as the personal licence holder applying for a new—clean—personal licence from a different licensing authority or the exceeding of limits on temporary permitted activities by application within different licensing authority areas.
There are, in fact, over 50 separate powers given to or duties imposed on the police. It is unclear in the Bill how the balance between licensing committees (local authorities) and the police as the primary enforcers of the new system will work. Both groups are genuinely concerned about the lack of resources to cope with the extra burden they foresee will be placed upon them with extended opening hours and the effect in terms of crime, disorder and disruption of local communities which this new system will introduce.
I now turn to a concern we have about limits on temporary event notices. The Bill allows for up to five occasional events a year where alcohol is served in places such as village halls without requiring a licence. However, if there have already been five such events in any one year, there are difficulties as regards the sixth. As regards the last event, the person holding the event has to serve a temporary event notice. The licensing authority then serves a counter notice. That counter notice prevents the event being held in the premises. There does not appear to be a right of appeal against the decision to serve a counter notice. This will make life difficult in many villages. Indeed, in my home village of Goring on Thames, we have a tremendously vibrant social community which I fear will be brought to a grinding halt by about February.
On a similar note, it is important to articulate the interests of those who may be subsumed by the greater good of licensing reform. I am referring here to the conditions in the legislation which restrict the performance of live music. We have long campaigned

651
for the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule—a rule that was brought into law in 1961 as a liberalising measure to allow two musicians to work in a licensed premise without a licence. In our efforts to remove that restriction to only two musicians operating without a licence, we never imagined that the Government would change it to insist that even one would require a licence.
Further, the Bill in its thoroughness appears to necessitate a licence for such harmless activities as church bell ringing, band rehearsals, musical concerts in churches and even carol singing. The wording of the Bill suggests that payment to musicians may be sufficient to trigger licensing. If that is the case, tens of thousands of private wedding receptions, parties and corporate functions would become illegal unless licensed.
We are told at paragraph 20 of the draft guidance that it will recommend that,
"proper account be taken of the need to promote live music, dancing and theatre for the wider cultural benefit of communities generally".
At this stage, I am severely doubtful that this legislation, notwithstanding it has moved from the preserve of the Home Office to the DCMS, will promote these cultural interests.
There are many more issues that we will need to address in Committee; for example, the question of capacity on premises seems ill thought through and needs careful consideration. In addition, some of us are uncomfortable at the prospect of children occupying licensed premises unaccompanied by an adult. Will that really help to develop pubs as centres for family leisure, as promised in the White Paper, if the parents can be absent?
We are also mindful of the prospect of a gaming Bill that we understand will place restrictions upon the number and location of gaming machines in licensed premises, the argument being, we are told, that gambling and children do not mix.
Further, would the Minister also consider the position of casinos and bingo clubs in the Bill? We are aware that the gaming Bill is likely to contain specific statutory criteria governing the licensing of casinos and bingo clubs, including the liquor licensing. This means that the Licensing Bill will be a temporary measure for casinos and bingo clubs, leading to additional costs to cover the short- term as well as uncertainty. Would it not be better expressly to exempt casinos and gambling clubs from this Bill so that they can be dealt with properly in the gaming Bill in the next Session?
Finally, I must express a hope that, in future, repetition will be avoided in the drafting of Bills. Many of the provisions in this Bill are repeated time and time again. For example, the provision that where an authority determines that a representation is frivolous or vexatious it must notify the person who made it aware of the reasons for its determination is repeated nine times. There are many other instances of repetition. The draftsman of the Bill has treated
652
premises licences, club certificates, permitted temporary activities and personal licences as though they were completely different species of authorisation. The Bill makes no attempt at a unified system of authorisation, which results in needless repetition.
The need for reform of the Licensing Act 1964 was recognised as long ago as 1972, when the Erroll report put forward widespread recommendations which were never implemented. In consequence, the current legislation has undergone considerable amendments up to the present day which have now made the Bill as it stands, to some extent, incomprehensible.
I am conscious of the time and welcome the large number of noble Lords who wish to speak in this important debate. I thank all the outside organisations which have been in touch with us and helped us with our thinking so far. There is work to be done and we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that this legislation is both workable and deregulatory, bearing in mind that it could be on the statute book for the next 40 years.
4.1 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome in general the Bill. It is a bold stroke to remove the responsibility for the regulation of alcohol from the magistrates—who have served us reasonably well over the years—and to hand it to the local authorities, which is the main aspect of the Bill. But, as with all bold strokes, there are always dangers attached. As the Bill progresses, it will be the job of this House and the other place to identify those dangers and to try to come to an agreement with the Government to bring in safeguards where they are needed.
The House will forgive me if I do not go into as much detail as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I am supported by a doughty team of eight noble friends, each of whom will deal with different aspects of the Bill. But, having welcomed the Bill, and as old habits die hard, I shall revert to what I did for a number of years when I first came into the House—that is, to warn noble Lords from time to time about the dangers of alcohol based on information garnered from the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse, which has been advised in recent years by Alcohol Concern, a government-funded body.
Having said that, perhaps I may refer to one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We on these Benches cannot follow her down the road of thinking that there is something sinister about taking away from magistrates the responsibility for licensing in a further attempt to remove magistrates altogether from British life. That is too much of a conspiracy theory for us to support.
Local authorities seem to be better established now—something which is recognised in the Bill—both in their democratic status and accountability and in their ability to deal in general with the areas which concern them in their towns, cities and rural areas and to come up with sensible proposals for alcohol which fit into modern life.

653
We have all been lobbied a good deal and some of the most cautionary notes have been sounded by those who have welcomed the Bill most strongly. Many of us have been to meetings where we have been shown horrific pictures of late night life in our towns and cities, with hand-held video cameras filming youths fighting in minicab queues as the clubs out of which they have come close. I stress clubs, not pubs.
The whole pattern of drinking among young people—where most of the disorder and problems have been identified—takes place not in pubs but later on in restaurants or clubs. Most young people nowadays, when they go out for what is generally known as "a good time", if they come from outside London they tend to go to a pub; they come into London and go to another pub; and then, when they are ready to move on and have something to eat, they go to a restaurant, where a fight may well begin. They then move on to clubs and return whence they came at about lour o'clock or five o'clock in the morning.
So we already have a scenario in Britain that has substantially changed from what it was 10 to 15 years ago. Instead of people "binge drinking", a phrase which seems to have caught on—
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will the noble Viscount make it quite clear that when he refers to "clubs." he is referring to night clubs and not to working men's clubs?
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I shall not refer to working men's clubs at all—one of my doughty colleagues will do that. When I refer to clubs, I am talking about the kind of clubs to which young people now go after they have left public houses or restaurants, which the police and other interested bodies have identified as areas of concern because it is often there that disorder, criminal activity and violence originate. It is a problem to which local authorities will have to pay a good deal of attention.
One of the main criticisms of the Bill, which I think we all recognise, is that if you hand over responsibility for regulating alcohol and its use or misuse, you must give the local authorities the means to carry out that responsibility. Each area of responsibility will bring its own problems. I have seen areas outside London—in Kent, for example—where there is a considerable problem late at night when people come out of drinking and eating establishments and cause considerable inconvenience to residents in terms of noise and pollution of the streets.
It seems fashionable nowadays among young people to be quite unabashed about where you defecate or urinate, and even to take off all your clothes. It is a habit which seems peculiar to British youth culture at the moment. People abroad are astonished when they receive some of our younger tourists. Several of my French friends have questioned me about why our young people feel that their bodies should be exposed in such a way. This is the kind of
654
scenario that we have. I am not tarring the whole of British youth with this brush, but a considerable part of it.
A very sensible report by the Open All Hours? campaign generally welcomes the Bill. It states that in key respects the Bill at the moment favours the alcohol and entertainment industry at the expense of the general community, particularly local residents, and may have damaging consequences. As the report points out, it is important to distinguish between the "evening economy", which has been expanding for some years, with good results generally in enlivening and enriching city centres, and what we might call the "late night economy" or the "24-hour economy", which requires local authorities to put in place much more infrastructure. It requires more transport. it requires more policing and, I am afraid, going back to my previous remarks, in some cases it requires a great deal of expense for clearing up.
As we go through the Bill, there may be a problem in deciding what local authorities can charge for the main premises licence and whether it should be a nationally decided or locally decided charge. Some local authorities consider that they will not have the resources to deal with the problems they anticipate—it varies throughout the country—and the Bill does not appear to give local authorities the ability to deal with their problems in their own areas. We shall have to deal with that aspect of the Bill.
The report by the Open All Hours? campaign rightly goes on to say that the Government seem to be under the impression that as a result of these measures we shall arrive at a position similar to that of continental Europe; namely, a café society, with people going to cafés and restaurants and behaving sensibly because they will have the freedom to drink for 24 hours of the day. But as it points out, in this country, culturally among the young—rather as it was with football at one time—drinking is characterised by mass volume vertical drinking: people prefer to stand rather than sit at tables. That, again, is conducive to heavy drinking with the object of getting drunk. It is nothing new; it has been going on in Britain for hundreds of years. It is a cultural feature, whether we like it or not. I do not think that the Government, in introducing this hold legislation, will change that culture overnight.
Many people have wondered about the cumulative impact of the Bill, with more and more licences being granted to establishments that wish to provide entertainment and alcohol. The Government will tell us—indeed, the noble Baroness made this clear in her introductory remarks—that they are not concerned with that; they are concerned only with the licensing aspect. They will tell us that it is up to the local authorities to have their own planning strategy to deal with it. That seems to me to be the wrong way round. I believe that the planning strategy should have come before this Bill, although others may not agree.

655
The cumulative impact will bother many noble Lords during the progress of this Bill. The Government will say that market forces will deal with it. But the trouble will start to appear long before market forces have kicked in to knock out establishments that are not profitable. I see the noble Baroness nodding in agreement. I am gratified to know that I am getting some agreement on what I thought was a rather puritanical speech.
At this juncture, having already driven some people from the Chamber, perhaps I may repeat one or two facts and statistics which are relevant as a background to this legislation. They were provided by Alcohol Concern, in a briefing document headed:
"The State of the Nation. Britain's True Alcohol Bill".
It tells us that a recent survey indicates that over 25 per cent of adults aged between 16 and 74 years of age,
"are hazardous drinkers with the highest proportion (42%) of these being aged 16 to 24 years. This means that in the last year 1 in 4 people will have experienced loss of memory after a night's drinking, injured themselves or another, or failed to do what was expected of them, such as turning up for work the morning after. … 1 person in 13 is dependent on alcohol in Britain—twice as many as are hooked on all forms of drugs, including prescription drugs"—
which may not be generally known but will be well known to your Lordships.
I return finally to what Alcohol Concern has to say about families:
"An estimated 920,000 children are living in a home where one or both parents misuse alcohol…Between 60% and 70% of men who assault their partners [or wives] do so under the influence of alcohol".
So far as concerns young people:
"A comparative European study of drinking among 15–16 year olds showed that UK figures for alcohol consumption were some of the highest in Europe with 16% having drunk at least 10 times in the previous month"—
and so the report continues.
Behind the Bill lie many problems regarding alcohol. I believe—although some of my colleagues would disagree—that the local authorities will be better placed to deal with the matter provided that they are able, at the end of the our parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and having amended it if necessary, to have the facilities and resources at their disposal to be able to take all these matters into consideration. I am optimistic that that will happen, but I believe that there will be some hiccups. This is a very detailed piece of legislation, although the propositions behind it are simple. The Explanatory Notes run to 79 pages—which is unprecedented in my experience. Clause 177 relates to the guidance that that Government are to issue for use by local authorities in carrying out the Bill's provisions. This is a difficult matter because the guidance precludes a great deal of input by local authorities. So in some ways the Bill is a centralising measure rather than one giving power to the regions. I dare say that noble Lords will take up that point.
656
That said, we welcome the Bill and hope to work together to improve it.

Fire Dispute
4.16 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement on the Fire Service dispute.
"Mr Speaker, as you know, I was available to give a Statement to the House yesterday in line with my undertaking to keep the House informed on the fire dispute. In the event, the Prime Minister made a Statement in response to an urgent Question from the Leader of the Opposition, so I will not repeat what he said.
"The Government have always made clear that they want a modern, efficient and effective Fire Service. We want: a fair deal for fire-fighters; a fair deal for other public service employees; and a fair deal for the public they serve.
"I am sure the House will want to join me in thanking the Armed Forces, the police and other emergency services for the thoroughly professional job they have done so far. Anyone looking at the pictures in some of our papers today of the Wren, Amy Stubbs, rescuing a young child, can see the professionalism and care they are applying to their role and I am sure the House would want me to thank them for it.
"Since Friday morning, the Armed Forces have attended over 5,000 incidents. Their remit is to give priority to category A life-threatening incidents. In fact, they are coping well and most of the calls they have attended have been the less dangerous category C calls. There has been no reported instance of property being left to burn.
"I also want to take this opportunity to thank the retained fire-fighters for the continuing work they have done and to acknowledge that striking firefighters have left their own picket lines to deal with some emergency incidents, as they did in the case of the rescue by Amy Stubbs.
"Finally, I am sure the whole House will join with me to thank the public for their extra vigilance. However, although hoax calls have fallen from 11 per cent on the first day of the dispute to 7 per cent yesterday, that is still 7 per cent too high.
"Following the breakdown of negotiations an Friday morning, I held a discussion with Sir Jeremy Beecham on the way forward. Sir Jeremy is the chairman of the Local Government Association but is not a member of the negotiating team. He agreed with me, and has made public, that the document that was negotiated between the employers and the employees on Thursday night and Friday morning

657
abandoned the essential link between pay and modernisation that has been the touchstone of the Government's approach to this dispute.
"I met Sir Jeremy again last night. He is working to put together a new group on the employers' side which will oversee the process of modernisation of the Fire Service, drawing on the work of the Bain review. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government will be meeting the employers tomorrow to discuss this further. Officials from my department met the employers yesterday and are meeting officials again today to work on the costs and benefits of the modernisation proposals. We will continue to work with the employers in order to help them to come to a clear view about the process of modernisation and the costs of any pay deal for the fire-fighters.
"There has been a great deal of speculation about how this fire strike will be brought to an end. It is very important to bear certain absolutely clear principles in mind.
"First, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, this Government cannot be asked to find additional money outside agreed government spending limits. To do so would risk fundamental and lasting damage to the economy. An inflationary pay rise for the fire-fighters would lead to inflationary pay rises elsewhere in the public sector, and that in turn would lead to job losses, inflation and mortgage rises. That, I think, is coin non ground between the Government and honourable Members opposite.
"Secondly, any pay rise in addition to the 4 per cent already on the table has to be paid for by modernisation. That has been the clear message I have given in every meeting I have held with the employers and the FBU since the early summer. It is the same message that has been repeated by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other members of the Government ever since this dispute started. It is the reason why the Government set up the independent Bain review immediately after negotiations between the Fire Brigades Union and employers broke down in early September. And it is the reason why we asked Sir George Bain to bring forward his position paper, which was published on 11th November.
"Following the Prime Minister's press conference and Commons Statement yesterday, there was some real debate in the papers this morning about the issues involved. The Fire Brigades Union found itself having to justify its opposition to the kind of change that other public services have faced up to and are indeed carried out by some individual fire brigades. The Fire Brigades Union even claimed that it was willing to discuss modernisation all along, which, of course, begs the question: why did it boycott the independent Bain review in the first place'?
"So the debate on modernisation is properly under way, and to help that debate I have today placed a copy of a principles paper submitted by the
658
Government to the Bain review in the Library of the House. The Government's evidence sets out a clear vision for the future of the Fire Service and the principles which we believe should form the foundations for modernisation.
"The Fire Service is a front-line service whose effective functioning is essential to the quality of life in this country. The Government's evidence says the Fire Service is well regarded by the public and is effective in many aspects of its performance. But it is also a service that is in need of change and reform; a service which can make much better use of its existing resources; a service which has to consider new ways of working; a service which needs to forge better partnerships; and a service which needs to attract a more diverse workforce that better reflects the community it serves.
"The Government's principles paper sets out our general approach to public sector pay. It sets out our determination to maintain economic stability and meet our 2½ per cent inflation target. It emphasises the need to avoid unnecessarily high pay increases which divert money intended to improve public services. And it stresses the need to link pay to performance and reform rather than tenure and time served.
"The Government's evidence also sets out the five main drivers for change in the Fire Service. Those drivers are: first, our better understanding of the management of risk and the importance of prevention; secondly, the need to reduce the number of fires that occur and the deaths, injuries, and economic and social costs that they cause; thirdly, the Fire Service's contribution to community safety and action on social exclusion; fourthly, the importance of partnership in delivering best value; and, lastly, the broadening range of the Fire Service's work in response to emergencies other than fire including the new threats posed by terrorism.
"The position paper published by the Bain review on 11th November set out the considerations on pay and conditions that were needed to deliver this vision of a modernised Fire Service. His final, fuller report will be published in three weeks. The position paper set out a vision for a single, more broadly based and modernised service with multiple roles offering a wider range of services and expertise. It proposed a reward structure in which individuals would be valued for the contribution they made. It encouraged a more diverse workforce with a wider range of career paths, responsibilities and skills and made clear that pay and modernisation had to go hand in hand and be consistent with the Government's public sector pay policy.
"The position paper recommended an increase in the pay bill of up to 11 per cent over two years subject to necessary and long overdue modernisation. As I said to the House on 14th November, the Government remain convinced that the Bain review is the key to resolving this dispute and providing the basis for a modern Fire

659
Service equipped to deal with modern demands. Let me be clear: that remains the Government's position, as I have said in every Statement to the House and every discussion with the employers and the Fire Brigades Union.
"And, also to be clear, Sir George Bain is proposing a menu of modernisation that is familiar to public sector workers in every other walk of life. What he means by modernisation specifically with regard to working conditions is: full-time firefighters and part-time fire-fighters manning the same engine together; shift patterns to better match the daily ebb and flow in the number of fires that occur; overtime where it is sensible and necessary; training fire-fighters to carry out some essential lifesaving paramedic functions which could save hundreds of lives; and joint control rooms, where the Fire Service and other emergency services can work together.
"Bain also set out a route map for achieving this vision. He proposed a four-strand approach to negotiations under which discussions would begin on the whole package of reforms at the same time but would be completed under different time-scales. The first strand would be completed in four to eight weeks. The second strand would be completed in about six months, and the third strand would take about a year to complete. Under that model there was a direct connection between staged payments linked to implemented modernisation. In exchange for that, Sir George recommended that fire-fighters should receive a 4 per cent pay rise immediately and a 7 per cent pay rise next November, each rise linked to the implementation of modernisation. There would also be a fourth strand, which would depend on action to be taken forward in partnership with local and central government and which would take longer. Sir George also said that the question of a longer-term up-rating mechanism should be dependent on the implementation of the reform package and that he would return to this in his final report.
"As in any industrial pay dispute, there are lots of variables which can be combined in different ways in order to achieve a final agreement. Bain talks about 11 per cent. The general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union has again confirmed today that its claim is for 40 per cent. The way forward is for the employers and the union to sit down and discuss how quickly the service can be modernised, how much can be saved, and when the fire-fighters will get their extra pay. What is abundantly clear, however, is that this strike will have no influence on that process. The Government are not willing to abandon the clear principles I have set out in the face of industrial action.
"I believe this dispute will be settled only by sitting down at the table to reach agreement. We have to lift our eyes above the bile and recriminations of the current dispute and focus on the long-term future of the Fire Service. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to introduce
660
radical change in order to provide a modern Fire Service for the 21st century. It is in the interests of everyone—the public, the employers, the Government and the fire-fighters themselves—to achieve that vision.
"The Bain review has proposed the way forward. That is the basis for discussion. These issues of modernisation have to be addressed. So we will continue to seek to bring the employers and the union together to engage properly on the issues of pay and modernisation. The two have to go hand in hand. And the sooner the Fire Brigades Union faces up to that, the sooner the two sides can get into meaningful negotiations that can bring this dispute to an end.
"I once again urge the fire-fighters to get back to talking and stop walking".
That concludes the Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this very long and comprehensive Statement. I also thank him for providing me with Reforming our Public Services, a paper that has been laid in the Library, and on which some of the evidence that the Government gave to the Bain inquiry was based.
The Statement has rehearsed, quite properly, the entire position of the Government and has drawn attention to the interim Bain report. I remember that many weeks ago we were all asking for Bain to report more imminently—clearly, that was done. It will ultimately play a valuable role in the resolution of the problem. As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, and as I have said before, it is our utter, entire belief that the Fire Brigades Union is whistling in the wind over the 40 per cent pay claim. It is not going to get anywhere near 40 per cent. A nought off that figure would be nearer. The sooner reality enters the situation and enters the union's hearts, the better for the union and, more specifically, for its members, many of whom, I feel, will by now be beginning to wish that they were back at work. I hope that is the situation.
It would perhaps be unkind to suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister's thunder was slightly stolen by the events of yesterday, when the Prime Minister tried to bypass Parliament and had to be called to order by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in that House. I know that he was always going to make this Statement today and I am grateful for the fact that that has now been brought forward.
However, despite the Statement there are still some unanswered questions about the past few days. Despite the clarification that the Deputy Prime Minister has given of the events of Thursday night and the fact that he has now strong-armed Sir Jeremy Beecham into agreeing with him, it is clear from all the statements that have been made over the past few days that something very strange happened in the early hours of last Thursday night. Will the Minister try to

661
provide some clarity on that situation? It is obvious that there was a deal that was, if not scuppered, at least refused and rejected by the Government. I know that in his press conference yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Deputy Prime Minister could not agree to an uncosted bill. I do not think that anybody would disagree with that. But how was it that the employers' negotiating team felt confident enough to put forward such a deal without having some idea of the costs, including the transitional costs, and their acceptability to the Government?
We believe that the deal had been costed by a member of the Deputy Prime Minister's department and that it amounted to £240 million. If that information was available, why was it not made clear to the negotiating team that there was no possibility that this would be acceptable? If no costing was done, is it therefore a fact that there was no one representing the Government sitting alongside the negotiating team? If there was not at that juncture, why was there not?
In view of the directive approach the Government have adopted, it seems surprising that there was not at least a senior member of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, if not a Minister, immediately available to assess the implications of what was being put forward and to give guidance on its acceptability. Such advice could have prevented the debacle that followed, which has ended up in the current stand-off.
In light of the changes to the employers' negotiating arrangements, can the Minister tell us who is now in charge of the negotiations? Is it the Government or the employers? If it is the employers, does that mean that it is the team who were carrying out the negotiation, or is there a new team being set up by Sir Jeremy Beecham? It was not clear from the Statement whether the team set up by Sir Jeremy Beecham is to take forward the modernisation or whether it is to deal with the negotiations when they start again.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that there would be no advance on 4 per cent without a compensatory release of resources from modernisation, who is now making the decisions on what those would be? Are the Government waiting for the final Bain report or can the negotiations—if they can be restarted—proceed on the basis of what has already been produced, bearing in mind the fiascos that have taken place since the Bain publication? Do the Government accept that modernisation, however desirable, can take place only against a background of a reduction in the number of fire-fighters to enable the release of resources? Is it the Government's view that that would involve the loss of fire stations as well as fire-fighters?
In addition to the problems being faced over this major and grievous dispute, we now have the prospect of more public sector workers jumping on the bandwagon. Today our children cannot go to school in many areas because of action by teachers. Strike action is being balloted on London Underground on the basis of health and safety. It looks like secondary activity to me. London airports are also under threat,
662
although those involved have said that they are not going on strike at the moment. Never mind a winter of discontent; we seem to have a late autumn and Christmas of discontent.
When we last discussed this matter, I asked the Minister whether the Government were considering using the law at their disposal to prevent further action. The Minister replied that everything was being considered. Will he say now whether, as I asked before, Section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 should be invoked?
In the City yesterday I watched while a Green Goddess thundered past to an emergency, being cheered on by people standing by. My thoughts turned then, as ours all will today, to the members of the Armed Forces who are now in the front line of firefighting. We are fortunate that we have services to which we can turn in times of such trouble. This is no exception. I join the Minister in passing our thanks and admiration to the soldiers and to the part-time fire-fighters who are still working. All I can say is that I do not think anyone can expect all of them to carry on in this way for much longer. I hope some common sense enters into the situation before too much longer.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the 'Government have today reiterated their concern for the knock-on effect on the whole economy of this substantial claim. Before I turn to the fire-fighters, I shall repeat a point made by my noble friend Lady Williams yesterday about the dangers to the whole economy if our key workers—I use that term in the broad sense of those who keep our society operating—are priced out of our capital city and the south-east of our country. I do not regard the action of teachers and others in the education service today as jumping on the bandwagon that the: firefighters have started to roll. They have a real concern. Whatever view one takes about how they express that, we should bear it in mind and measure the issues that the Government are bringing forward about the effect on the economy against the problems for the economy if our key workers are not paid at a level that enables them to survive and practise their profession.
Perhaps the most startling line in the Statement today was that the FBU has reiterated its claim for 40 per cent. I had not heard that. Can the Minister confirm that that was requested with no caveats and no movement towards modernisation? It seems a substantial backward step from the union.
I have said before that we need to look for modernisation on both sides, recognising the role of a 21st century fire service. I hope that the Minister can leaven or balance the Statement that has been repeated with some comments about the costs of modernisation that will not be met from productivity. For example, a first responder or co-responder scheme is being discussed, involving fire-fighters being trained to use defibrillators and so on. I understand that the chief fire officer in Cleveland has extrapolated from figures in his area that if that extended health training were available, up to about 9,000 lives a year might be

663
saved. One could say that that was investing to save, but without the immediate cash saving. However, it should not be taken out of the equation simply because it does not result in direct productivity savings in the way the Government are talking about.
Another example comes from the Government's submission to the Bain inquiry, which I thank the Minister for providing, along with the Statement. It refers to the low proportion of smoke alarms found in the Bangladeshi community. That may appear to be a small aspect of fire prevention but it is significant as regards the need for modernisation and fire prevention work that will not provide an immediate cash saving to be high on the agenda. However, it would provide enormous savings for our communities.
Bain mentions what he calls the "pay bill". I put those words in quotation marks as that is the term that he used. He appears to recognise that not all modernisation will achieve cost savings. I am unclear what is meant by the pay bill in that connection. I hope that the Minister can clarify that. He mentions figures of 4 per cent and 7 per cent. Does he mean a net figure or the gross increase in fire-fighters' salaries? What is meant in that connection? How do the Government regard the transitional costs that will have to be met before the cost savings that modernisation can confer are achieved because, clearly, it will take some time for them to come into effect?
On the theme of modernisation, I welcome the Government's recognition of the role of the Fire Service. However, it is not recognised in statute. If the Minister cannot respond to the matter today, will he at least report back to his colleagues the strong feeling of many people that parliamentary time should now be allocated to discussing the recognition in statute of the role of fire-fighters in dealing with flooding, cutting people out of vehicles after accidents and, as I have said, in fire prevention?
I believe that the Government have discussed preventing local authorities adding the cost of settling the dispute to the council tax. Those of us with experience of local government have unhappy recollections of capping powers. They have not disappeared entirely. The Government still have reserve powers. I hope that the Minister will confirm that capping powers will not be exercised. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I have difficulty in understanding quite what the role of the Government is in the tripartite negotiation, or perhaps it is a negotiation between two parties with someone with a strong arm behind them. Unless the Government pick up the tab, what role do they have in intervening so directly in the dispute?
Finally, I turn to an issue that was raised by a number of noble Lords last week. Can the Government give us some news in regard to access to equipment such as fire appliances in training establishments that are kept as back-up?
4.43 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their comments.
I cannot go into all the details of what occurred last Thursday evening. I was prepared to repeat in this House the Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place at 6.50 p.m. last Thursday evening. However, it was decided that that was not required. I was probably more up-to-date on the situation last Thursday evening than I am today due to other ministerial duties that I have performed today. I assure the noble Baronesses that nothing that emerged from the employers or the negotiation during the course of the afternoon and evening prior to the Statement being made last Thursday revealed anything about costings. It is extremely surprising that so-called professional negotiators and a so-called professional organisation, the Local Government Association, had no figures to give the Deputy Prime Minister at that point.
The Statement indicated that negotiations were continuing and that the strike had not been called off. The situation is slightly different now as the strike has proceeded. Whatever emerged from the negotiations in the early hours of Friday morning it was still the case that no one had produced any costings. At six or seven o'clock in the morning my right honourable friend was invited to sign a blank cheque. He was chastised for saying that he needed a few more hours to consider the matter further. We shall not be rolled over in terms of public expenditure. It is as simple as that. It has been made abundantly clear by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no division here. Throughout the summer it was made clear that a pay settlement above 4 per cent would have to be paid for by modernisation.
The Government do not employ the fire-lighters and we have no seat at the negotiating table. It is an incredibly large negotiating table but that is the way the negotiations have been conducted. I do not know whether that is the most sensible way to conduct negotiations. I do not even comment on it. However, it has not achieved a very good result. The Government do not have anyone sitting at that table. Everyone knew what the Government's position was. We published our public expenditure spending round in the summer. In July the Chancellor made clear that the purpose of the extra money was not to fund wage inflation in the public sector but to improve public services. There cannot be any doubt about the matter.
The employers are charged with the responsibility of finding the relevant resources. I refer to what was said to the Fire Brigades Union in September, October and the early part of November. It was asked to wait until the full Bain report was issued. We have always said that that would be in December. If the Fire Brigades Union does not like the full report, it has a mandate. It was even told by the employers that they would be prepared to extend the strike mandate and that there would be no argument about the law. The fact that the union has not given evidence to the Bain review, and shows no sign even now of wanting to do so, causes a

665
problem. Whatever the union may say, there has been a flat refusal to discuss the details of the preliminary review. The full review will be published in three weeks' time. I and my right honourable friend appeal to the union to call off the strike and to give evidence to the Bain review so that it constitutes a full report. It does not have to accept what Sir George Bain and his colleagues say and can reach its own judgment. However, there is no excuse for being on strike in advance of the full Bain review being issued.
As regards a bandwagon, I have not heard a single trades union official give a categorical, legally binding assurance that his members will not press for parity with any settlement that may be reached in the fire dispute. No trades union leader with any sense would say that. Therefore, one has to take with a large pinch of salt some of the statements that have been made.
The legal issues are a matter for the Attorney-General. The Deputy Prime Minister has given him his views on that matter. I welcome the support of both noble Baronesses for the role of the Armed Forces. I cannot give any details of the costs of modernisation. We want those who run the fire-fighting service to work out the costs of modernisation.
As regards key workers, I accept the point that was made yesterday. The Government have a major programme—we shall comment further on it in January—to provide housing for key workers. Key workers in short supply comprise teachers and nurses but not fire-fighters. There are still 40 applicants for every job in the Fire Service. One cannot simply equate one group with other groups. We must be realistic about market forces. If we cannot recruit enough nurses to work in our hospitals, we take special action. Nurses do not withdraw their labour. Given the situation, we must consider providing accommodation for them. That cannot possibly automatically read across to the Fire Service where there are 40 applicants for every job.
As regards access to equipment, over 100 Red Goddesses have been made available to the military. If they want more, we shall obtain them. As we have repeatedly said, there will never be 400 available at any one time as they are used to replace appliances that have a puncture, have broken down or need to be serviced as, obviously, they need regular servicing. Therefore, some of them will not be available. We have made over 100 available. Anyone who has watched the television news, as I have tried to today in order to find out what is happening, will have seen Red goddesses as well as Green Goddesses on the streets. The retained fire service, the fire-fighters who are leaving their picket lines and the military personnel are doing a fantastic job.
I repeat what was said in the Statement. We say "thank you" to the public. It is quite clear that they are taking extra precautions. We hope that they will continue to do so after the dispute, because it is important that we should protect ourselves from fire.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, as the Minister has just said, one of the weaknesses of the Government's position is not knowing the cost of modernisation. Presumably, a great many will be made redundant. Generally speaking, the sooner they are made redundant, the sooner matters will settle down. The cost of making people redundant, however regrettable, is generally cheaper when done earlier rather than later. It is equally clear that extra costs in the form of increased pensions to be brought forward and redundancy pay have to be borne in the early stages of those redundancies.
It would not be unreasonable of the Government over a three-year period, if that is the period that we are considering, to allow the management side extra money to bear the initial cost of those redundancies, which should be known, provided that over the three-year period the total did not exceed the cost to the industry as a whole. That would enable a much quicker start to be made on resolving what inevitably will be a very unhappy time for the fire-fighters.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Prior. However, I should make it absolutely clear that I have not seen written down, nor heard uttered in the department in any way, shape or form, the word that he has used several times during his question. I suspect that the "R" word will not appear in George Bain's final report in December, because we have no plans to implement such redundancies. The concept is, therefore, purely hypothetical. We should await Sir George Bain's full report. It will not be as full as it would have been had the Fire Brigades Union had the courage to give evidence to the review.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister is aware that, basically, I support the Government's central position. However, I have not known whether to laugh or cry at the way in which they handled this issue over the past weekend. Neither he nor the Deputy Prime Minister is the first Minister in British government to have had to cope with the difficulties of a local government negotiating organisation faced with the Government having a clear interest in the outcome and a vital need for the Government and the local government negotiators to have the closest possible contact.
Rather than hark back, I suggest that two messages should go out to the Fire Brigades Union from this House today: first, that this House believes they are entitled to negotiate with local government negotiators who are properly empowered and properly working with the Government on reaching a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations; secondly, that, as the Minister said, it is quite clear that change and reform is long overdue in this industry, which at the present time gives every indication of being run by its union in a very real and significant way; and, thirdly, that the core, as the Minister has said, is the full, not the interim, Bain report. There will be no

667
smash and grab—40 per cent without any concessions. The Government have now made that abundantly clear.
The question, therefore, is whether there is to be sensible negotiation on the full Bain report, which involved complicated concessions by the unions. Are their members to be kept out on strike, losing pay, during the whole of that period, and is it not also in their interests to get back to work? The longer this strike goes on and the more it is shown that the Armed Forces and the retained firemen can do as well as they have done so far, the more singularly unhelpful it will be to the Fire Brigades Union's case for a huge increase in pay with no concessions whatever. There should therefore be a return to work with a view to agreement being reached by both parties, based on genuine and proper negotiations, on consideration of the full Bain report.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I suspect that the Fire Brigades Union leadership will take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord King, when they see the success of public co-operation, the effects of the part-time retained fire service and, of course, the effects of the military and the Green Goddesses. The more they do, the better they will become, and questions will be asked about that.
The noble Lord, Lord King, is quite right about messages being sent out. However, I have to say that no good will come of the employers and the unions reaching a deal by negotiation and then, as they did last Thursday evening/early Friday morning, putting in a paragraph at the end of the document saying—I paraphrase—"We do not know how much, but we need some more money from the Government". That would be very unprofessional and would not lead to a settlement.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Statements made and to the debate that has taken place in the Chamber, and this is the first occasion on which I have intervened. I am sure that we would all agree that this strike becomes sadder by the day. It is not a happy situation for anyone, including, as the noble Lord opposite said, the Fire Brigades Union's members and their families, particularly with Christmas approaching.
I do not want to discuss the negotiations. I understand that the Government do not have a seat on the negotiations between employers and employees. I also know that a number of different statements were made, or not made, last Thursday night. I believe that in some ways the Government are being hammered, but not through their own fault, and I believe that the employers have a lot to answer for in respect of the discussions that took place last Thursday. If it is known that no money is available to pay for it—in my view, the employers knew that before they entered into the negotiations—then a deal should not be agreed.
I note that a new group will now be established on the employers' side. We always hope against hope when new groups are established. However, there is
668
one organisation that has not been mentioned throughout the duration of this strike—the arbitration service ACAS, which was established to deal with situations of this kind. I have not heard of that very valuable service being involved. Can my noble friend tell the House whether or not there has been any involvement of that body at any time? It seems to me that its expertise is needed.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer my noble friend's question concerning ACAS. Within a couple of days of the breakdown of negotiations, the Bain committee was formed to conduct an independent review—the kind of review that ACAS would normally have undertaken—because we wanted to get to the bottom of the issue, consider the way forward and consider a new formula. Although two years ago Mr Gilchrist was saying that it was the best formula they had ever had, it was accepted that it had existed for 25 years; so this matter had come quite quickly to his mind. The fact is that it is agreed that the formula is outdated, and part of the remit of the Bain review remit was to consider that.
Having once been a pupil of his in the days when I was at the feet of Alan Flanders and Hugh Clegg at Warwick, I have to say that George Bain is a one-man ACAS and has a good track record; but that is not a criticism of ACAS. I should also tell my noble friend that many things have been said and not said about last Thursday. It just so happens that I know how moderate the Government's response has been to what was said about last Thursday. We would only make the situation worse by simply repeating our views. That is not our intention. Because we want a resolution of this dispute, we shall have to take a little flack. At the end of the day there will have to be a solution, but it will not be in the terms of the 40 per cent increase sought.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether a different solution can be achieved to resolve the strike in Scotland or whether the United Kingdom Government are in fact negotiating in respect of the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not quite certain whether that is a devolved or reserved matter. Fire-fighters would appear to involve a devolved matter; the Armed Forces clearly do not.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that. The matter is devolved but pay is not.
5 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and most of us will probably warmly appreciate the robust way in which he put the Government's position. However, I am left with a question, which is related to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Prior. I believe that the Minister said that anything above 4 per cent has to be met out of modernisation. I am not clear about what happens during the interval before modernisation produces savings; nor am I clear about

669
whether there is any room for funding to be produced in some way to bridge the gap. That point is repeatedly raised by union representatives and commentators. It was striking that the Statement was very unclear about the position. Can he clarify in any way how one gets from A to B?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I cannot. I have not been involved at ministerial level in the day-to-day negotiations but I have heard comments by people who are obviously leading on the Government and employers. I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of doing that. That approach is very seductive because it involves a common-sense question. In fact, in the absence of any menu of the costs of modernisation and of any agreement from one of the parties to discuss any real modernisation, posing the question begs many questions if one starts to discuss transitional arrangements. It is clear that at the end of the day there will have to be transitional arrangements to get from A to B. Suppose that one starts discussing that; before one knows it, others will claim, "Ah! You have conceded that and we will therefore negotiate from that position". In other words, one has already lost part of what one wanted to negotiate. We were not born yesterday and we shall not fall into that trap.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like many colleagues in the House, I take a deep interest in these issues and listen to what Ministers say here and in the other place. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will convey to his ministerial colleagues our gratitude for their patience and control in not going down the route of producing inflammatory rhetoric at this time. Those of us who have been around a while in both Houses, who have served in local government and who have other interests are well aware of the enormity of what is at stake for the economy, the trade union movement and the peace and welfare of the people of this country. I believe that the Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, which was repeated by my good friend the Minister, goes a long way towards answering many of the questions, but not all of them; we will not know all of them until later. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will stick to their last. This is undoubtedly a battle—perhaps of wills, perhaps of common sense and perhaps of endurance. My advice to the Minister is, "Keep at it".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. However, we do not regard this as a battle. We genuinely want a solution. We have enormous respect for the Fire Service but the fact is that the dispute must be settled around the negotiating table. It would be much better settled without a strike. There is money on the table and more money is on offer. It is much better to talk about that rather than to lose money by going on strike.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I rise to speak in this Second Reading debate about two issues. However, before I do so, I would like to declare an interest as a consultant to the Co-operative Group. In fact, I do not intend to address my remarks to the implications of the Bill for retailers; I will leave that job to my noble friend Lord Graham, who is much more knowledgeable and able.
The Government deserve to be congratulated on the introduction of this comprehensive Bill, and the proposal to provide a coherent and simplified code for licensing. I agree with the noble Viscount, however, that the notes are indeed weighty, but they are also easy to follow and written in plain English—more so than usual.
In July 2000, I had the pleasure of and responsibility for piloting a Bill through your Lordships' House. That was probably the last time on which the Licensing Act 1964 was amended. It was the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill and it sought to close an important loophole in the 1964 Act concerning young people's access to alcohol through purchasing it from off-licences.
The problem that my Bill sought to address was that prosecution of staff in off-licences who had sold alcohol to young people was denied to the authorities because those people, although employed by the off-licence chain, were not actually the licence holders; the staff in question were, in the somewhat antiquated language of the Act, the licence holder's "servants". The licence holder could be a regional manager 10 miles down the road and the law could not be applied to the staff in his shops.
With support in both Houses and the Government's assistance, we prevailed. I would like to be assured by the Minister that the newly fashioned and streamlined Bill will also address that issue. I suspect that it does so because the Government have made it very clear that the principle that lies behind and at the heart of the Bill is the protection of the young. The details contained in Clauses 143 to 150 strengthen the duty on the sellers of alcohol to be sure that they are not selling to under-age young people. That is to be welcomed.
I wish to address the second area from the perspective of a Londoner. I have a special interest in the way in which the Bill will "play" in London, having lived in Soho and Fitzrovia and now I live in Camden. How will the Bill affect inner London boroughs and their residents?
I welcome the proposal to transfer responsibility for licensing to local authorities because I believe that that fits extremely well with a range of responsibilities that boroughs have, from dealing with crime and disorder issues to their responsibilities for dealing with nuisance, public safety, regeneration and the environment.

671
There is great merit in seeking to update the existing laws that have now become outdated and bureaucratic. However, a number of issues have been identified that have particular implications for London councils, which will play a vital role as the licensing authorities in our city. That is an important issue in terms of the general context of the Bill because more than 20 per cent of all licensing decisions are currently made in London. I am sure that we will all be keen to ensure that working practices can operate as effectively as possible under the new proposals. I would like to see the following issues addressed to ensure a workable and enforceable regime.
Clause 4 of the Bill states that local authorities should consider the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm as part of their general licensing objectives. Neither the Bill itself nor the framework for guidance issued by the Secretary of State makes it clear, in developing a licensing policy, whether the explicit wider facilities should be taken into account in influencing the granting of a licence or the conditions of a licence. Due to the mix of residential and commercial properties in many London areas, residents' concerns must be a key consideration in decision-making. Anti-social problems caused by people leaving premises with late licences affect residents over a wide area.
I hope that my noble friend will address the question about whether local authorities should be able to consider the impact in the "surrounding area" and not just the immediate vicinity, and confirm that "cumulative nuisance" problems can be considered. Local authorities must be allowed to take into account local circumstances and look at the impact of granting a licence on the wider community. Boroughs must have the right to consider the cumulative impact of premises on residents in mixed commercial and residential areas, particularly where extended licensing hours are sought.
Cumulative nuisance can be measured in a number of ways; for example, with crime statistics, noise complaints, litter incidents or admissions to accident and emergency departments. I had not considered the example of nudity, which was mentioned by the noble Viscount; I was wondering possibly whether he should tell me where he lives!
Secondly, I would like to raise the issue of financing the new system. It is correct that the new system should be self-financing and cover issuing and enforcement costs. It is likely that fees will cover the costs of processing applications, enforcement and some inspections. However, at present the fee will be set centrally by government. No formula, review period or premium for London has been agreed as yet. I believe that there is some merit in the view that fees should be set locally to cover the costs of policy development, pre-application discussions, processing applications, adequate consultation, mediation, inspections and enforcement. Such costs should be met
672
by the licence applicants rather than by the whole community, possibly on the principle that the polluter pays.
If the process for calculating fees is to be decided by the DCMS, then I believe that it must be transparent and open to scrutiny. However, it is possible that an alternative fee regime should operate in London which fully reflects the city's special circumstances, including high living costs, the high density of entertainment establishments and high wage costs. I am sure that the Minister recognises that the granting and supervision of licences in Leicester Square or Covent Garden are not likely to be of the same order of magnitude or. indeed, to have the same costs as a system which operates in, say, Shipley, near where I come from in Yorkshire, or, for example, Swaffham in Norfolk.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of the transition period. It has been mooted that there will be only a one-year transition period for the new issuing process during which existing licences will be transferred to the new system. It is estimated that for many authorities the number of premises to be regulated will increase 10-fold. The existing regime will have to run in parallel during the transition period.
It is possible that one year will not be long enough. Such a period assumes that applications will be made properly and that local authorities will have enough trained staff and members available to process them. It is possible that we shall need to consider a minimum of two years as the period required for local authorities to prepare for the additional administrative responsibilities. It would be a shame if the new system were overwhelmed and could not operate in a satisfactory manner from the start. However, in conclusion, I am convinced that those are all soluble issues. I welcome the Bill and look forward to working on it during its passage through your Lordships' House.
5.12 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, my interest in the Bill stems from my place of birth—Blackpool—and an upbringing which accompanied giving people fun and entertainment in their leisure time as that was the staple industry of the area. That interest continued in that, in both another place and here, I have continually supported what I referred to in the debate on the gracious Speech as the move away, over recent decades and under successive governments, from legislation which was morally prescriptive on how people spent their leisure money and leisure time to legislation which, in the main, left those decisions to the individual.
Therefore, I say from the start that both I and my party welcome this legislation. Indeed, our party statement on the issue says:
"The liberalisation of our licensing laws is long overdue. The liquor licensing laws and the public entertainment laws are hopelessly out of date and too bureaucratic".
That is certainly our starting point. But, as noble Lords will have seen from the List of Speakers, one in three of those taking part in the debate will come from

673
these Benches. I believe that that reflects the broad span of expertise and experience on these matters that is to be found on these Benches. That will be demonstrated as the debate unfolds.
Now that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is back in her place, perhaps I may say that, when she delivered her speech, I was a little worried that she had been testing 24-hour licensing herself. However, I am assured that that is not the case. I hope that her throat bug will soon clear up.
The other interest on these Benches may come from the fact that our draconian licensing laws were introduced by a Liberal-led government in 1915. It is interesting to note—I carried out a double-check on this point—that, in his English History, AJP Taylor stated that the bringing in of these draconian laws due to failures of munitions supply was probably a cover-up for bad management and bad planning by the government of the day. Although munitions supply improved after the legislation was brought in, it is AJP's opinion that the introduction of factory canteens, which came in at about the same time, probably had a greater impact than the legislation.
I want to flag up that in a piece of legislation such as this—in the view of many people the time has come to modernise and update the existing legislation—the Committee stage of the Bill will be particularly important. We are entering unknown territory in its likely outcome and its likely impact deserves careful consideration.
Today, for example, I returned from the CBI. I was impressed by the literature that the Government are promoting there about employers educating their workforce on alcohol and alcohol consumption and on the dangers to health, work performance and productivity. We know that part of the gracious Speech dealt with anti-social behaviour. In liberalising these laws, the Government seem to be going in two directions at once at a time when in other guises, such as health, education and policing, they are concerned about alcohol consumption by schoolchildren and the impact of such consumption on the workplace and in relation to anti-social behaviour. I believe we must ensure that there is genuine joined-up government in the measures in the Bill.
I know that Ministers place great emphasis on the fact that longer licensing hours will reduce binge drinking. So they may, but I am not so sure that I am as confident as was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he replied to our section of the debate on the gracious Speech. I am not sure that simply changing the hours will alter what is a peculiarly English attitude to alcohol consumption—that is, consumed in large quantities, standing up, with the objective of getting drunk. That is a very different cultural attitude from that of the cafe society of the Continent, where long drinking hours are often cited as not causing bad behaviour.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, in looking at the impact of drinking hours, we must give proper and thorough consideration to examples such as the Isle of Man. I also understand that places
674
that have had a long tradition of open-all-hours drinking, such as Amsterdam and Dublin, are now becoming worried about the impact of the stag-party culture on the normal life of those cities. I gather that they are looking for measures to control the situation. Therefore, as I said, in Committee we must consider these social concerns carefully and see whether the measures that the Government propose in the Bill and in other legislation deal with the problems that could be created.
I turn to one or two other points. Many assurances are given in the Bill about the community benefits and about consultation with local communities. The Open All Hours? group, which represents communities, is extremely doubtful whether the protections in the Bill are sufficient. It believes that the Bill is tilted against local communities. I shall keep back its brief until the Committee stage. However, I think that we must look at these protections for local communities and see whether they match the concerns that are being expressed.
I have two small but important points with which to finish. As to intellectual property, complaints have been made to me by the campaign against copyright theft that many clubs use pirated cards in order to gain access to televisions to show football matches and other programmes; that many clubs use music, DVDs and others that are sold for private use for general entertainment. Stealing of intellectual property is not covered in the Bill as one of the conditions of bad behaviour that could be used as a sanction against clubs. Again, that is something that I shall with an amendment—
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will reconsider what he has just said. Is he aware, for instance, that all registered non-profit making members' clubs—in other words working men's clubs—are affiliated to the Performing Right Society Limited and pay due dues to that society. Unless he is referring to some other form of club, it does not affect working men's clubs.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am sure that we can be briefed on that issue. I know of the noble Lord's long association with the affiliated clubs. This must be something of a record: I am about to defend Sky Television. I understand that at the moment Sky Television has some 150 prosecutions out against clubs for using pirated cards, with some 200 others pending and about 1,500 accusations. None of these may be affiliated clubs, or they may all be Conservative rather than Labour clubs—I do not know. All I say is that this is a matter that I shall want to tease out.
Last night I was asked by a lady whether the legislation covered the fact that certain clubs can discriminate against women members, and whether this would be a good opportunity to end that anomaly of discrimination. Again I leave that for future debate. We may table an amendment in Committee in order to clarify that. On the whole I think that we should approach the matter with caution. We have had briefing from the various entertainment and leisure

675
industries that there are tremendous gains in getting this right. But there are enough cautionary warning signs in various aspects of behaviour and in other legislation that the Government are bringing forward for us to ensure that the Committee stage of the Bill, particularly in this House, is thorough and teases out those doubts and concerns, and, where necessary, introduces improvements to cover those concerns. With those reservations I wish the Bill well in its progress.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, this is not particularly my subject and I have no interest to declare or indeed any axe to grind, but I have been moved to intervene in this debate by personal experience and by representations which I find persuasive. I hope very much to stay to the end of the debate, but, not having yet joined the late-night culture, my eating arrangements have been made for a more conventional hour.
I am not convinced that, in allowing pubs and clubs to stay open all night, the Bill strikes a proper balance between the rights of business to ply their trade free from unnecessary restrictions and the rights of residents to peaceful enjoyment of their homes, especially at night. The fact that the purposes of the businesses covered by the Bill mainly concern the sale of alcohol and the playing of loud music is bound to make this clash of rights more acute.
Having until recently owned a house just off Charlotte Street, I have personally experienced the maddening succession of nights heavily interrupted by the rhythmic beat of amplified music from a neighbouring club, powerless it seemed to me to do anything about it. Your Lordships will not need reminding that as people grow older their appetite for all-night clubbing diminishes in almost direct proportion as their desire for all-night sleep grows. I exempt the Liberal Democrats from this generalisation of course.
If one goes through the Bill one finds "residents" tacked on to the list of "interested parties", almost as an afterthought, with many stern warnings against "frivolous" and "vexatious" complaints.
I shall not say anything further about provisions for extending late-night refreshment and entertainment, which will be generally welcomed. I also welcome the transfer of responsibility for licensing from magistrates' courts to local authorities. I say only this: that although the object of transferring licensing control to local authorities is to increase local accountability, the discretion of LAs is so restricted that I believe that they are likely in practice to become little more than agents for transmitting the Secretary of State's wishes—called "guidance". Merely having the right to process applications according to a national policy will not increase local accountability.
The Bill, I fear, is another example of a government that are ostensibly committed to decentralisation but which are afraid to let go.
676
So what is the policy of the Secretary of State? The philosophy underlying the Bill is composed of two elements. The first is the belief that crime, disorder and general rowdiness associated with binge drinking, or what has been neatly termed the British culture of "mass volume vertical drinking", can be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced by abolishing artificially early closing times. That is the first assumption underlying the Bill.
The second object of policy is to promote a late night economy of live music, dancing and theatre for the wider cultural benefit of communities. The thinking then is: would it not be impious, in the light of this grand design, for a few residents to make trouble over their right to a good night's sleep? As the draft framework for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State so amiably puts it,
"businesses should not be unnecessarily disrupted and put to cost because of trivial and unnecessary matters".
which, translated, means: "I am sorry you are having problems, but you must appreciate the wider benefits to the community of these measures, and businesses should not be disrupted because of such a trivial matter as you being disturbed". It seems that that philosophy runs through the Bill. It is not explicit. It is not in any way put like that. But that is the impression one gets.
There are two types of noise most likely to concern residents living in the kind of culturally enriched environment envisaged by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport: first, from the licensed premises themselves—loud music, the noise of air conditioning and ventilation plant; and, secondly, from the outside—from people leaving the premises, cars revving up, cars honking and car sound systems. Not necessarily a huge explosion of noise at any single moment, but the kind of bursts of noise that stop one falling asleep, or, if one is asleep, wake one up. It will not be general. It will not happen all over the country, but in certain stress areas it is an important consideration. It is precisely in those areas that I think that variations of the general guidelines have to be allowed.
In principle, I have no objection to deregulation of hours. Of course a civilised country should have a late night culture and economy. The Government may even be right in their belief that abolishing closing hours will produce a more civilised drinking culture. That is bound to take time. Sleepless nights for 10 years might strike residents as a cost that they should not have to bear for improvements in our drinking culture.
The Bill also grossly underestimates the effect of that liberation on the infrastructure of areas in which there is likely to be a high demand for extended licences. We have experience of that in Westminster, Camden and Islington, to mention only some London boroughs. Westminster already has 583 late-night licences, 263 of which are in Soho and Covent Garden.
Some fascinating statistics—at least, I found them fascinating—are provided by Westminster City Council. For example, 10 new portable urinals have

677
been installed in Westminster for Fridays and Saturdays only. In just over a year, they have already collected 12,000 gallons of urine at a cost of £91,780 per year. I do not know how significant is that figure; I am not a judge of such matters; but obviously, there is a cost that must be met. It is estimated that the additional cost of street cleaning to cope with 24-hour opening will be in the region of £1.2 million a year. Extra noise abatement costs are estimated at £500,000 a year. and so on. So there are significant costs. How will they be financed—as has already been asked?
I end with two suggestions and three questions. The main improvement to the Bill would be to require local authorities to take into account the cumulative impact of existing licences in a defined area when considering applications for a new licence. That would deal with the problem of saturation—the over-concentration of pubs and nightclubs, especially the latter, in a locality—which cannot be dealt with merely by attaching conditions to a new licence application.
I say that despite the fact that Westminster, Camden and Islington councils have not previously been the most conspicuous examples of prudent licensing. They have been greedy. They have welcomed licence applications, irrespective of their effects on the local community, because of the revenues that they receive from them. So they do not come to the latter with perfectly clean hands. Nevertheless, local authorities are the best guardians that we have of local interest and they must be given sufficient discretion.
Secondly, Clause 177 needs amendment to make clear that the local licensing statement is the primary document. At present, the relationship between that statement and the Secretary of State's guidance is unclear. Which is to have priority if there is a challenge to the local authority decision? Perhaps the Minister can clear up that point. I tend to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the principles of the guidance should be written into the Bill and Clause 177 amended accordingly.
Now to my questions. First, the "fit and proper" requirement for licence holding has been removed. Are the Government satisfied that 18 is the right minimum age for a licensee? Secondly, are there to be any requirements for proper sound insulation of licensed premises—some way to contain the sound—or a maximum decibel count, as exists in New York? Will the Government consider grants for double glazing for dwellings in the vicinity of licensed premises? If so, who will pay for them?
Finally, will the Government consider allowing courts to fine licensees for breach of licence? Would that not be an ideal intermediate measure between granting and suspending or revoking licences altogether, likely to have a particularly sobering effect on licence holders, who are in it for the money more than anything else?
5.34 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I intend to make a short contribution to the debate, bearing in mind the number of those who want to speak.
678
In many respects, the Bill is long overdue. It is not perfect by any means, but it is a major step forward since the Erroll report. Few, if any, Members of the House would pretend that the current licensing position is right and that the law is not in need of revision. I argued in another place for many years that changes were necessary. To a great extent then, the Government should be congratulated on this major step forward, although given the vast number of clauses in the Bill, one could be forgiven for believing that the Bill was written by lawyers for lawyers. Nothing new there, perhaps. But considering that the Government wanted to streamline the procedures for licensing—that seemed to be the case when I read the White Paper—they now seem to have been overtaken by many bureaucratic clauses.
Not least—this is the main thrust of my speech today—is the effect that the Bill will have on live music in bars and restaurants. At a stroke, 100,000 licensed premises and even, as I understand it, solo performances, could become illegal and lose a long-standing licence exemption for one or two live musicians that dates back to 1899. About 100,000 bars and restaurants, 15,000 churches, hundreds of political clubs and even weddings with musical accompaniment may be affected by the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will clarify the meaning of Schedule 1(4), which could be interpreted as having a devastating effect on all those musical activities.
When, some years ago, I was co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Jazz Appreciation Group with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, we campaigned to scrap the so-called "two in bar" rule when only 5 per cent of licensed premises in England and Wales held public entertainment licences. That meant that those 100,000 bars and pubs would have acted illegally if more than two musicians had performed there. What nonsense that is! In years gone by, one can understand that without the strict public safety and noise legislation and police powers that we have today, that may have been the only way to control noisy and rowdy pubs and deal with disorder, but not today.
Hopefully, during the Bill's passage, common sense will prevail. For instance, why do not the Government extend the "two in a bar" rule in the Bill, allowing the safety and noise legislation to do the job that it does in Scotland, which operates within the same legislation? What purpose will the "none in a bar" regime serve? The Noise Abatement Society states that 80 per cent or more of noise complaints are caused by noisy people who are not musicians. I urge the Government to recognise that that part of the Bill will hit the musical profession hard and may have European convention implications, being in conflict with Articles 10 or 15, as it can be argued that it restricts participation in the performing arts.
In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to recognise the deep feelings of the Musicians Union, which broadly accepts the Bill's aims but argues that if enacted unamended it would represent the biggest increase in licensing control for more than 100 years and would

679
restrict employment opportunities—and, equally, I argue, the pleasure of many millions of people who enjoy their form of music.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of a central London local authority and as a magistrate—but not a licensing magistrate. Local authorities started to press for licensing to be transferred to them from licensing magistrates some time ago—not because the licensing magistrates were no good but because it was felt that local authorities were accountable and should therefore be able not only to represent the views of residents who lived in their area but to make decisions affecting them.
Accountability is lacking in the Bill. The Bill is centralising, giving much power to the Government. There will be much direction. By the time that the Government have laid down all the guidance and standards, the amount of flexibility left to local authorities will be very limited. I am not sure whether, at the end of the day, local authority members will be glad of that accountability, when it comes to elections, if they have had to make what are, in the view of their residents and electors, strange decisions, which they will have to try to blame on the Government. However, on the whole, the transfer to local authorities will be welcomed.
Having said that, I must refer to several other parts of the Bill. Some have been touched on already, and I hesitate to traipse over the ground again. However, I suspect that other people will traipse over it today, anyway, so I will do so. We must consider carefully the extent to which local government policy can reflect local concerns. If local policies are not allowed to reflect local people's aspirations, they will not be accepted. In that context, the decisions that the licensing panels will be able to make seem extremely prescribed. Not only will what they decide be prescribed; there will also be prescription relating to who can object to the panels about an application.
It is strange that, as far as I can see, the only people who will be able to object to an application are local residents who are immediately affected. Presumably, somebody who lives above or just beside the relevant premises will be included, but somebody who just lives in the area will not. Particularly excluded from making objections are the council itself, local ward councillors and amenity societies. Why exclude those people? It may be said that there is a conflict of interest in the case of the council, but ward councillors are accustomed to balancing their position as ward councillors against their position on the council. Presumably, ward councillors would take no part in an application to which they objected; they would not be allowed to. However, they represent their area, and they represent people's views.
One of the concerns about the need to go to a magistrates' court was that residents found them quite intimidating and found it difficult to get there just to spend all day sitting around waiting to object to a
680
licence. Why should they, who find it intimidating, be the only people allowed to come and object to a licensing application? From the outset, we should examine that aspect and see whether the system should be widened, so that there is greater flexibility about who is to be allowed to object.
Who will enforce the licences? By and large, that function is being taken out of the hands of local authorities. At the moment, environmental health officers are, by and large, the chief enforcers of anything to do with licensed premises. The police have a role, if there is a crime, but local authorities have the prime responsibility. Why would we put that enforcement role into the hands of the police and, for fire safety, the Fire Brigade? That is over-egging the pudding. If we were relying on the Fire Brigade at the moment, we could not do it. The police are overloaded, and I know that they have considerable concerns about the extension of hours and about the Bill. It is not right that the police should be the only enforcement agency. We should address that matter, too.
The question of cumulative impact has already been raised. I live in central London, as do many others here. I know areas of central London where there is an enormous number of restaurants and licensed premises. The number of such premises could increase, as could their opening hours. Magistrates have always had the right to say that there are too many of such premises in one place, but that has been taken out of the Bill. Local authorities ought to be able to consider whether an area has reached a camel's back situation, in which one more licensed premises will be one too many. As I read the Bill, they will not be able to do that. For central metropolitan areas, that is a great mistake. It will not matter in a village or small town, but it will matter in central London and in places such as Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle, which are also affected.
What about capacity? Why will we not be allowed to regulate the number of people on premises? There have been terrible disasters in other countries caused by having too many people in a building at one time with no control or regulation. There must be a power to limit the number of people who are on the premises at any one time. We must consider that issue.
Fees are to be set by central government. That will not settle what it costs. Why should council tax payers, who will have to pick up the deficit, be faced with the responsibility of paying what it costs to enforce the regulation of licensed premises? That should not be allowed to happen. There should be flexibility in the system of fees, and they should be on the basis of cost, if nothing else, even if it has to be justified.
There is a terrible lack of flexibility. If there is anything that local authorities need from the Bill, it is the flexibility to decide on policies for their area and to decide what conditions are appropriate in their area. They must be able to decide where there are too many premises and to decide, to some extent, the hours that those premises are open.

681
It is a big Bill, with big implications. Many in the licensed trade have high hopes that it will free life up and make things less bureaucratic for them. That may be a good end for the Bill, but it would be better if we could be assured that the people who live around licensed premises can be protected and that some lines will be drawn in the sand and some conditions imposed.
5.47 p m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, everybody agrees that the licensing laws are outdated and in severe need of reform and that, in reforming them, we must reduce the level of alcohol abuse and of crime and disorder. However, the assumption that allowing people to drink all night will achieve either of those objectives is manifestly untenable.
The Minister departed from reality when she painted a picture of string quartets in pubs and of maiden aunts sipping their glass of Marsala in a neighbouring establishment after a visit to the theatre. That will not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, put her finger on it when she pointed to the effect on local residents. We heard about that time and time again from the local authorities that came to speak to us at the meeting chaired by the noble Baroness last week. We saw a horrific video, presented by Councillor Simon Milton, about what happens in Westminster late at night.
It is not the fault of the licensing system that some people's idea of having a good time in the evening is to stay out as late as possible and get paralytic. However, the trend has been to make access to alcohol easier at all hours. and that does not help. The Government are saying that it is socially acceptable for people to drink round the clock, if they want to, and that the Bill will make that easier. The Bill is not about village pubs, in which there is often a generous interpretation of drinking-up time. In any case, the major chains are unlikely to accept the opportunity afforded by the Bill to extend opening times in such pubs because it would not be profitable to do so. We are talking about city centres and, to a lesser extent, places on the periphery of cities such as, in London, Ealing, Romford and Bexley., which used to close down at 10 p.m.
As the noble Baroness would confirm, what is likely to happen around the country can be experienced now in Westminster. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, pointed out, Westminster already has 583 late-night licences, including 86 places that do not close until 4 a.m., although the serving of alcohol finishes at 2 a.m. The impact of that regime on local authorities, the police and the accident and emergency services of central London hospitals is horrendous.
The police tell us that extra officers have to be found to deal with alcohol-related disorder in Westminster and in other centres around the periphery of the capital. Therefore, fewer officers are available to deal with other crime in the whole of the metropolis. In all those places anti-social behaviour fuelled by alcohol is a large-scale social menace.
682
The police say that they could make five times as many arrests as the do, but they do not have the resources to manage the numbers of people who would have to be processed without dangerously weakening their capacity to respond to crime by taking too many officers away from the front line. Already, hundreds of officers are occupied with difficult, uncooperative and sometimes violent detainees and in waiting hours for the injured—whether they be drinkers or their victims—to be tended in the accident and emergency departments in the capital.
The Government say that the police support the Bill. However, that is true only to a certain extent. The idea that flexibility of hours will lead to staggered and more orderly dispersal from licensed premises is an aspiration that the Association of Chief Police Officers shares, but they warn that more officers will need to be on duty until later at night. ACPO, the Met and the CO14 Clubs and Vice Unit have a long list of caveats. DAC Andrew Trotter, at a meeting chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said:
"all it does is spread troubles right through the night".
The explanatory notes say that one objective of the Bill is to protect children from harm. The police assert that giving children unrestricted access to licensed premises, including badly lit dance clubs, makes it impossible for them to prevent under-age drinking—and drug taking as well. As my noble friend Lord Falkland has pointed out, teenage drinking has become an enormous problem, with increased intoxication and binge drinking among 11 to 16 year-olds and over three-quarters of 15 to 16 year-olds having drunk to excess. Why increase the temptation for under-age drinkers when observation in any city centre on Friday or Saturday night shows that young people are most at risk?
Late night drinking in city centres under the present regime is dominated by clubs—not working men's clubs—and discos which have capacities of up to 2,000 people. What they call "small and intimate" is a place that holds 650 people, such as the Casa Loco in Leeds, while the Area in Watford, holding 1,500, would be described as medium sized. The effect of those clubs in residential areas can be easily imagined. The Police Federation chairman, Fred Broughton, has said that areas outside clubs were descending into "disorder and anarchy". It was in the Majestyk in Leeds that Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate got tanked up before a fracas in which a young mart was seriously injured. Similar, if less high profile, cases are happening up and down the country.
The only research on the link between those establishments and accident and emergency departments is a study conducted in Liverpool where a well run club, Cream, collaborated with the Royal Liverpool University Hospital. The researchers found that assault injury was the commonest reason for attendance at A&E departments by clubbers and that alcohol was the contributory factor of most importance.
The Home Office adopted some of the recommendations of that study in the Safer Clubbing paper recently published. It stated that most

683
admissions to A&E departments from night-clubs are related to the use of alcohol rather than controlled drugs, yet the Government have not sponsored any research into the impact of 24-hour drinking on A&E departments. According to the DCMS at the meeting that the noble Baroness organised last week, they have taken advice only from Professor Jonathan Shepherd, who is not in an A&E department. He is Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Wales.
Apparently, the Government have not taken any evidence from the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine, which says:
"A & E Departments are under relentless pressure as a result of constantly increasing numbers of patients attending with complex illness and injury. Most remain significantly under-resourced in terms of doctors and nurses to provide the prompt high quality care which patients rightly expect and staff wish to deliver".
The association has no way of knowing whether all night drinking is likely to increase the hazard. The Government do not know either. Obviously any outlet wanting to extend its hours does so in the expectation that it will sell more alcohol. No sensible licensee will incur the extra cost in terms of staff time and overheads unless that amount will be recovered, and more. Therefore, although you may not get the peak problems which occur at 11 p.m., the volume of alcohol consumed throughout the night will be higher and the harm correspondingly greater.
I am not against the tidying up of legislation. The Bill needs to deal with antiquated laws. Unfortunately, it is based on the false proposition that there can be 10 per cent more establishments selling alcohol and 20,000 opening all night without police, health, environmental or social costs. On the contrary, large extra human and financial costs will be imposed on society and will make life intolerable for thousands of people who live near concentrations of pubs and clubs. The licensing laws should be applied so as to restrict alcohol abuse, particularly by vulnerable 16 to 24 year-olds, and not encourage it as those proposals will do.
5.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, during the debates on the licensing Acts in the 19th century the Church of England earned the somewhat derisive title of "the brewers' friend". I do not rise to contribute to your Lordships' debate in a spirit of puritanical fervour but, like previous speakers, I applaud those parts of the Bill which seek to reduce crime, disorder and alcohol abuse.
I should declare two interests. The first is that as a Bishop caring for parish communities, and particularly schools, in some of London's entertainment hot spots, like other noble Lords I see and experience every day the impact of noise and nuisance created by the saturation of licensed premises. Schools such as Soho Parochial—where the largest group of pupils are London Chinese—deserve to be heard and are vitally concerned about the outcome of the debate.
684
Speaking for them and other residents with whom I am in touch, I would like briefly to record agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who spoke about the well-documented problems of crime, disorder and alcohol abuse and the fact that, as drafted, there seems to be no power, unlike the situation in Scotland I understand, for a local licensing authority to refuse to grant more licences simply on the grounds of saturation in a particular area.
The second issue is, in sympathy with other speakers, that, although the drafters of the Bill state a laudable intention to empower residents, there is a concern from bodies like the Open All Hours Group that the effects of the legislation will burden residents. The Minister, Dr Kim Howells, is on record as stating that:
"The Local Authorities will not have the discretion they currently enjoy to refuse a licence or impose a condition in the absence of a reasonable objection to the licensee's operating plan".
That will force local residents to become the principal protagonists in time-consuming and lengthy battles about individual licences. Surely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in particular said, it would be preferable to allow local licensing authorities sufficient discretion to formulate local policies which respond to local conditions.
The other interest which I seek to declare is as the chairman of the Church Heritage Forum, which brings together a number of Church and statutory bodies. At present, concerts and similar events within a place of worship are exempt from the need for licensing, always with the exception of London, which has enjoyed another regime under which a licence is required but no fee is payable if the entertainment concerned is of an educational character or given for a charitable purpose.
One of the stated intentions of the Bill is deregulation. Therefore, I ask what the justification is for introducing a new layer of regulation and expense for community activities. Where is the evidence of abuse that justifies removing an exemption which Parliament provided in 1982? I have seen nothing in the explanatory papers which even begins to address the question of places of worship or the implications for them.
I appreciate that the Bill provides that entertainment incidental to a religious service will be exempt from licensing. I am glad that we are not being asked to consider such a Soviet-style proposal. But the kind of concerts and plays which would seem to be caught by this legislation would, as far as I can see, range from the Brownies' end-of-term concert to the Three Choirs Festival.
No church would want to avoid regulation intended to ensure public safety. However, we have concerns that over-regulation of entertainment in buildings which do not seem to present safety problems when used by congregations will deter parishes and others from hosting community events. That would of course run counter to government policy, as expressed recently in the paper A Force for our Future, which

685
urges the wider use of heritage buildings for community activity and the DCMS emphasis, which I applaud, on social inclusion.
Other key objectives which emerged from the White Paper leading up to the Bill included the encouragement both of tourism and rural communities. The role of churches and cathedrals and other places of worship in drawing visitors to different parts of our country is well documented, while the contribution made by activities held in places of worship to life in rural communities in particular is incalculable.
Looking at the likely costs of this extension of regulation, I do not believe that some of the fears that have been expressed are at all unwarranted. The Government's own assessment suggests that a charity holding two events a year could expect to pay £40 per annum or £400 over 10 years. As for full licensing, it is not clear from the examples given in the Government's regulatory impact assessment whether a church or a cathedral would be more likened to a pleasure boat at the lower end of the scale or to a night club at the higher end. But in the following calculations I have at every stage taken the minimum figures. They could of course be substantially more than I have calculated.
From the figures provided in the assessment, we can assume that each fully licensed church and cathedral and other place of worship—I am in consultation with friends not only in other Christian Churches but in the Chief Rabbi's Office and the Muslim Council so this is not a narrow or denominational point—will have to pay £300 for the initial licence and including annual inspection fees £800 over a 10-year period. The Church of England alone has more than 16,000 parish churches. If 10,000 were able to manage with temporary events notices for four concerts a year, the cost of that would be £800,000.
If the remaining 6,000—a conservative figure—sought a full licence, and many churches hold at least half a dozen concerts a year, the initial cost would be a minimum of £1.8 million. That gives a minimum total of £2.6 million in the first year alone and for the Church of England alone. I must emphasise that I am not seeking to make a merely denominational point, but to express concern on behalf of all places of worship.
The figures seem small in comparison with the sums often under discussion in your Lordships' House, but for voluntary organisations they represent a significant new burden and involve more onerous administration. The present Government have sought to be generous to those charged with the upkeep of the nation's inheritance of historic places of worship. The DCMS has been active in concert with the Chancellor, for example, in attempting to lighten the burden of VAT payments on repairs to listed buildings. The faith communities are grateful for the £3.8 million of relief already granted by the end of August.
My plea is a very simple and modest one: that the value of those tokens of support for the huge voluntary effort which goes into sustaining the inheritance of the whole community should not be substantially
686
diminished by that fresh burden. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to take the opportunity of the Committee stage to restore the present regime for places of worship.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, this Bill is wide-ranging and complex and I suspect that it will need considerable thought, debate and discussion as it goes through its Committee and Report stages. The Bill provides new regulations for the sale and supply of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment and late-night refreshments. The licensing objections are set out in Clause 4 and I will refer to them later.
The Bill provides for a dual premises and personal licence system for commercial premises, and for non-profit-making members' club premises certification for bona fide clubs. It is my intention to concentrate on non-profit-making clubs, but before doing so I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the all-party parliamentary Members' clubs are aware of the discrimination to which he referred. We will be considering the matter, taking advice and consulting on whether we can attach an amendment to the Bill which will rule out all forms of sex discrimination in all clubs. I trust that if we do so, we can count on his support.
I strongly agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about parish and village halls. I live in the outer reaches of the borough of Warrington and in all the villages in that area the village halls are the centre of cultural, leisure and sporting facilities. All the organisations use the village halls for their annual and sometimes biannual fund-raising events which keep them going throughout the year. If they were restricted to a limited number of occasions on which they could use the halls for those purposes, we would have a revolution within rural England that has nothing to do with the other well known group. It would cause problems and I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to that point.
A non-profit-making members' club is, in essence, a club in which every member has a single share of equal value and a single vote which members exercise to elect their club officers and committee members annually. Any profit that the club makes is ploughed back into the club, generally speaking to improve the club facilities and the amenities for the benefit of members. Every registered club is granted its licence by the local licensing magistrates for a specific period, and it must be renewed by the licensing Bench as the term comes to an end. Any club which the local police force has reason to believe has not complied with the terms of its licence can have its licence objected to by the police and the magistrates have the power to reject the licence application. That would mean the closure of the club.
I should make it clear that I am speaking on behalf of non-profit-making members' clubs—perhaps better known as working men's clubs—and similar types of organisation. I also declare an interest as a member of

687
the All-Party Parliamentary Clubs Group. Some 184 other Members of this place and of the other place also take part in that group's activities.
I should also make it clear that, on this occasion, I am representing the views of the Committee of Registered Clubs Association, better known by the acronym CORCA, which was created 18 years ago. One of CORCA's principal objectives is to ensure that the voice and views of the members of working men's clubs in their various formats is heard in Parliament, particularly in relation to legislation such as the Licensing Bill. To facilitate that aim, CORCA works in close association with the All-Party Clubs Group—which is in fact one of the biggest all-party parliamentary groups.
CORCA is an umbrella organisation with the following organisations as full members: the Working men's Club and Institute Union, better known as the CIU; the Association of Conservative Clubs; the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs; the National Union of Liberal Clubs; Royal British Legion Clubs; Royal Naval Association Clubs; and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. That formidable organisation represents more than 5,000 clubs and more than 5 million members across the length and breadth of Great Britain. I am personally proud of the fact that I was the only MP who was both a founder member of the All-Party Clubs Group and a founder member of CORCA. In fact, I was elected vice-chairman of CORCA at its inaugural meeting, in 1984, when I was also representing the National Association of Labour and Socialist Clubs—which I did until 1996.
As the leading clubs representative organisation, CORCA welcomes the Government's intention to maintain the distinction between pubs and clubs by means of a separate certification system for clubs. We also warmly welcome the retention of key club features of current licensing law. One example is the preservation of arrangements for CIU associates, and for similar affiliates of other CORCA organisations, to enjoy the amenities of affiliated clubs which they visit. These arrangements essentially allow any member of, for example, a CIU-affiliated club to purchase a CIU affiliate's card—as the overwhelming majority of members in fact do—and to use that card to visit any other CIU club, where he or she can purchase drinks and participate in the club's amenities and facilities. The arrangement applies across Great Britain. All the other CORCA club organisations have similar arrangements for their own clubs and members. The affiliated membership arrangement is a vitally important part of club life, and CORCA is grateful that it will remain unaltered.
Probably the biggest and possibly the most controversial administrative change is the proposed transfer of licensing functions from magistrates to local authorities. CORCA is generally supportive of this change in licensing functions. It believes that local authorities know the make-up and needs of their own districts and localities better than any other organisation and that such knowledge should be the
688
dominant factor in the granting of licences. CORCA also believes that the transfer of control will be strengthened by the right of appeal against the local authority's decision to the magistrates' courts. We believe that that will counter any hint or suggestion of political bias in any local authority decision, especially as regards the refusal or even the approval of a licence application.
Nevertheless, CORCA has some concerns about the Bill, some of which are quite properly still being pursued with officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The All-Party Parliamentary Clubs Group shares two particular concerns with CORCA which were discussed at length at their meeting on 19th November in the House of Commons. It is felt that these concerns should be recorded on Second Reading of the Bill.
The first concern relates to club entertainment such as stage acts, music and dancing. Club entertainment has always been an integral part of club life. On Friday and Saturday nights, and sometimes also on Sunday and other nights, almost every club in the land puts on live entertainment for the benefit and pleasure of their members and their members' guests. This entertainment generally generates little or no profit for the club, with the cost of the entertainers and the extra bar staff generally exceeding the profit of the bar sales. Profit, however, is not the issue; the major consideration is the provision of quality entertainment for the enjoyment and pleasure of members. I also remind noble Lords that, over the years, many entertainers have started their careers on the club circuit before achieving national and even international recognition.
However, the Bill provides, both in Clause 1 and in Schedule 1, that the traditional forms of club entertainment would rank as "regulated entertainment". As I said, clubs have hitherto laid on entertainment for the enjoyment and relaxation of their members, and they have done so with minimal regulatory interference, albeit with proper regard to fire safety and to health and safety requirements. Entertainment for club members and their guests is currently not subject to public entertainment licences. Under this legislation, such events would constitute "regulated entertainment". At this stage, however, it is anyone's guess as to what the precise regulatory constraints will be. CORCA and the All-Party Clubs Group will oppose the imposition of any additional burdens or operational constraints on a sector which has been largely trouble free and self-policing.
The supply of alcohol to club members for off-premises consumption is the second major concern of CORCA and the All-Party Clubs Group. Current licensing law specifically allows such supply, but, as Clause 69 makes clear, this legislation would not allow it. I should like to make it clear to the Minister that this minuscule activity has never been a contentious part of the clubs' activities. CORCA and the All-Party Group see no good reason why club members should be prevented from taking home a bottle of Guinness or a

689
miniature bottle of brandy for their spouse or parents, but they would listen with great interest to anyone who sought to prove otherwise.
A Bill's Second Reading is the time for constructive criticism and for suggestions on specific provisions. I therefore trust that my noble friend the Minister will accept that, while welcoming much of the Bill's general thrust, CORCA and the All-Party Clubs Group will seek to influence the final content of the Bill and its subordinate legislation so as to avoid excessive regulatory and bureaucratic burden on already hard-pressed club management committees.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for fighting against a failing voice and managing to give us a full outline of the objectives of this Bill, and I wish her a speedy recovery. She made a case for the benefits which would flow from the Bill's passage, but I cannot agree with her that this legislation will sweep away much of the red tape and bureaucracy that currently surround our licensing law. Before going further, however, I must ask for the forbearance of the Minister and the whole House as I have a longstanding dinner engagement this evening. It will therefore not be possible for me to stay for the whole debate.
A noble Lord: Shame!
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is indeed a shame, and I very much regret that this is the case. It is the first time in more than 30 years' sitting in your Lordships' House that I have had such a conflict. I hope that I may be forgiven on this one occasion.
I should also declare a tentative interest. I was a director of one or two brewery companies between 1972 and 1992. I no longer have any involvement with the licensed trade but I still enjoy visiting pubs and clubs and I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group.
I believe that the Bill in part owes its genesis to the excellent report of Lord Erroll of Hale, which was completed in 1972. Because of my involvement in the industry at that time I remember it well. It contained many enlightened ideas and it is somewhat frustrating that the distillation process has taken 30 years. Were he with us today I am sure that he would have given broad support to the aims and objectives of the Bill, although perhaps less support for some of the methods of achieving them.
Bringing ourselves more into line with our European neighbours and many other parts of the world seems to be a sensible idea. It will put a degree of trust and responsibility on to the shoulders of the drinking public. I am sure that in the main they will rise to that challenge. If drinking time is decompressed, it must make it less likely that the problems which currently occur when so many drinkers are put on to the street at around 11 p.m. will be perpetuated. Indeed. the Scottish experience bears that out and shows that the volume drunk did not increase but was spread over a longer period.
690
The White Paper which trailed the advent of the Bill was widely welcomed for its clarity and its objective of simplifying the licensing process, but the Bill, with over 200 clauses, risks jeopardising that. For example, the idea of splitting the licence into a personal and premises licence seemed a good one as originally portrayed. It would have allowed a licensee moving to a new area simply to register with the police and local authority and would have greatly cut down the paperwork and court time. However, as the Bill is currently drafted, it appears that much local authority committee time will be still taken up with vetting licence changes. The process described in the Bill of having a designated premises supervisor is anything but simple, and I believe should be the subject of scrutiny and amendment at later stages of the Bill's progress.
In the White Paper a central register of licensees was proposed. However, the Bill expects local authorities to administer personal licences once granted by them throughout their duration irrespective of where that person subsequently lives and works. In my experience, licensees thought nothing of travelling hundreds of miles to move to licensed premises which they thought suited them and their family. I can see considerable difficulties for local authorities maintaining their register over time. That seems impractical and unworkable and needs to be looked at again.
A proliferation of forms and procedures certainly will not make the system more effective, protect local residents or improve policing. It is possible that the guidance notes to the Bill, which have been promised by the Government, will bring some clarity, but surely it would be infinitely preferable to have those on the face of the Bill—a point made by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and others. I understand that. the guidance notes will be available before we start Committee stage. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will be the case. Will police guidance, which has also been promised, be available beforehand?
Another aspect of the Bill which concerns me is holding a licensee or bar worker responsible and table to a fine for serving someone drinks knowing him or her to be drunk. I know that that is already part of current legislation, but when we consider how difficult it is for someone working behind a bar to make a snap judgmental assessment about a person's level of intoxication every time a drink is ordered on a busy Saturday night, it seems to place an onerous responsibility on the barman. What happens if someone who appears sober orders a round of drinks for his friends who may be inebriated but are out of sight of the barman? I wonder how many cases are brought before the courts each year and how many result in a conviction.
While on the subject of offences, I believe that the use of endorsements on personal licences was supported by most sectors of the industry. However, it was felt that in the interests of natural justice such endorsements should be removed after three years or at the end of the tariff period where such offences are spent. There is currently no such provision in the Bill.

691
Having pointed towards some perceived shortcomings in the Bill, I should like to conclude on a positive note. The leisure and hospitality sector in this country is worth £64 billion to the UK economy and employs one-tenth of our entire workforce. We have a unique heritage in our old pubs, which are a considerable tourist attraction. We now have the opportunity to allow our entrepreneurs to make best use of these and other assets by selecting the hours best suited to them. That should make them more cost effective to run and increase jobs in the sector. There should be less drink-related trouble on the street at around 11 p.m., and the tourist industry should respond positively to these changes.
As I have already said, I believe there is much to commend the Bill, but amendments will be necessary if we are to maximise the opportunities it affords us.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin by declaring rather too many interests, but sadly none as a director of a brewery. I am a member of the London Assembly, which will shortly publish the results of its investigation into 24-hour licensing. I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but I shall leave my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond to speak on policing matters, about which she is far more authoritative. As part of that role I have a particular responsibility for the London boroughs of Croydon and Sutton, both of which have what is politely termed a lively night economy. On several occasions I have been out with the police on Friday and Saturday evenings and need no video to tell me the sort of experiences they have.
Also, I am a London borough councillor. However, I believe the most relevant interest I have to declare is that for over 28 years I have represented a town centre ward—I still do—which now has a lively night economy but also a substantial number of residents, many of whom are elderly, living adjacent to the town centre.
Like all my colleagues I welcome the Bill. I do so with qualifications. I have a number of concerns, most of which have been expressed in tonight's debate but bear repetition and will be repeated. I support the Bill particularly because I believe that when it leaves this House it will be a better Bill. Like others who have spoken I believe we need the Bill because our rather antiquated licensing laws need reform. I am far from convinced that the reforms here will solve the problems of binge drinking or heavy drinking. As others have said, that is much more an aspect of British culture, if that is not too grand a word, rather than a result of our licensing laws.
One of the reasons I welcome the Bill is because it transfers responsibility for licensing to local government. I do not share the view of the
692
Conservative Front Bench that this is part of a long-term plot by the Government to abolish the magistracy. That may be so; no doubt we shall find out in due course.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps I may be so bold as to intervene. I made the point that outside organisations had stated that they had been briefed by government officials that the Government were phasing out magistrates' courts.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. No doubt the Government Front Bench will want to respond to that; that is not my job.
I welcome the Bill because of the transfer to local government. I want to believe that the reason for that is because the Government recognise the role of local authorities as community leaders in developing the community plan; the crime and disorder strategy, and the regeneration of town centres: all proper responsibilities which local authorities have developed and which government have placed on them. I want to believe that the transfer is because the Government acknowledge the accountability of local authorities and that that will make the licensing provisions more reflective of local interests, local circumstances and local concerns.
Those are all things I want to believe. However, I have a nagging doubt that what this is really about is a local delivery mechanism for central government control. When I repeat some of the concerns that have already been expressed, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hanham—neither of whom is in her place—I hope that the Minister who is to respond will be able to give some reassurances.
Clause 5 of the Bill requires each local authority to produce a statement of licensing policy. Subsection (7) requires the Secretary of State to make regulations. I should like to hear a little more from the Minister about what is envisaged in those regulations. How restrictive and prescriptive will they be? Can we hope that they will be "light touch" regulations which simply set a general framework under which each local authority can develop its own statement of licensing policy? I live in hope.
Fees have been referred to many times. I regret very much that the Government have seen fit to set fee levels centrally. I would have preferred them to allow that to be done at a local level in order to reflect local needs, local circumstances and, particularly, local costs. The Government are not prepared to go that far, but I hope that they will be able to reassure me that there will be a fair degree of flexibility in the setting of fee levels. Do the Government accept that the full costs of a licensing authority, from policy development to enforcement, should be met through fee income and not subsidised by the taxpayer, be it the local taxpayer or the national taxpayer?
What degree of fee variation will be permitted? Do the Government accept that the costs of licensing in London—I remind the Minister that 20 per cent of the

693
country's licensing decisions are in London—are substantially higher than they are in other parts of the country, with the possible exception of some of the metropolitan areas? Will that be reflected in the fee regime?
In declaring my interests, I mentioned that I have been a town centre councillor for more than 28 years. In that time, town centres have changed beyond recognition—sometimes for the good and sometimes, particularly for those living nearby, not for the good. Far fewer people live in town centres now than when I first became a councillor. We now have longer shopping hours and Sunday shopping; we have far more pubs and clubs in town centre areas than used to be the case. In general, I welcome that. Indeed, I have been part of the development that has enhanced the town centre economy enormously, made the town centre a livelier place and, in general terms, made it a safer place at night because there are more people around. But the people who have not benefited from the change are those who live not quite in the town centre but immediately around it. These people have to put up with all the daytime comings and goings and parking problems, and now they have to put up with the comings, and more particularly the goings, the dispersal, late at night and in the early hours of the morning.
I am concerned that in the list of licensing objectives in Clause 4 there is no mention of what is termed the "wider vicinity". I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government accept that the effects on the wider community are a legitimate objective that could and should be included in the licensing objectives and, therefore, in Clause 4.
Others have referred to the cumulative effect. I am concerned that licensing authorities will not be able, apparently, to take any notice of that. It has been said that that can be dealt with through planning legislation. The 28 years that I have spent on a planning authority and representing a town centre ward have shown me how very ineffective are our planning laws in controlling the cumulative effect of the number of licensed premises in a town centre. I speak with experience from my own ward. Can the Government assure the House that they will take cognisance of the cumulative effect? If not, why not?
For similar reasons I am concerned about temporary events and the fact that only the police will be permitted to object to them. It is quite right that the police should have that power, but surely it should be extended to the fire service, to the local authority itself, in a different role, and to local residents. I recognise that there may well be a time limit problem as this has to happen within 10 days, but I would rather see an extension to the time limit and deal with such applications properly and effectively and reflecting local circumstances than simply meet an arbitrarily imposed time limit, even though the Government have stated that they hope in most cases the notice given will be more than 10 days.
Other noble Lords have expressed concern about the one-year transitional period. I share their concern. It is asking a great deal of local authorities,
694
particularly those in metropolitan areas, to gear up for this change in that period. I certainly join the calls to extend the transition period to 18 months—or even, preferably, two years—to allow staff to be recruited and trained and for the job to be done properly.
I have similar concerns to those expressed elsewhere about capacity. I agree that all licensed premises should have the maximum permitted capacity stated on the licence. That particular concern has been expressed to me by my own local authority.
I support the Bill in the belief, if not yet the expectation, that it is moving responsibility to local government and not to local administration—there is an important difference; that the Government recognise the democratic legitimacy of local government and that that is their reason for the transfer; and, if that is their reason, that they will allow maximum flexibility to reflect local circumstances and local needs. Finally, I repeat that I hope the Government will be persuaded to recognise and take into account the interests of the wider communities that live around these licensed premises.
6.36 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, while I am broadly in favour of the Bill, particularly the aims of reducing crime and disorder as well as alcohol misuse and encouraging tourism and self-sufficient rural communities, I have a few legal and practical concerns relating to the statutory processes contained within the Bill.
I have always been an avid supporter of deregulation. In fact, I was involved in the campaign for more flexible drinking laws with Lord Montgomery of Alamein following the Erroll report, which thankfully culminated in the passing of the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act 1995.
In opening the debate, the Minister referred to paragraph 338 of the Explanatory Notes and the fact that there are currently 182,000 existing premises, estimated soon to rise to more than 200,000. With each premises employing on average seven people, this equates to well over 1 million employees who will be affected by the Bill. My principal concern is the apparent lack of statutory time limits for dealing with applications when the Bill moves responsibility from magistrates' courts to local authorities. I note that it states in Clause 178 that regulations will be prescribed to deal with this, but it will be a worry to many licensee applicants that there is no clarification at present.
Currently the Licensing Act 1964 prescribes the time limits for making applications to magistrates for new grants, transfers, consents to alterations, occasional licences and other related issues. The same cannot be said of the London Government Act 1963, as amended, which deals with the grant of public entertainment licences and night café licences. The time limits are left to the discretion of local authorities, which can sometimes sit on an application, either because they do not like the applicant or they do not like the premises, for an inordinate amount of time,

695
thereby preventing the applicant from being able to carry on new entertainment facilities or the variation to his or her existing entertainment licence.
For example, I recently heard of a case where a licensee, after winning a court victory against Westminster City Council—I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is interested in Westminster City Council, is in her place—found that his entertainment licence application had been shelved for two years. Sadly, he had a stroke before the council heard it and had to withdraw. His only remedy would have been to institute judicial review proceedings against the council for an order of mandamus from the High Court—a process which costs a minimum of £30,000 in legal fees and is beyond the affordability of most individuals.
It is essential that uniform statutory time limits are set throughout the country in the same way that currently exists under the Licensing Act 1964 so that there can be no prejudice when dealing with applications from one local authority to another.
I note that in 1999, George Howarth, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, strongly supported the principle of local licensing decisions but said that it was important for the credibility of the process that decisions were seen to be based on common principles. He believed that a transfer of jurisdiction from the magistrates' courts to the local authorities would be a retrograde step. The magistrates' court system, despite all its inconsistencies, has worked and continues to work well.
Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the statutory time limits for making applications to local authorities, pursuant to the provisions of Clause 178 of the Bill, will be broadly in line with those prescribed under the Licensing Act 1964; namely, that applications of all descriptions should be dealt with within 30 days?
My second concern is one echoed by nearly all licensees who have experienced local authorities dealing with applications for entertainment licences. This is borne out by the recent poll taken by the Publican, a publication supporting the views of licensees throughout the country. There is inevitably an inherent inequality between the licensee and a local resident. While the Convention on Human Rights makes it clear that a licensee is just as entitled to the quiet enjoyment of his or her licence as a resident is entitled to a good night's sleep, there is a danger of bias on the part of some local authorities towards their own residents who are in fact their own voters.
This can prove farcical where in certain wards—for instance, the West End ward contained within the City of Westminster—licensees and their employees far outnumber (in some cases by 10 to one) the number of residents. Yet the council, which has admitted to granting too many licences in the past decade, now arbitrarily seeks to refuse licences on the uncorroborated evidence of a single resident.
696
While I agree that it is only fair that local residents should have a reasonable say in the granting of liquor and entertainment licences in their area, there is valid concern that councils will find it hard to maintain a sense of equity and equality when faced with pressure from their voters versus the licensee, who may not even live in the same local authority and therefore will not be a voter there.
This could lead to a swamping of the magistrates' courts under the Bill's appeal process. Even though I am no longer a practising solicitor, my understanding is that the magistrates' courts currently deal with between 50 and 150 cases in a monthly licensing session. If they are swamped with appeals by applicant licensees, those will have to be considered individually, with witnesses called and evidence taken, and the magistrates' courts could possibly be booked for up to two days on a single case. In this regard, do the Government have any suggestions as to how the potential inequality between licence applicants and resident voters might be addressed by local authority licensing committees?
There are concerns on the new licence fees. While there has not been a wholesale reform of licence costs, is it true that following the enactment of this legislation the cost of a pub licence will increase from £30 to almost £400? This could dramatically affect smaller licensed premises, which are already under enormous financial pressure.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill to the extent that it effectively changes our outdated laws, but hope that a fair balance can be reached between the interests of licensees and residents and that the aims of the Bill to reduce crime and disorder and alcohol misuse, as well as encouraging tourism and self-sufficient rural communities, can be achieved.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, I, too, give a general welcome to the Bill, although quite what my non-conformist grandparents would have made of it, I am not sure. They were pillars of the temperance movement, signed the pledge and sang hymns such as:
"Lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine".
The right reverend Prelate may know the remainder of the words.
Many noble Lords will have received representations from the trade and from other interested parties about the Bill. There is a great deal of support for it. But there is some concern about switching responsibility for licensing from magistrates to local authorities. Here, though, I am convinced that the greater benefits—particularly in terms of greater public accountability—that will come from the new arrangements will far outweigh any possible increase in bureaucracy.
There are a number of reasons why that is so. Perhaps I may give just three. First, the system must be democratically accountable to the people whose lives are directly affected—that is, local councils. Secondly, local authorities are responsible for crime prevention

697
strategies, and alcohol is a major contributory factor to crime and disorder. Thirdly, magistrates' courts should concentrate on dealing with criminals; and it should not be necessary for people to appear before them to obtain permission to sell legitimate products.
The Bill provides a great opportunity to move forward on two related but separate objectives of public policy about which I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House. The first is the need to protect children, non-smokers and hospitality industry employees from the dangers and unpleasantness of passive smoking. This would be a good opportunity to break the link, regrettably enshrined in the industry's so-called Public Places Charter, between smoking, and eating and drinking.
Some members of the industry, such as Wetherspoon, realise that it is good business to provide for non-smokers in their establishments. That company's chairman, Tim Martin, told me last week that a third of its accommodation is non-smoking and that it also prohibits smoking around the bar in order to protect employees from the effects of passive smoking.
There are a lot of people, myself included, who would enjoy going to the pub more if we could be sure that our clothes and our hair would not be reeking of tobacco smoke at the end of the evening. As adults, we can choose whether to enter a smoky environment. But children, who under the terms of the Bill will be free to enter licensed premises, do not have that choice if their parents take them in.
The Government's Smoking Kills White Paper stated:
"Children, more vulnerable than adults and often with little choice over their exposure to tobacco smoke, are at particular risk".
Environmental tobacco smoke causes a wide variety of ill-health in children, including pneumonia and bronchitis, worsening asthma and middle ear disease. It can also contribute to heart disease in adulthood.
It would seem that Clause 4, setting out the general duties of licensing authorities, provides a means of addressing this issue. Subsection (2)(d) specifically states that the protection of children from harm is one of the four licensing objectives. My noble friend the Minister stressed this aspect in her speech earlier. Can she confirm that this subsection would allow licensing authorities to specify that children may only be taken into smoke-free areas of licensed premises? Secondly, would it be possible to include in this subsection an additional general duty on licensing authorities to protect the health, safety and welfare of workers in licensed premises? I hope that we can look at that matter in Committee also.
The second area in which this Bill will enable us to make important progress is in eliminating sex discrimination in private members' clubs—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside referred. Your Lordships may recall that in the previous Session the House approved, almost without dissent, a Private Member's Bill that I introduced to amend the Sex
698
Discrimination Act 1975 to bring it broadly into line with the Race Relations Acts of 1968 and 1976. Those Acts prohibit race discrimination in private clubs with 25 or more members. My Bill received the support of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and many other organisations outside the House. In this House, it was supported by my noble friend Lady Scotland speaking for the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, by all the Liberal Democrats, bar one, who took part in the debate, and many others. My Bill covered private members' clubs that have admitted both sexes to a membership category and where some club facilities and services have been open to both men and women.
As is the fate of virtually every Private Member's Bill that passes through your Lordships' House, my Bill failed for lack of time in another place. But, in view of the strong expressions of support it received from Ministers in both Houses, I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on amendments to this Bill to achieve the same objectives. I look forward to working with my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside, who clearly wants to achieve the same objectives.
I am advised by the Government's Women and Equality Unit that, in repealing Section 7 of the Licensing Act 1964, which denies women, and indeed men, equal and full voting rights in clubs with mainly male, or mainly female, membership, this Bill resolves the issue of governance, as all members are given the right to vote. That is a very helpful step forward, but I am not certain whether it will end the scandal of discriminatory two-tier membership of so-called full members and associates whereby admission to each category of membership is determined solely according to the sex of the member. Neither does it seem to address the issue of ensuring access to club facilities—women being barred from the snooker room or made to play golf only at times when the men do not want to.
However, it is a start, and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on amendments in Committee that would help to take these matters forward. This is a promising Bill, and I am pleased to give it my support.
6.53 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome any Bill that benefits the industry, protects local communities and is simpler and more cost-effective for local authorities to administer. During the passage of this Bill, we will have to ask ourselves whether the legislation does that.
I declare an interest as a director and shareholder of a bars business. We have 26 bars in this country, their locations ranging from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Leeds, Newcastle and London. We have 1,300 employees, and on a Saturday night, I am glad to say, we have a capacity of up to around 26,000 customers. I must admit that I have had a drink in almost every bar. So, I have, at the very least, a superficial

699
knowledge of the culture in this country. That will limit my participation at Committee stage; however, I shall make a few points at this stage.
The central question, which many noble Lords asked, is whether the extension of hours to allow the late-night opening of pubs, clubs or bars is a good thing. The answer must be: yes, in certain areas. It has helped to revitalise inner cities, but it is not good in residential areas. It has helped in some areas to keep the young off the streets, but provided that they are in regulated, safe premises. The West End is now a vibrant city centre. I pay tribute to Westminster City Council for its policy. Tourism is a very important industry in this country, as we heard, and our capital city finally offers tourists what has been lacking for many years.
The other question is whether the extension of late-night licensing would exacerbate drinking. No, if it is carefully regulated and licensed. In cities where there is no late-night licensing, there is nothing for young people to do. For example, Oxford has had terrible problems, with young people involved in car-jacking and driving around at night, particularly in the Blackbird Leys estate. Safe and civilised venues must be a good thing. I accept concerns about high-density clusters of bars in certain areas. I hope the Government will consider that local authorities should be able to take account of that when issuing licences.
The overall message must be that we must encourage good, responsible and reputable operators. The new powers must allow local authorities to close operators that cannot match those standards. I welcome the proposals regarding children. It is extremely important that if they are allowed onto licensed premises, it will be to well-regulated venues only. The most important issue in that regard, and the one message that I hope the Government will take home, is that the one way to control that problem is to control capacity. We all know, and see too often in London and many cities, pubs from which drinkers flow onto street pavements. They have no capacity limits. Sometimes it is unsafe for pubs to have so many people. Late-night licences have very strict capacity limits and a door policy. Those capacity limits should be extended to any pubs intending to open late. The one thing that discourages bad behaviour is a limit on the number of people. If there are too many people, problems arise.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the Government should consider extending the transitional period. Six months is a short period for local authorities to work within. It is a large, complicated industry. The noble Lord, Lord St John, addressed the concern about the strict criteria that local authorities will, or will not, follow. In the past, licensing magistrates had to follow strict criteria. The noble Lord is right that in certain areas local residents feel very strongly. Sometimes it is the majority view that needs to be taken account of, and sometimes, as he said, it is the view of just one person.
700
I wish to ask the Government a couple of questions. First, with the implementation of these new rules, it will be very important that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is allowed to be brought in by Schedule 4 to the Bill. That would affect the control of people on the door. If there is to be any extension of hours, that Act must be implemented. When the Bill went through this House, the Government said it would be two or three years. Can the Minister say more on when it will be implemented?
Secondly, the Government say in the Explanatory Notes that the legislation is about opening seven days a week, 24 hours a day. What is the Government's policy on Sundays? I am confused; I do not know. Do they have a policy on Sundays? Are they leaving that policy to be decided by local authorities? Do they believe that the policy applied during the rest of the week should apply on Sundays? It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply. Do the Government really believe that there will be a market for 24-hour opening? I do not think that that will be the case. I think very few operators in the industry will conceive of opening 24 hours a day. I do not think the customers will be there. What do the Government mean by that? Are they saying that we are going to be flexible and it might be two o'clock, it might be three o'clock and on New Year's Eve it might be four o'clock? Do they really think that operators in this country will close their business at six or eight o'clock in the morning? That seems very unlikely and I am not sure that it is what we want. We want the bars and restaurants in our capital city to become more like those in Madrid rather than like those in Ibiza. It is important that the Government take that on board.
The Government have announced the Bill without giving much guidance on how they see it operating, not only in the guidance that they have to publish, but in saying what they believe in. Are they saying that it is up to the industry and the local authorities? They cannot do that. The Government must come clean.
I have made a short intervention on the Bill because I have some knowledge of the industry, which I thought might be helpful to your Lordships' House.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, when I first looked at the Bill, I turned to the schedules, where the meat usually resides. Schedule 6 gives us the minor and consequential amendments—23 and a bit pages of them. Schedule 7 gives us the repeals to the current law on licensing—six pages, including Acts going back to 1743. Twenty one whole Acts are repealed, together with a plethora of sections in a host of other Acts. Is it any wonder that we need amendment and reform?
My interest in the Bill stems from my background of involvement with the police service. Until recently, I chaired a police authority for eight years and had been a police authority member for 20 years. During that time, I was also a magistrate—and a licensing magistrate—for 16 years. I was also vice-chairman of the Association of Police Authorities and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

701
Finally, I am undertaking a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust with Six Continents plc, which has hundreds of pubs and bars throughout the country. I am learning a great deal about the drinking habits of a large part of the population. However, shall restrict my contribution to the areas around policing that will have a significant impact on the success or otherwise of the proposals before us.
I am immensely indebted to all the policing organisations that have helped me with my research, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, and particularly the Police Superintendents' Association, which contacted all BCU commanders for their views, and the Police Federation. I am also indebted to individual officers who have given me their advice and to the trade organisations that have given freely of their time to answer the many questions put to them.
As might be expected, the police reflect society as a whole. There are therefore differing views throughout the organisation about the proposed legislation. I shall try to reflect some of those views, which I also share. In so doing, I hope to highlight particular areas in which it is felt that more work needs to be done.
Like the police, I am concerned about some parts of the Bill, although I very much support the general thrust. When i was a magistrate, before granting a new licence my colleagues and I would have someone in the witness box under oath answering rigorous questions about their suitability to hold a licence to determine whether the applicant was a fit and proper person. We were pretty tough about that questioning.
While I recognise that the vast majority of licence holders are suitable, fit and proper people, I am troubled that the Bill does not have that provision. ACPO shares my concerns. There must be clear guidance applicable to all licensing authorities about the meaning of a "relevant offence" and when that is spent, allowing someone to apply for a personal licence. ACPO also wants the licensing authority to consult the police about every application for a personal licence and wants the police to have the right—in exceptional circumstances and based on the licensing objectives—to object to the grant of a licence to an individual.
As your Lordships might imagine, a great many officers registered their concerns about police resources in order to undertake the functions under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. My noble friend Lord Avebury, who is not in his place, referred to that in lurid detail.
A number of respondents told me that their resources are stretched badly in the early hours of the morning. All interested parties need to understand that. One suggested way round that was that licence holders, either individually or, more probably, premises licence holders, could have an amount added to their business rate to help pay for the extra policing envisaged, particularly of large city centre venues. Have the Government recognised that concern and will it be addressed during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House? Do the Government intend the licensing authority to take its
702
responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 into account when issuing licences, either personal or for premises? If so, does the Minister not feel that that ought to be reflected on the face of the Bill, not simply attached as guidance?
That point extends to planning inspectors, who will listen to appeals from the industry against decisions by planning authorities not to grant planning permission or change of use for new premises selling alcohol. Will they be required to take into account: Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act? What sanctions will be available if they do not?
Other areas of general police concern that I should like the Minister to look at include the apparently unfettered access of children into premises serving alcohol, the cumulative effect of multi-locations, the sometimes aggressive marketing undertaken by some establishments that results in excessive or binge drinking and the need for a national database to help identify abuse of the system by unscrupulous people going to different licensing authorities seeking a licence, having been turned down for one previously in another area.
There are other issues around premises licences and the larger capacity night clubs. It is felt that there should be a higher level of qualification for holding such a licence and that an individual undertaking the role of a designated premises supervisor should be responsible for only one particular set of premises at a time. As we have heard from other noble Lords, concerns have also been expressed about capacity limits, which are presently imposed on premises that have a public entertainment licence.
All that having been said, however, I would not like your Lordships to be in any doubt about my welcome for the Bill. I understand that the Government have listened carefully to and implemented many of the suggestions put to them at the consultative stages by the police and by the industry as a whole before the Bill was published. We have tried out longer opening hours and they were a great success. Many police officers have told me that they feel that perceived problems will now ease once things have settled down and that the reality of economics will determine when licensed premises are open. Staggered closing times might be chosen, which would help allay many concerns bout pouring into the streets and would also enable the police to use their resources better.
The upshot is that licensees will be able to decide on their own hours based on commercial considerations. The police and the licensing authority can keep a watchful eye on how those individuals and premises undertake their clear and rigorous responsibilities under the Act. Many officers have told me that levels of violence and disorder have reduced dramatically in their areas where premises have been allowed to remain open until the early hours and not been forced to close at an unrealistically earlier time. They believe that it will prevent the so-called binge drinking that causes so much concern to people and is the cause of a great deal of anti-social behaviour.

703
Finally, I hope that training will be made available to the new licensing authorities, as it was to magistrates. They will need to undertake this before the new law takes effect.
The Bill is welcome. It does away with centuries of outdated and outmoded licensing law and I look forward to playing a small part in its passage through the House.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is fascinating to compare the approaches of the two major parties to licensing reform. In the 18 years after May 1979, the Conservatives, despite professing to be the party of individual freedom, were curiously tentative, even semi-apologetic, when it came to relaxing the law in this field and in many similar fields where one might have expected a more libertarian approach.
In fact, with the help of a good deal of prodding from your Lordships' House, the laws were relaxed to a considerable extent. No longer is it impossible to get a drink at five o'clock in the afternoon on a weekday. Above all, no longer is one prevented from getting a drink after 2 p.m. on a Sunday, with or without one's late lunch. That particular ban was quite intolerable.
The trouble was that the Conservatives always justified the changes in strictly utilitarian terms: that they would earn the country more dollars, francs, deutschmarks or lire, or that they would help to reduce rural unemployment. They seemed terrified of extolling freedom for the sake of freedom, with the result that they never got the full credit they deserved for those overdue reforms.
New Labour, in amazing contrast, has outwardly donned the mantle of John Stuart Mill and declares that adults should be allowed to drink any time, anywhere, provided, of course, that others are not harmed thereby. Mill's proviso is an extremely important one, and there is the rub where disputes over the Bill could occur.
It is only when you examine the small print that you realise that reality does not live up to the rhetoric. This is not entirely the Government's fault because, however half-heartedly and belatedly, the Conservatives got there first. And for every 100 people who for many years now have been able to enjoy a drink between 2 and 3 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon or between 3 and 5 p.m. on a weekday afternoon, there is one person at most who wants to drink at 1, 2 or 3 a.m. Such people are greatly outnumbered by householders who do not want anything open after midnight. They would include the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and, I would imagine from his remarks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
I do not deny for a moment that there is a case for allowing city centre premises to stay open until half-past 11 or midnight to cater for those coming out of cinemas and theatres. But given the dearth of public transport after midnight, combined, in London at any rate, with the most expensive taxi fares in Europe and
704
possibly the most expensive in the western world, very few people over the age of 25 will want to linger longer than midnight.
Where the Government can justly be condemned over the Bill is in claiming that there will be sharply reduced costs for licensees—and I include charities and churches, as the right reverend Prelate explained—and a virtual bonfire of regulations. Judging by all the criticism one has read over the past fortnight, not least from the churches, it appears to be the precise opposite of the case. However, it is for others to deal with that matter. A number of noble Lords have done so and a number of others will no doubt do so before long.
I hope that I may en passant suggest one possible example of genuine deregulation to which few people could, I think, object. Let all virtually non-alcoholic beer—that is to say, beer of less than 1 per cent alcoholic strength by volume—be sold anywhere in the country at any time without any need for a licence of any sort. For anatomical and physiological reasons it is almost impossible to get drunk on the stuff. If I am wrong, no doubt the noble Lord. Lord Colwyn, or the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, will correct me. Perhaps we can return to that suggestion at a later stage of the Bill.
I turn to one of the alleged justifications for 24-hour opening, the needs of the tourist trade. I shall deal with North Americans first. Few of them drink much nowadays, certainly not the sort of Americans or Canadians who travel to Europe, and even fewer want to drink in the small hours of the morning. We are told that that may well be so but continentals are used to drinking all day and all night and expect to be able to do so when they come to this country. What absolute rubbish. One can only suppose that those who make that claim have confined their European travels to Ibiza, mentioned just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It is true that establishments in large cities in mainland Spain such as Madrid and Valencia also stay open late but they do so only because the Spanish are unique in Europe in taking their main meals two hours later than anyone else.
France is a much more representative country. The average French provincial small city or large town is absolutely dead after nine o'clock in the evening except on holidays or feast days numbering perhaps a dozen a year. Even Paris is less lively than present day London. Not so long ago I had to pound the streets of the ninth arrondissement for a long time just south of the Gare St Lazare looking for a café that was open at 10.30 p.m. so that I could have a cup of coffee and a cigarette. The same applies to nearly all of northern and central Europe and to much of the Mediterranean, particularly in the off-season.
I turn to the notion that abolishing fixed closed hours will abolish rowdiness. I simply do not buy that. I know that I am on tricky ground here because the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has just said the precise opposite, as have others. But what happens if all the licensees in a city centre decide that they want to go on closing at 11 o'clock in the evening because they are

705
tired and/or because they judge that the extra overtime payable makes staying open late simply not worth it? Will they have their arms twisted by the authorities to stay open later none the less? In any case licensees worried about rowdiness and vandalism will find it prudent to close relatively early when police patrols are still likely to be about.
Incidentally, one way of reducing rowdiness, admittedly not by very much but it would help, would be to align the duty on drinks more closely to their alcoholic content. For example, the duty on the weaker beers such as the French bière familiale or the Swedish Lätt öl or a number of 2.2 per cent alcohol beers I have spotted in this country could be lowered quite sharply and that on the stronger beers above 5.5 per cent alcohol by volume could be raised significantly. Of course, we cannot do anything about that in this Bill as it is outside its ambit, but perhaps Mr Gordon Brown could give the matter some thought in advance of his next Budget.
I commend to your Lordships—I apologise if it has been raised before while I have been outside the Chamber having tea or whatever—an article on the main editorial page of the Independent dated 14th November headed,
"Listen to a Scot: longer drinking hours don't help".
It goes on to point out that the Scots have the highest incidence of a certain extremely grave brain disease in Europe as a result of excessive drinking.
When I glanced at the Bill about 10 days ago I thought that it was a bit of a curate's egg but still basically edible. For example, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the Bill makes some sensible provisions regarding the presence of children in pubs. But after all the criticisms that one has read and heard I am not so sure. I feel that this particular egg needs a lot of legislative heat treatment before it can be safely consumed. How fortunate the nation is to have so many talented legislative masterchefs in this House ready and willing to apply remedial treatment to the Bill at later stages.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. It is clear that, like myself, every speaker has had to select three or four aspects out of dozens. That does not mean to say that we are not interested in the other aspects but we have chosen those that we believe should be highlighted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should be pleased at the general welcome that has been given to the Bill as it seeks to put certain overdue provisions on the statute book. They should be pleased that noble Lords on all sides of the House have sufficient knowledge, experience and contact with the matter we are discussing to be able to make helpful contributions to our discussions. I declare an interest in that, with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I am the joint president of the Association of London Government. I am not the only former leader of a council over the past 30 years who now sits in this House. Local
706
government has a good voice in this place. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is pre-eminent in terms of local government experience.
I also declare my lifelong association with the Co-operative Movement, of which the House is well aware. I am a strong supporter of the British Retail Consortium. I note that a former director general of the retail consortium is present in the person of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, although I do not think that he mentioned that matter tonight. I merely make the point that the House is well served by people who have experience of the matter we are discussing.
When I read my papers, I was struck by the paragraph that stated that six licensing regimes are brought together in the Bill—those relating to alcohol, public entertainment, cinemas, theatres, late-night refreshment houses and night cafés. Those are all matters about which we may have something to say because they affect us, and we shall come to some interesting stages later.
However, from the retailer's and the shop worker's points of view, one of my main concerns is how one defines precisely the age at which people may or may not buy commodities. In relation to the proof of age issue, I would like the Minister to tell us exactly what his department's position is in relation to trying to help retailers to do their job, which is to stick to the letter of the law that we lay down. Different ages—16, 18, 21—apply to the purchase of different products. Shopkeepers need to be able to challenge customers whose ages they doubt by requesting to see their proof of age cards. That is a matter that should he considered.
The title of the White Paper is Time.for Reform. That time is now. We now have the opportunity to deal with it. Our liquor licensing laws are out of date and unduly complicated. To my mind, the main proposals fall into four categories: to reduce crime and disorder; to reduce public safety; to prevent public nuisance; and to prevent children from harm. There is a very clear case for what I call responsible retailing. Not only the Co-op, of which I am proud, but also the whole of the retail industry wants to act responsibly and do what is right. The Co-op Societies do not take that responsibility lightly. How do they do that? Leaflets providing sensible messages about drinking are freely available to customers in stores. For: instance, the Coop was the first UK retailer to put clear warnings on its range of own-brand wines, beers and spirits, enabling them for the first time, on pack, to check the alcohol content of the product against government-recommended sensible drinking guidelines. They also take the sensible drinking message out to the wider community. They have certainly supported the BRC's development of due diligence guidelines for age-restricted products. The Co-op certainly supports the BRC in its campaign for a proof of age card
There is also a clear case for the modernisation and simplification of the liquor licensing regime. I have listened to Members of the House telling us of their experiences. As I drive from the House at night-time, sometimes passing through Islington, the sight of a

707
crowd of mainly young people outside a pub gives me pleasure. I like to see them. Although they are drinking on the street, they do not cause trouble for me, because I pass them in five seconds, but they must cause trouble to the people who live above or alongside them. When I say "trouble", I do not want to be over-dramatic, but there is a problem. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said about the special problems of the London councils. There is no doubt that the London councils have a particular problem that needs to be addressed, especially on the question of fees. I certainly support the proposal to transfer the prime responsibility in this field from magistrates to local authorities. That is not intended to downgrade magistrates, but as a recognition of the reality that in respect of the total community the councils must bear a responsibility for strategic planning and for what happens in the wider community.
I should like to say a word about premises and personal licences. Care must be taken to ensure that the proposals for two different licences, one for premises in which the sale and supply of alcohol takes place and the other for the person who sells alcohol, do not lead to an overly-complicated situation. In relation to licences for premises, the Bill proposes that a designated premises supervisor is named. It is of some concern that in the case of a personal licence change application, rather than notification, to vary the licence is required. I believe that a simple notification system should suffice where there are changes of designated premises supervisors. If not, we shall face the possibility of one unduly bureaucratic process being replaced by yet another.
The Co-op and the BRC support the view that there should be a two-tier approach to personal licences—one for off-trade, which will include retailers, and another for on-trade. As currently drafted, the Bill proposes that all those who want to apply for a personal licence must take a single qualification covering all aspects of the supply of alcohol. That would mean that retailers of all shapes and sizes, including supermarket managers and those who run corner shops, would be required to study and pass an examination that would include questions about the sale and control of alcohol in pubs and clubs, where there are very different problems and issues. I understand that the BRC made a suggestion to the Government that they would be willing to assist in a study to try to work out what may be called the curriculum or the basis for qualification. I hope that we may hear something about that.
I am not at all certain about 24-hour opening. I stood here and died in the ditch defending Sunday trading. I was very much against it. Nothing has since happened to make me change my mind. I believed that it was the start of a slippery slope. Therefore, I am not as libertarian as others may be in saying that there should be no restriction. That is up to the individual. I believe that there must be a regime, and I certainly
708
would want to be convinced that there is a case for allowing 24-hour drinking. There should be some restrictions in that regard.
I turn to the question of garage forecourts. The Bill prohibits the sale of alcohol from garage forecourts. That represents a tightening of the current system. However, at a time when drink driving continues to be an all too often fatal problem, the removal of booze from petrol stations and garages is to be welcomed, and I believe that the Minister should take that on board.
In conclusion, the ALG and the BRC strongly support the Bill. I see that I have taken 10 minutes. I shall therefore sit down.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the Bill and my noble friend Lady Buscombe for her speech from our Front Bench.
I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill—live music. I should declare three interests: first, as a semiprofessional musician; secondly, as a member of the Musicians Union for over 30 years; and, thirdly, as cochairman of the parliamentary jazz appreciation group, which had a meeting this evening. I apologise for the fact that I had to leave the Chamber between six and seven o'clock to chair the AGM, at which the Bill was much discussed.
The current law permits up to two musicians to perform without the need for a public entertainment licence. With the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and other members of the parliamentary group, I have for many years campaigned for the abolition of the "two in a bar" rule. On 25th February 1988, Douglas Hogg wrote to me from the Home Office, as follows:
"The laws on entertainment are there to ensure adequate control, specifically in terms of safety, in places of public resort. Licensed premises are exempt from these laws for small-scale entertainments primarily because, when granted a justices' licence, the licensee will have shown that his premises are structurally suitable for the sale and consumption of alcohol, which by necessity includes adequate health and safety provisions. For entertainment on a larger scale, such premises may not be suitable and a further inspection under the terms of the public entertainment licence is deemed necessary".
He said that he would consider the situation.
In January 1993, five years later, I had a very similar letter from Charles Wardle in the Home Office. He wrote to me in reply to a question on music licensing, stating:
"The laws on entertainment licensing are there to ensure adequate control, specifically in terms of safety, in places of public resort. Licensed premises are exempt from these laws for a small-scale entertainment".
The wording was identical to the 1988 letter. He went on:
"Whilst I agree that, in some instances, an entertainment involving electronic equipment may produce more noise than, say three people playing acoustic guitars, I have to say that the noise factor is not the only relevant consideration here. Premises which give rise to excessive noise and nuisance are likely to be the subject

709
of complaints, which may lead to the loss of their justices' license, irrespective of whether the entertainment provided is by virtue of a public entertainment licence or not".
The issue of entertainment in licensed premises has never been resolved. Despite countless meetings with Ministers from both political parties and despite promises that the situation would be changed at the earliest opportunity, the "two in a bar" rule has remained. It was obvious that two, three or four musicians playing acoustically or with minimal amplification could never make as much noise as the massive discotheques and sound systems. Those of us who have tried over many years to promote jazz and British jazz musicians were assured that the situation would be rectified. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Jazz Appreciation has consistently lobbied Ministers and been promised changes that will encourage musicians. Of course I understand that noise nuisance is dependent on the amplification, but most jazz played in pubs and clubs is not so reliant on high-powered electronics.
In November 1996, the Arts Council published its jazz policy, recognising the importance of this art form and its inadequate profile in the UK. It said:
"In the last 30 years, many British jazz musicians have established themselves as original voices within the global evolution of jazz. Their work is well documented and the stature of their achievements acknowledged by their colleagues and audiences abroad. However, there has been insufficient opportunity in this country for this important contribution to world music to be fully recognised by audiences and for the work to be adequately profiled in Britain".
In June 1997, under the new Labour administration, the culture Minister promised change and the earliest oppor tunity to allow small groups of musicians to play in pubs and restaurants—often, the only places that young musicians can find an audience.
In the debate on jazz on 15th February 2000 in another place, the Secretary of State, referring to the "two in a bar" rule, said that he was,
"actively reviewing the constraints that the licensing system places on musical performance in such venues, and I hope that in due course we shall be able to introduce deregulatory measures to assist the broad picture".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/00; col. 190WH.]
We have many of the finest musicians in the world and we must help young professionals to gain experience of playing to an audience. As I see it, the present Bill effectively changes "two in a bar" to "none in a bar". Unless pubs, clubs and restaurants have a public entertainment licence, no live music of any kind will be permitted. The "two in a bar" rule has been excluded from the list of permitted "successor rights", which can be included when converting existing licences. I do hope that the Government can reverse this decision; otherwise there will be no piano players, no singers, no guitarists—nothing; not even the string quartet mentioned by the noble Baroness.
Electronic and broadcast entertainment, such as football, rugby matches, musical channels attached to powerful sound systems, which can attract significant, boisterous crowds and cause noise nuisance, is exempt. I have watched rugby matches in my local pub on many occasions. There is noise; there was much noise
710
last weekend, and I must congratulate the English squad on beating South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. However, under the planned legislation, a single guitarist or a piano player after the game would be illegal. What nonsense.
I shall finish with a few questions. I listened to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness with interest. Did she say that an entertainment licence is automatically combined with a liquor licence? Who will decide on the cost and how will that cost be determined? Will pubs, restaurants and clubs have to make a "one-of' application with their licence in case they should ever use live music? Will all licensed premises in England and Wales lose the exemption that allows them to provide one or two musicians? Will those premises, currently providing one or two musicians using the old performer exemption, need to apply for licensing permission if they wish to continue with that limited amount of live music?
Will professional live music in hospitals, prisons, care homes, schools and churches be illegal unless licensed? If a professional music teacher organises a concert by pupils for the benefit of parents and friends, will that be licensable entertainment? I am sure that the Minister saw the article in The Times on Saturday, which reported that thousands of parish churches and places of worship would have to pay for licences for concerts to be held on their premises. Is that correct?
The Musicians Union accepts that premises whose main business is providing music may need the additional controls that licensing provides. Licensing justices already impose noise-limiting measures and safe capacities as a condition of the grant of a liquor licence.
I remind the Government that the Noise Abatement Society has shown that more than 80 per cent of noise complaints about pubs and restaurants are caused by people entering and leaving the premises. Have the Government conducted any research into the noise implications of licensing reform for residents in the vicinity of licensed premises?
There are many other questions. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to these concerns between now and the next stage of the Bill.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the chairman of a small hotel company in Suffolk, which needs to obtain all of the licences under the status quo. I should also inform the House that in my early career I spent much time in magistrates' courts dealing with licences and even sitting as clerk to the justices.
I shall open with a couple of general of remarks. First, it seems to me to be counter-intuitive to hold the view, as the Government do, that by allowing any number of licensing outlets—that is what the new regime will do—and 24-hour drinking, which the new regime will encourage, one is somehow improving the self-defeating and self-damaging drinking culture, about which we spend a great deal of time in this House complaining.

711
Secondly, the "one size fits all" policy that is implicit in the Bill and the Framework for Guidance, which we have already been sent, must, as other noble Lords have observed, surely be self-defeating. Moreover, it flies directly in the face of one of the four aims of the White Paper, which are set out in the Explanatory Notes. The fourth aim is,
"to encourage self-sufficient rural communities".
I cannot think of anything that will do less to encourage self-sufficient rural communities than to make all of the crucial decisions in Whitehall regarding licensing and the conditions that may be attached to the new regime and to send them down, so to speak, via guidance. I shall say more on that in a minute.
I turn to the scheme of the Bill. Clause 4, which is entitled,
"General duties of licensing authorities",
requires the councillors concerned to pursue four statutory objectives, the third of which is,
"the prevention of public nuisance".
Many may be relieved about that and assume that it will protect local communities against some of the behaviour that has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my noble friend Lord Avebury and others. I shall return to that point.
But Clause 4 goes on to state that, in carrying out its statutory licensing functions,
"a licensing authority must also have regard to … any Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 177".
That is the heart of the Bill. However, if we look at Clause 177, what do we find? We find carte blanche for the Secretary of State. He does not even have to consult anyone. He certainly does not have to lay his guidance before the House so that we can approve it, as we do with secondary legislation. He simply has to place it in the Library and that is that.
The problem is that the formulation of words, "must have regard to", is well known and well worn in our legislation. It will place on the licensing authorities the obligation to follow the guidance unless there is an extremely cogent and clear reason to the contrary that does not go against either the guidance or the framework of the Act. If anyone is displeased by the decision of a licensing authority—for example, a brewer whose licensing authority says, "Well, we'll give you a licence but not beyond 12 o'clock"—he can rush straight off to the High Court for a judicial review, and he will probably get it. That is the problem. In this context, guidance really means "requirement".
So what is in the guidance? The short answer is: a lot. It starts off by saying:
"The Guidance … is a key mechanism for ensuring consistent application of licensing powers across the country".
There we have it bold and clear. The same will apply to all of us. One size fits all. "Ah, no", the Government will say, "because the guidance then goes on to state that it can be",
"amended or supplemented as necessary at any time to address problems affecting local communities".
712
But amended by whom? It will not be amended by the people who know what they are talking about—the licensing authorities. Whitehall will decide whether there are any such local factors.
Under the heading "Statement of Licensing Policies", the guidance then goes on to state that the Secretary of State would,
"lay additional emphasis on the importance of longer opening hours as a key mechanism for combating binge drinking".
It may combat binge drinking but it does not combat any other form of anti-social drinking. Indeed, the brewers would not be so keen on the measures if they did not see far more sales. The guidance then goes on to say that,
"the norm",
for the licensing,
"should be for the vast majority of these registrations to be automatic".
Therefore, we should forget any notion that the licensing authority will have any real control over the people who obtain licences. The guidance makes it clear that the vast majority should be accepted automatically. Indeed, the only issues that can be taken into account—a point already made by my noble colleagues—are previous convictions. The "fit and proper person" test, which allows other issues to be taken into account—applicants may be notorious in their locality and may be any type of unconvicted criminal—cannot be used.
As regards premises licences, the guidance would,
"underline the need for … minimum bureaucracy in the process".
Again, that virtually says to the licensing authorities, "Get on with it. Don't shilly-shally around. You've got no discretion anyhow. Just give them a licence and tell them to go away", and so on.
I believe that all that adds up to a constitutionally obnoxious set of arrangements. It is the most dirigiste framework for legislation on such an important and nation-wide set of issues of which I am aware. It leaves the Secretary of State wholly unaccountable in law and only accountable in a political way. We say that that is not good enough and many noble Lords have said the same.
I turn to the point that I raised earlier concerning the solace, one might say, of the prevention of "public nuisance". It appears that such a measure would prevent some anti-social activities. For example, in my native county of Suffolk a few village pubs may remain open. Most will not want to stay open into the small hours but some of them will make a good trade by doing just that. Young people love whizzing around the countryside in cars late at night. If those pubs stay open until three or four in the morning, that could well give rise to considerable noise disturbance. As people get in their cars and drive away, they will not be drunk or disorderly but they will destroy the small-hours peace so valued by country and, indeed, town dwellers.
Therefore, what about prevention of public nuisance? I shall refer to the textbook Clark and Lindsell, which is as good an authority as any on this matter. It says,

713
"Public nuisance is a criminal offence".
One may say that that is the case in one part of the law; in this Bill it will not be like that. But it will be like that. I refer noble Lords to the case of National Coal Board. v. Neath Council 1976 The judgment in that case states specifically that if nuisance is referred to in the statute, unless express words vary the meaning of the word "nuisance", then it must have the common law meaning.
Public nuisance is confined to such matters as the carrying on of an offensive trade, holding an acid house party, keeping a disorderly house and throwing fireworks in the street. None of those is remotely close to the type of issue about which we are concerned and which we are discussing this evening. Therefore, that is no solace. Whatever else we do, we must extend the meaning of public nuisance to fit the needs of this Bill and the public at large.
In closing, I want to touch briefly on the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. All the small activities carried on by churches and community organisations will be subject to licensing. Perhaps I may illustrate that with a concrete example. Every year in my garden in Sudbury, I hold the St Gregory's Church fete. Of course, no licence is required at present but, in the future, we shall probably have to obtain four: one for the Punch and Judy show; one for the folk group; one for the country dancing—the noble Lord is looking astonished—one for the barrel organ and one for the raffle. "Rubbish", he says, but he will eat his words. Why the raffle? Because the Bill itself states that to be so. Clause 172 exempts certain raffles but not one that has a money prize—we usually give a prize off 10, so that will not be exempt—and not a raffle where prizes consist of alcohol. Under Clause 172, even a bottle of booze will prevent the raffle being an exempt raffle, and then one enters the whole paper chase and expense of the Bill.
I have run out of time, but I merely want to add to what other noble Lords have said. There is much that is good and necessary in the Bill but—my word!—we have a lot of work to do.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I welcome the provisions in the Bill to allow the extension of licensing hours to pubs, bars and night clubs under the control of local authorities. I have read plenty of evidence that that will help to reduce the violence on our streets that often occurs when the pubs close. But, crucially, I believe that that is only a small part of what the Government need to do in order to tackle the link between alcohol and violent crime.
If the Government are genuine about their objective of being "tough on the causes of crime", other measures should be seriously considered. The enormous amount of crime committed under the influence of alcohol makes excessive drinking a very important and expensive problem for our society—expensive in terms of cash and expensive in terms of people's health and quality of life. Of particular concern to me is the amount of domestic violence
714
against women conducted under the influence of alcohol. When two women are killed by their current or former partner every week of the year, we have an epidemic of mass murder and we need to do more than tinker around with the licensing laws to address it.
It is hoped that the Bill will reduce the binge-drinking culture that leads to trouble. It may reduce the binge drinking, but I do not believe that ii will change the culture. In some contexts, such as Mardi Gras, for example, binge drinking is regarded as a beneficial pattern of behaviour which can contribute to social cohesiveness and bonding. If it happened once a year, perhaps we should not be quite so worried about it. Nowadays, "getting plastered" every weekend seems to be regarded as the cool thing to do. Of course, we know that there is a great pressure to conform among young people. No one likes to be seen to be different from their mates. However, in other countries, it is decidedly uncool to get "blind drunk".
Other reasons behind the image of the English culture of binge drinking are more complex. First. we have a great national ambivalence towards alcohol—a love/hate relationship if one likes.
In general, many researchers, such as Heath in 1988 and Gleiberman et al in 1993, have found that the greater the number of formal restrictions on drinking—for example, licensing laws—the:afore alcohol-related problems a society has. Such restrictive societies usually have an inconsistent attitude towards alcohol. In the UK, for example, on the one hand we restrict drinking below the age of 18, and on the other, most consider teenage drunkenness to be an inevitable "rite of passage".
By contrast, societies in which alcohol is integrated into daily life have relatively few of the problems we commonly associate with drinking, such as public brawling, suicide, absenteeism from work, accidents, domestic-violence and unprotected sex. 'The problem is not just how much or how long people drink, but what they do when they have been drinking. Here in Britain we have a particular problem with that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned that he preferred the bars of Madrid to the bars of Ibiza. The difference between the two is that the bars of Madrid are full of Spaniards and the bars of Ibiza are full of Brits.
But will lifting some of the restrictions on licensing hours help? Cross-cultural research done by Galahad SMS Limited and others has shown that it will. Drinks are consumed quickly just before closing time and customers are then forced onto the streets in large groups at a peak of intoxication. In Europe, where opening hours can extend to 6 a.m., customers tend to leave as they wish—in staggered numbers, so to speak—causing few problems for public transport or the police.
The problem has grown so much in Manchester that the city council has implemented a "City Centre Safe" initiative, mentioned by the Minister, to try to deal with some of it. It has provided more public transport when the pubs close to reduce brawls on taxi ranks. It has banned glasses and bottles on the streets and

715
provided more police to confiscate them. It has persuaded pubs and bars to use more plastics and safety glass. But this deals only with the symptoms of the disease, not the root cause.
I believe that one of the root causes is a misinterpretation of the minimum drinking age laws and a lack of good alcohol education. According to surveys by Galahad, the majority of parents wrongly believe that it is "against the law" to allow their under-16 year-old children to drink any alcohol at all. The law (or misinterpretation of it) has, in effect, taken away parental control and influence. In France, Spain, Greece, Italy, for example, a child is taught how to drink gradually and can practise safely within the family environment. As a result, there is no "forbidden-fruit effect" associated with alcohol, and such children rarely use alcohol as a form of rebellion.
Many of today's young people work hard and play hard. They live with their parents longer because of the cost of housing. They get married and have children later, so they have few responsibilities. They have money to spend and at the weekend they go out and drink vodka-based drinks one after the other. The industry makes them very attractive. There are coloured and flavoured vodkas and vodka shots, drunk down in one, are very fashionable.
But the drinks that concern me most, because I believe they lure very young teenagers into the habit of drinking too much alcohol, are the alcopops, which, at 5 per cent, contain more alcohol than a pint of normal strength beer. Despite the fact that the manufacturers claim that they are aimed at the 18 to 25 market, their sweet flavour, vibrant colours, rebellious sexy names and cartoon characters are clearly targeted at very young teenagers. Two-thirds of 11 to 12 year-olds are familiar with the names of the most common brands and 91 per cent of 15 to 16 year-olds know all about them. However, they are not aware of their alcoholic strength believing them to be less alcoholic than beer or lager.
The Minister said that one of the objectives of the Bill is to protect children from harm. In this respect it does not do so. Since we have now grasped the nettle about tobacco advertising, thanks to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to restrict this targeting of a very powerful and potentially harmful drug at the very young.
So the question is: what more should the Government be doing? I suggest that a strategy combining research-based policy and alcohol education could, over time, achieve the desirable cultural shift.
However, education will not stop people drinking. We know that abstinence-based education fails. So effective alcohol education for all ages must be developed on the basis that drinking is a natural, normal inclination, not rooted in immorality, and that the objective is safe drinking.
716
Finally, we must support and educate parents. Parents want to know how to teach their children how to drink sensibly. They need to understand that the law does not prevent them from doing this and that the home is the best place to learn good habits.
What else can the Government do? Since socialisation into drinking does not occur in the home in the same way as it does in southern European countries, the pubs and bars have replaced the family as the place to learn how to drink in a socially acceptable way. The server of alcohol, therefore, has a responsibility to set and enforce standards of behaviour. Unfortunately, most bar staff in the UK have little understanding of either their influence or their legal responsibilities.
Research has shown that informal controls on drinking, the social disapproval and censorship of certain behaviours, are far more effective than formal law, policy and regulation. What is needed is legislation that encourages social disapproval of extreme drunkenness in public—in other words, peer pressure. That could start with pub and bar staff. With proper training, servers could become educators. Continuing to serve a person who is obviously severely intoxicated should result in stronger penalties for the server and the establishment. Could therefore the guidelines to local authorities include the provision that licensed premises must train their staff properly before they can be considered for extended licensing hours?
Before closing I turn briefly to another measure in the Bill, which will have consequences that perhaps the Government did not intend. I hope not anyway. It is the provision that requires premises in which amateur music makers perform to hold an entertainment licence. I very much support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, on this matter. Many churches and church halls in which amateur choirs and orchestras perform will not bother getting a licence and we will have lost valuable venues. Others will get the licence and pass on the cost to the amateur music makers, who are already strapped for cash.
I have to declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Parliament choir. Thanks to generous sponsorship from BT we do not have the money worries of some amateur choirs, many of which put on concerts at a loss. Their very viability is threatened by the Bill. Given that they add enormously to the cultural richness of their communities, it would be very sad if a Bill such as this, with very laudable objectives, were to have such an effect. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is time that we had a licensing Bill, so I have to welcome the Bill to that extent. But I am very unhappy about the terms of the Bill and consider it a straight sell-out to the alcohol industry and not in the interests of the people as it purports to be.
I declare a slightly indirect interest. My husband is a member of Westminster City Council and I am a Westminster resident. Central London, and

717
Westminster in particular, is reputed to have more licensed premises per square foot than anywhere in the world. Certainly, the concentration of such premises in the Soho and Covent Garden areas, followed by Queensway and Edgware Road, is a real worry and a problem for those who live in the area. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, commented on that.
After 'A Good Night Out!'—The Hangover!, the final report of the Central Westminster Police/Community Consultative Group's Licensing Working Party, was published in July. I notice that although many representatives were present, the early representation of the breweries was not sustained and was regretted.
The first three key aims of the Government's proposals in the 2000 White Paper are to reduce crime and disorder, encourage tourism and reduce alcohol misuse. I shall not comment on the fourth— encouraging self-sufficient rural communities—as other noble Lords who know those areas have already done so. In no way will the Bill as drafted do anything to satisfy the first three aims. I hope that amendments will be passed in your Lordships' House to correct the situation. It is all very well to limit regulation. It is quite another thing to create a free-for-all. In contrast with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, experience in the City of Westminster has shown that increasing the drinking hours, as has been done in several cases, has only increased the problem. The peak time for criminal offences is 3 a.m., to which present licensing extends.
What in the Bill will ensure that residents are not further disadvantaged by 24-hour drinking? I found it interesting when the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—I am sorry that he is not at present in the Chamber—said that he could not believe that anyone would run such places for 24 hours. He felt that it would not be financially viable for the industry. I hope that that will be the case, but there will certainly be some such establishments.
What is the position? Drinkers will not be turned out on the street at all. If they are drunk, will they just be left comatose in the bar or licensed premises? Exactly what will happen? The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, referred to the fact that there will be an obligation on the barman not to serve any more alcohol to someone who is drunk, but there is nothing to say what should be done with a person who is drunk—whether to leave them on the floor or wherever.
What research has been carried out to show that tourists require longer drinking times? In central London plenty of premises are already able to provide drink until 3 a.m. Surely that is late enough. What will the Bill do to reduce current yobbish behaviour in the street at almost any time of the evening? The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that he sees no problem with drinkers in the street, but drinkers in the street at various times of day are one of Westminster's major problems.
What attempt is there in the Bill to ensure that licensees are more responsible for the behaviour of their customers outside the premises? What happens when they leave has always been a problem.
718
Enforcement powers against premises and personal licence holders are inadequately spelled out and potentially ineffective. The transfer of licensing to local authorities under the proposed guidelines are not an improvement.
A similar system existed when the Greater London Council was the licensing authority for late-night music and dancing. As the locally elected representative, I was able to appear with, literally, a bus-load of residents who annually opposed the re-licensing of the Pink Elephant in Southgate. We never won. The vested interests were represented by a clever Queen's Counsel who always succeeded in advancing excuses or reasons why the licence should be renewed. It reached the point where the local Tube station had regularly to be closed because of disorder and many knives—some shaped from old saw blades—were found discarded on the platform when the police arrived. All that eventually saved the local people was that the licensing magistrate eventually ruled that alcohol should no longer be sold on the premises. The club instantly became unprofitable and in due course was closed, but that was after years of trauma for local residents and near-death injury to an individual who was thrown through a plate-glass window.
Licensing magistrates have generally done a good job. Councils are not seeking to take over the job, but they would be willing and able to do so, especially if they could set their own guidelines. It would be wrong for the same guidelines to apply to every part of the country. Other noble Lords have made that point. It is also wrong that local councillors will not be able to represent their residents at a hearing—-my noble friend Lady Hanham made that point. In my GLC days 1, as my residents' representative, was able to support them, but under the present guidelines councillors could not represent their constituents in a hearing.
In planning applications, councillors go to put the case representing their constituents' views. I have frequently sat as a member of the GLC's late-night licensing committee. The typical argument from an applicant was that we could not refuse a new licence because, until it had been tried, we had no way of knowing whether it would cause a nuisance. That argument always won. The following year, when it had been shown to cause a nuisance, as the residents had predicted, the committee was told that it would be unfair not to renew the licence as considerable money had been spent to meet the requirements of the first licence and improve the building to make it ready for use. The licence was then renewed for a further year. It will be most unsatisfactory if we end up in such a situation.
Local authorities should be able to establish policies in the same way as they do their local plan. It has been repeatedly mentioned that saturation should be taken into account as a factor. The Minister mentioned that residents may appeal. Residents may appeal, but have noble Lords read the conditions under which they may do so? What it would cost them is terrifying. They will be up against heavy vested interests. There must be some local discretion.

719
My noble friend Lady Buscombe mentioned that we will later have legislation covering gambling and bingo clubs. I have just returned from Australia, where I was a member of a parliamentary delegation. Poker machines in licensed premises have been found to be of such concern that Australia is now passing legislation to reduce their number on each premises. We must not find that everyone with licensed premises adds in a poker machine.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned tobacco warnings and discussed whether children should be allowed in. The point has often been made in Questions that there should be not only a tobacco warning but an alcohol warning on pretty well each bottle. We should consider people's health and how we are to deal with binge drinking. Alcohol misuse is much greater than drug misuse—certainly in central London.
In the West End ward to which the noble Lord, Lord St John, referred, masses of businesses are closing as the whole area is turned over to licensed premises, clubs or sex shops. That cannot be good—certainly for people living in the area, who find their environment changing dramatically. Local authorities must retain flexibility and control over the matter.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have listened to at least a few sentences of every speech in the debate. I have come to the conclusion that people do not think that the existing licensing laws work. Therefore, we must applaud the fact that the Government are, at least, making an attempt to give us slightly more sane licensing laws.
I say that as somebody who has waited for such a Bill for about a decade. I first heard it mentioned when the Conservative Party was in power and have waited a long time to hear that somebody was going to deal with licensing hours that guarantee bouts of speed-drinking for everybody. I do not use the term "binge-drinking"; speed-drinking has taught us how to binge-drink. As one of my noble friends said to me, there is a Pavlov's dog syndrome with last orders at eleven o'clock. Everyone runs up and gets another one. If you are in a round, you get three or four lined up, with half an hour to drink them—or is it 20 minutes? After those, it is off to the next place.
I still play the odd game of rugby, and I find myself talking to the world's supply of bouncers. They play alongside me and against me. Those young enough still to be doing the job confirmed what I remembered: that the time after the speed-drinking at last orders is when the trouble occurs. It happens in the queues for the clubs and, after that, the queues for taxis and fast food. Basically, a lot of young men who have consumed a lot of booze quickly—that is one of the real problems—and are full of unfulfilled sexual ambition start bumping into and threatening each other: "Hey, you're going to get trouble". I went to university in Scotland, and I remember the first time that I found myself in a pub there. As it got towards eleven o'clock,
720
I said, "Better get another drink in". A lot of dumbfounded faces turned to me and asked, "Why?". The pub was open for another couple of hours.
When people go out, they do not go out at the start of opening hours. Generally, they have been out doing something on Saturday afternoon or whenever. They will go home, eat something, maybe watch the TV for an hour or so and change their clothes. By the time that they get out, there is a limited amount of time left, and—this is what we are dealing with—wherever they go, last orders will always be looming up and, with that, that last round.
I give my full backing to the Government's plans to attack the problem. They probably do not need it, but they have it anyway. However, although I applaud the main aim of the Bill, I must say that the devil is in the detail. I do not think that the Government could have intended to put the kibosh on live music by single performers, if they intend to create a café society. There is a potential problem there which the Government must address if we are to create a more relaxed and culturally more acceptable atmosphere. I hope that it will be dealt with.
My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has, I am afraid, fallen foul of the urge to eat at about eight o'clock in the evening—
A Noble Lord: No. he has not.
Lord Addington: My Lords, indeed my noble friend is here. Now I know why he has such a lean physique; he is able to resist that temptation!
My noble friend spoke about the effect of requiring licences for all those other activities. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, again emphasised the musical aspect. Unless we get the whole package right, we will have problems. The current system has proved to be a failure.
I can only endorse what was said about the alcopop culture. The fact that I was heading towards middle age at a rate of knots was confirmed to me, when I was threatened with a double Red Bull and vodka, after one of my last rugby matches for my local first team. I do not like Red Bull, but I like decent vodka, if it is served correctly. So, I said that I would have the vodka. I was presented with a lukewarm glass with a lukewarm fluid inside it. By then, I was just enough into my cups to raise the matter with the bar manager and tell him that vodka was supposed to be cold. I was given back the same glass with one watery ice-cube inside it. I realised that the drinking culture had moved on. Drinking is done not for the taste but so that people can get plastered. Even the idea that someone might like what he drinks is disappearing.
We must try to break the pattern through education and by removing the idea that people are under pressure to consume alcohol quickly. If we address that point—along with the points made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley—we stand a chance of breaking the cultural pattern. We will not do it overnight, and we must steel ourselves for the fact that, for a short time, things will get slightly worse when the changes

721
come into effect. I am afraid that that may well happen, and we must be ready for it. However, I suggest that the evidence is on the side of the direction in which the Government are moving, provided that they do not get themselves into a position where the only people who can afford to obtain licences are large, chain firms pumping out music in an atmosphere which is designed for the binge-drinking culture.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by explaining my background in and out of the drinking world. My first involvement was at the time of the Erroll report when I was at a research company working on the national beer survey and for the Wine and Spirits Association. We had to predict what would happen and who would consume what.
We did not really predict anything because we failed to understand the likely socio-economic changes which would arise. However, we predicted the rise in the consumption of vodka, the decline in the consumption of sherry and port, the rise of cold beers and lager, but not consumption. We also had to produce the annual report from the Wine and Spirit Association to the Chancellor to prove that if the Government increased tax on alcohol the law of diminishing returns would set in.
We have forgotten about Carnaby Street. We remember traipsing around the 400 Club, the Café de Paris, the Blue Angel or, in my case up in the North East, selling asbestos-related products and going to working men's clubs. But we failed to see the change. That was a generation ago and every generation brings about a change. Is there a political change here? The Liberal Party think they might get into power and yet it has forgotten that the average age of voters is now 55.
We have forgotten, too, the change that has taken place with people getting married later, the emancipation of women and now the type of culture that relates not just to alcohol, but to music and events. I should explain that once, by accident, I was involved in pop promotions and big events. I was fascinated seeing 70,000 people at Wembley without any alcohol, having a great time. That group moved on to raves and music that I could never understand. Even worse, I was the only boy in any school I attended never to have been in the choir.
However, the change that has come about is fascinating. We are talking of the 16 to 32 year-old age group. They do not live at home. The women and men, perhaps unlike most bird species, are similar. They dress in the same way. There are no longer the dandies of Georgian England or the flashy young ladies I remember. They are more like the robins who look alike—the male robin gives the female a bit of food to eat—or the male kingfisher which grabs a fish, beats it on the head and offers it head-first to the female to attract her. Or even, more like the Liberals and not the black shag (I must be careful), they are like the great crested grebe, both male and female, which make signs and movements to each other before the female returns with a clicking noise and they "get off together"
722
That age group of men or women—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am confused. Which of those notions was ascribed to the Liberals?
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is a very effective bird which is one of the most powerful in its courting and seeks to make friends with everybody. I have that on great authority from some of the ornithologist Doorkeepers in your Lordships' House.
However, I believe that the socio-economic change referred to is not alcohol, entertainment or music, but a combination of those. The groups of people, whether they are two, three or four, or whether they are men or women, go off to a pub for a night out. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, when closing time approaches they have one pint of beer for each hand and one for each foot. Later, probably a couple of shots of tequila sunrise appear. If it is hot and warm in the pub and cold outside, people stagger out and although they may have eaten before, they will go, as the Minister said, to a kebab bar and later off to a club.
They will not go to the working men's club, but to the music club where they will preen themselves and look as birds and cocks, or birds and blokes, to "Pull"each other—it is not as vicious and nasty as it sounds—and make friends. It is a communal activity of drinking, and at roughly 2.30 a.m. the alcohol stops and the orange juice and water come out. The only continuation there is probably the weed of wisdom, ganja, hash, pot, spliffs or even stronger drugs which provide the little stimulant that keeps them going before they go out into the street and make their way home. Those of greater sophistication may go off to Smithfield to catch early pints of beer.
The question is: is there anything wrong in that? Is the concentration of alcohol in a short period dangerous? Probably it is. Is the impact of what happened in Scotland correct? I think it is. I believe that the Government have got the concept right but some of the details may be wrong. It is right that the issue should be raised in your Lordships' House because we have an average of 50 years drinking experience, during which time we have consumed. over 2 million bottles of wine. The Commons has only 30 years experience of drinking and, therefore, having heard the Liberals' experience today, we are in the right place at the right time.
I now want to examine not only the socio-economic changes but the other changes in drinking habits. Here I must condemn the Government for their failure to reduce taxation on alcohol. As your Lordships know, every day 1 million pints cross the Channel. That is the equivalent of the consumption of 6,000 country?Dubs. We must look at those who do what is called "the milk run"; they go abroad to buy cigarettes and alcohol cheaply. I believe that we may hit some of that cross-Channel trade because extending drinking hours in public places may be helpful.
I should explain another interest. My family has been in the alcohol world, but I am a peasant farmer in France farming wine and benefiting from grants.

723
However, I am concerned about the licensing system that is now proposed in this country, in particular private licensing. I do not want to suggest that illegal activities take place, but your Lordships should be aware that in considering the development of tourism in rural areas we must take into account people who run bed-and-breakfast or small lodging houses and who want to provide meals and alcohol for their guests.
The current arrangements are these—and Customs and Excise got a bit of a beating not so long ago. We all thought that we were allowed to bring in 90 litres of wine from abroad and then we were told that we could bring back any amount provided that it was for personal consumption. "Personal consumption" means that you do not sell it. Let us take the bed-and-breakfast house which apart from providing breakfast provides a farmhouse dinner. It might like to be able to offer a glass or bottle of wine to its guests, but it must be careful because it has no licence. There is nothing on the door declaring that Farmer X has a licence to sell alcohol.
Therefore, as at weddings and so forth, people running such a business bring wine duty-free or at reduced duty rates from France or wherever and give it away with a meal. They sell the meal but give the wine away and I do not believe that they are breaking the law. I ask the Government to examine the case of the small business and consider the granting of personal licences to people, whether on a farm or in a house. who are registered for bed and breakfast with three rooms or more, so that they may have the right to sell a glass of wine or liquor of some form.
I have enjoyed this debate. The Government did not get as good a reception from some people as I would have hoped because the concept of Second Reading is to think of the objectives and then to move on. I hope that we can improve the Bill by introducing amendments on a non-party basis.
I remind your Lordships that "alcohol" is an Arab word and that we are in the middle of Ramadan. The prophet did not say, "You should not drink alcohol". He said, "If you drink alcohol to excess, it will cause problems. Better not to drink it". The Bishops also have a lot to answer for because much of the best quality wine and alcohol in the world was originally produced by the Church.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, when one is the 25th speaker in a Second Reading debate, one wonders how much juice there is left in the orange. When the Minister introduces the Bill, as she did earlier today, by saying that its objectives are to improve choice for consumers, to boost economic activity, to promote tourism, to increase deregulation and to protect children, one is inclined to think that if one merely added "and to encourage motherhood and apple pie" one would have a perfect Bill.
But of course it is more complicated than that. The Bill synthesises neatly the tension between New Labour and old Labour attitudes. New Labour
724
concentrates on pretty packaging and nice messages well spun. But inside the package there is old Labour, which has a fascination with regulation and a fundamental belief that the authorities, whoever they may be, know best. The mean-minded—I am sorry to use that word to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—proposal in the Bill to end the exclusion from licensing provision of two or fewer musicians, so ably described by my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, is a classic example of that dirigiste tendency. So there are many centralising tendencies in this Bill.
It seems likely that this Bill will follow some familiar patterns. We are beginning with a complex piece of legislation which has 200 clauses and eight schedules, a nice title and some nice objectives. This Bill reminds me of the Enterprise Bill, for example—and what a nice title that was! However, by the time that that legislation left your Lordships' House, it had grown much longer and even more complex. as I am sure that this Bill will. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that this Bill's Explanatory Notes amount to 70 pages, I think, and that they are the longest that he has seen. The Explanatory Notes to the Enterprise Bill were 150 pages long. Ultimately, however, that was not an Enterprise Bill but a regulation of industry Bill. So fast did that legislation change that it tested even the legendary powers of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to handle a fast-changing brief.
This Bill follows a familiar pattern in a second respect. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, this is only half a Bill because so much of its daily and detailed impact will be achieved through regulation, most of which has yet to see the light of day. We need to see that regulation if we are properly to scrutinise the Bill.
I fear that the Bill may follow the familiar pattern also in a third way. Judging from noble Lords' comments. I think that detailed examination of these proposals will reveal that they have not been fully thought through. Consequently, we can expect that many government amendments will be tabled. More than 800 government amendments were tabled at the Report stage of the Enterprise Bill. Although we can give the Government credit for trying to improve their legislation, the consequence of tabling late amendments is that those affected by the legislation have little opportunity to comment on the final proposals. So, however worthy this Bill's strategic objectives may he, much detailed work still needs to be done.
I begin by declaring an interest. I am a non-executive director of one of the UK's largest brewers. We operate, through tenants or managers, several hundred public houses which run the gamut from pubs in Westminster and in suburban and inner-urban areas to single pubs in villages. I therefore very much sympathise with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about the "one size fits all" problem. Licensing provisions for pubs as different as these will be extremely difficult to devise centrally and extremely difficult to apply locally.

725
Given the proposal to shift licensing from magistrates to local authorities, the key task will be to obtain a fair sample of public views, first in drawing up the statement of licensing policy required under Clause 5 and then in implementing it in the various proposals for licences. Local residents are, of course, entitled to have their views heard and respected. However, we have to ensure that a vocal minority which is perhaps making unreasonable demands does not drown out the less assertive majority. As has been said, NIMBY is alive and well and living in most parts of the country. The point is particularly true as regards the role played by individual councillors, who will now find themselves in the frontline as regards controversial licensing decisions.
We also have to address the issue of conflicts of interest within the local authority itself. Many, and perhaps most, local authorities run licensed premises themselves. They will therefore be judge and jury for their own premises. That, too, needs to be looked at extremely carefully.
I very much support the proposal to split licences for premises from licences for individuals; it seems an eminently sensible idea. As I understand it, however, the two types of licence are to be co-mingled. The procedure for applying for a premises licence under Clause 17, for example, requires the name of the premises supervisor as part of a premises licence application. That seems to destroy the clarity which the Bill had previously sought to achieve.
There is also concern about the ability of local authorities to react sufficiently rapidly and flexibly to their new responsibilities. The evidence to date from the issue of public entertainment licences, for which they have now been responsible for about 10 years, is not encouraging. Cumbersome procedures, slow responses and huge variability in fees charged have been all too frequent experiences. It is also not clear from the Bill whether the Government intend to encourage different scales and procedures for the offtrade—people having licences for the sale of alcohol to be consumed off the premises—and the on-trade. Clearly, those are two different types of function.
When local authorities become responsible for all premises licences and personal licences they will have to be ready to move speedily. With 70,000 public houses in the country, inevitably changes constantly take place. They take place because licensees want to leave, because licensees have to be removed due to unsatisfactory performance or, at its most sharp, change take place because licensees disappear. When the licensee does a bunk, the first that the owner or brewery know of it is when the bar staff or people seeking to make deliveries turn up in the morning and cannot gain access to the premises a matter of hours before the pub is due to open. That will require an extremely speedy reaction from the licensing authority.
There is always a downside risk to issuing a licence, whether for a premises or a person. We have to ensure that the Bill does not permit the local authority to make the eye of the needle too narrow. Of the 70,000
726
public houses, about half are self-owned and operated. Such people are classic small businessmen. One can envisage such things as the "operating schedule" being used to act as a considerable deterrent to those people becoming involved in the trade.
Finally, there is the responsibility of the personal licence holder for the sale of alcohol to minors. That was a point picked up by several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I stress that I am completely opposed to the sale of alcohol to minors, but I am not clear that we are not putting an unreasonable burden on the individual licence holder with the Bill as presently drafted.
Those of us who have teenage children, as I do, know of the dangers: first, as stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the growth of sweet lemonade-based drinks spiked with pirits—alcopops—which are highly attractive to young people; and secondly, binge drinking, which is on the rise, although I do not believe that the change in licensing hours will affect binge drinking. Those are issues we must address.
However, those noble Lords with teenage children will know that personal identifications are easily available. They can be purchased on the Internet for probably less than £15. I continue to discourage my children from obtaining such IDs, pointing out that if they are caught it will most decidedly not make a useful addition to their curriculum vitae. But clearly false IDs are in wide circulation. The serious implication for personal licence holders of the offences described in Clauses 143 to 150 need to be looked at in the light of those kind of developments.
I conclude by stating that of course we want to boost tourism. People certainly do not visit this country for the weather. Of course we must protect our children and young people, and of course we all support a streamlined system for licensing, with clear lines of responsibility and rapid responses. So, I certainly support the principles behind the Bill, but whether the Bill can deliver those worthy objectives will be made clear only during our discussions in Committee.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the gap in this important debate. I shall not detain your Lordships for long.
The Bill is wide ranging in its coverage yet there appears to be no reference to entertainment licences covering large outdoor musical events. I declare an interest in having been involved in many such licensed events in the past. The Bill refers to temporary event notices, but those are limited in Clause 98(5) to a maximum of 500 persons. The figure of 500 is seemingly somewhat arbitrary. My question is whether the Bill is intended to cover large outdoor musical events, be they in open air stadia, on private land or in public parks. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that point.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Lord made a very brief intervention in the gap, which was extremely welcome.
I would like to welcome the Bill from these Benches. However, I do so after listening to many speeches which give rise to caveats to that welcome. It is a welcome that will be tested at Committee stage.
I start by declaring an interest. I own a pub—the Redesdale Arms on the A68 on the way to Northumberland. It is on the Jedburgh Road, about 12 miles before the Border. People call it the "First and Last". It is the last pub in England and the first before Scotland. Free advertising is also an expression of the interest being shown by a member of the all-party beer group.
Although the Bill concerns licensing reform, many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Falkland, Lord Avebury and Lord Addington, have taken the opportunity to discuss the perils of the growing trend of alcohol abuse in British cultural life. That was brought home to me when I was listening to "Woman's Hour" on Monday morning. I shall not explain why I was listening to "Woman's Hour" on Monday morning, but during the programme a police sergeant explained why people go out on Friday and Saturday nights to drink and to get drunk.
She said that we have the longest working hours in Europe; that people cannot afford to buy their own houses and so tend to live at home. There is therefore a kind of enforced adolescence which means that, come the weekend, these people feel that they have worked hard, they have earned their money and they are going to enjoy the weekend. It is almost enforced enjoyment.
That perhaps explains the scenes described by many noble Lords of people going out with the pure and simple intention of getting as plastered as possible, with all the problems that that causes for the safety of the local community and the drinkers themselves, and the inherent problem of violence.
A night on the town is not intrinsically linked with violence, although there are problems in that area. A friend of mine worked in the A&E department of the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle. He told me horrendous stories about the most common injury—split knuckles—which is caused by hitting people in the face. The people who do the punching cause a lot of problems for themselves. My friend said that this often happened in stress periods.
The real problem in Newcastle is the city centre and the big market, a traditional ancient centre where people drink vast amounts. I did so myself when I was a student. As my noble friend Lord Addington pointed out, in the past at drinking-up time people have tried to get as many beers down them as possible. This creates pressure on the services that have to deal with the results of throwing-out time in the kebab shop and taxi rank.
That is not to say that violence is a necessary part of an evening's entertainment. The views of the police are split over whether or not it is a good thing to try to
728
stagger closing times—we shall have to deal with that issue—because there are not enough police to deal with the vast number of problems. The problems will not go away. Many noble Lords have said that changing the licensing hours will not change the associated problems of drink and violence, but it will stagger the times at which the police are called out to such incidents.
I should like to pick up on a number of the points raised by noble Lords. It would not be feasible in a short period of time to refer to all the issues which will be raised at Committee stage—it will be a long and arduous session—but there are a number of themes to which we will pay particular attention.
I should like to begin on a perhaps petulant note. Although the Bill, which was referred to in the Queen's Speech a short time ago, has come to us very quickly, it was noticeable that the Bill itself was not in the Printed Paper Office immediately and that the Explanatory Notes were available only last Thursday. I say this as someone who has worked hard over the weekend to try to come to terms with all the issues in the Bill. It was not made as easy as it might have been.
Furthermore, the guidance that will make up such a large part of the Bill's provision is still unavailable. Copies of it have been passed to me by interest groups, but I have found it impossible to get hold of. I know that these are only draft guidance notes, but it seems outrageous that at Second Reading we have had to acquire knowledge of large parts of the Bill by means of handouts from interested parties rather than being provided with the notes as parliamentarians.
I have one major question for the Minister. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to answer it when he replies to the debate on her behalf. When will the guidance notes be available, and will they be available in their final form before the Bill completes its passage through this House? It seems to be a growing trend that guidance notes, which are the means of policing a Bill. are not available until after the legislation has reached the statute book. The draft guidance notes that I have seen are extremely good. However, the White Paper was an extremely good document but the Bill does not reflect its aspirations.
I turn to issues of particular concern. The first relates to personal licences. When I read the Bill, I was surprised at the complications that are envisaged in achieving a personal licence. The idea of the personal licence is a very good one. In conjunction with the premises licence it has been part of our party policy and we support the proposal. However, I have difficulty with the fact that local authorities are meant to organise the issuing of personal licences. It would be far more sensible for a central authority to issue the licences, in the same way as the DVLA issues driving licences. They could then be administrated centrally—we are dealing with an industry that is spread throughout the country.
I know of a case in point, where a pub manager working in Newcastle came to London. Under the new system of the personal licence, a licence would be issued to that person in Newcastle and for the 10-year

729
duration of the licence he would have to deal with the Newcastle authorities whenever he wanted to move or when an issue arose in regard to the licence. That seems unfortunate.
This will also impose a huge burden on local authorities. One of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is that—laudably—the Bill is attempting to cut red tape, bureaucracy and cost. One of the ways of cutting cost would be to take this enormous burden away from local authorities. I am particularly concerned because, having asked local authorities about this, none seems to have a set system under which the personal licences would be distributed. Which computer system would be used? It would make sense that the systems should be compatible. but experience of many other schemes shows that that is rarely the case.
Secondly, premises licences seemed an excellent idea when they were proposed in the White Paper. However, the Bill makes it clear that supervisors will have to be adjoined to the premises licence, which takes away some of the more fluid aspects of that licence and makes the situation difficult—especially when, say, a new manager comes along, having had his licence issued in a different local authority area, and has to go through all the different paperwork. This is an important point, as the Bill specifies that 48 hours will be given for objections to be made. There could be a great deal of bureaucratic difficulty and to-ing and fro-ing in relation to the licences, which will add to the costs for publicans and pub groups.
The third issue—raised by many noble Lords—relates to the public entertainments licence. The noble Lord. Lord Colwyn, made reference to it. I know that he has done a great deal of work on the matter so—much so that a year ago he was thrown out of the Red Lion for trying to blow his own trumpet! He was the third musician from this House to try to do so, the of hers being the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who is not presently in his place.
Many issues arise in regard to the provision of live music. I am unable to touch on all of them now. It is strange that the Government are taking such a hard line against unamplified music. I understand the difficulty with amplified music. This seems to be a real issue, which could result in cultural destruction. Much oral tradition is passed down through folk singers in pubs. The imposition of those stringent requirements could be a difficulty.
The Minister will say that public entertainment licences can be added to any pub as part of the variation. I have a question for him: to what extent will a pub have the right to have one or two musicians playing unamplified music regularly? Will that right be granted automatically? If not, contrary to the Government's proposition that this will be a great opportunity. it will be nothing of the sort. The Bill might take away many organisations' ability to provide live music, even though in many cases the live music provided is covered by all the noise and nuisance statutes to which any pub is subject. That seems very
730
unfair. The word "puritanical" has been used. The Government are being slightly puritanical; however, I am loath to use that word because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place to correct me.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised the issue of fees in respect of local authorities. I have seen some of the issues arising out of public entertainment licences and the abuse of those licences by certain councils—Camden, Westminster and Islington, to name but a few. It is ironic that it is those councils who are lobbying about fees and about the loss of public entertainment licences. The Government are right to set fees centrally, as long as they are not too arduous for small businesses and are not geared to suit larger premises. A major problem will be a one-size-fits-all system, because the fee for a large pub in London will differ from that for a rural pub.
My noble friend Lady Harris talked about police powers. I was interested to hear that police opinion is split. That seems to reflect many of the briefings we have received. The police, especially the Association of Chief Police Officers, seem to welcome the Bill, but with big caveats. I support the Government's position, as expressed in the introduction to the Bill, on the closure of problem premises for 24 hours. That seems a very eminent and sensible solution. The Bill gives the police far more powers, perhaps more than they need, to deal with problem premises. However, the 24-hour closure of a pub is an excellent and non-bureaucratic way of dealing with a localised, immediate problem.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of whether councils or magistrates should be the licensing authority. I was surprised by the view that magistrates are to be removed because I thought the provision that magistrates will be used as the court of appeal was excellent. I was concerned that the court of appeal would be within the local authorities. Moving the appeals system from local authorities is an eminently sensible decision.
I particularly support the views on community events that the right reverend Prelate expressed. This Bill seems to incorporate much smaller community events, an issue that we will return to in Committee.
I have taken far too much of the House's time at this time of night. I shall finish on one aspect that perhaps has been overlooked—publicans. Over the weekend I sat down with my local publican in The Albert in Primrose Hill—that is obviously going to be worth a free beer—and discussed with him some of the provisions of the Bill. The best people to talk to are often those who have to deal with the regulations that will be involved. Everybody has talked about the stress areas of the big market or Soho. That is obviously important, but many of the provisions will not affect the local pub. Local pubs will obviously make some provision for later times, maybe on a Saturday night, but I do not believe that many of them will stay open until three or four o'clock in the morning.
Pubs have done excellent work in addressing one of the major problems that happens in city centres—the problem of people going out to get drunk—-because it is culturally unacceptable to get drunk in you r local

731
pub and people are stopped from doing so. That is often due to the skilful way in which publicans manage the people who use their premises as the cultural hub of' their community.
I welcome the Bill, but I very much hope that some of the over-bureaucratic aspects that seem to have been added since the White Paper can be sorted out in Committee.
8.51 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that you have got me instead of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, but as you will have gathered, her voice collapsed today. We managed to send her home at about half-past seven. I hope she is taking appropriate measures. I also apologise for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, apparently did not have access to the Bill or the Explanatory Notes, as he was supposed to have. It was read a first time on 14th November. I understand it was put in for printing on the same night and I am told that the Explanatory Notes were available on Monday 18th November. I apologise if they did not reach him. I can only say that since I did not know that I was going to have anything to do with the Bill until a quarter to one today, he has had a lot more opportunity to see the Bill than I have.
I could sum up the debate with the words, "Yes, but". Everybody who has spoken has said that we must make some fundamental changes to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation, with legislation going back to the 18th century, and almost certainly a lot further back. However, there are serious reservations on all sides about certain aspects of the Bill—perhaps not reservations about the provisions, but concerns about what might or might not be in the Bill. Is the Bill really deregulatory or has it become too bureaucratic? Is adequate attention being given to the needs of local residents? Is there adequate provision to protect children? What about the transfer of licensing powers from licensing magistrates to local authorities? Is that a centralising move, as some have said, or is it a truly decentralising move? If it is decentralising, is it likely to cause problems of conflict of interest? Is there enough opportunity for local conditions to be applied?
A more fundamental issue, on which there was no consensus as far as I could tell, is the likely effect on drinking habits. By opening things up, is the Bill likely to discourage binge drinking? Some people think the opposite.
Various specialist issues, such as music and licensing for churches and village halls and so on, were also raised. I have 20 minutes, after which I will sit down, because those are our new rules. However, that means that I shall have to write to an awful lot of people.
I want to say something about the scope of the Bill before I start on as many of the issues that have been raised as I can. First, judging from some of the speeches, one would think that the Bill was making 24-hour licensing compulsory. Of course it is not. People will apply for whatever licence they want. If they want to close at ten o'clock in the country or
732
anywhere else they can do so. If they want to apply for a licence to close later, they can do so. I do not think that this is in any sense what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, called a "one size fits all" Bill. It is designed to enable people to apply for the licensing hours that they want. Secondly—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive me, I do not think that I ought to reply to interventions.
Secondly, I want to look at the Long Title. It states that this is a Bill to,
"Make provision about the regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of entertainment and the provision of late night refreshment, about offences relating to alcohol and for connected purposes".
It is not about domestic violence, unprotected sex, smoking, sex discrimination, gambling, sexual attraction in birds or the taxation of alcohol and cigarettes. Any noble Lord who referred to those subjects, as many did, and expects me to respond will not receive much of a reply.
I begin—as it was the first issue to be raised—with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the guidance. It is not draft guidance but the framework for guidance. I have not seen it at all so I come to it absolutely fresh. It is in the consultation phase at the moment and will be published by spring 2003; in other words, it will be available for some but not all of the consideration in Parliament. However, the important element—the powers and functions of the licensing authorities—will not be found in the guidance. That is on the face of the Bill for us to debate.
I hope that I may refer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, without provoking him to rise to his feet. I hope that he will accept that we have to balance adequate consultation with parliamentary scrutiny. I also hope that he will agree that that, combined with the fact that the guidance is to be had regard to, not to be obeyed implicitly, puts the matter in the proper context.
Saturation and cumulative effects were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We have considered the matter carefully and we take the view that limiting the number of licensed premises in a particular area is not practical. I recognise the arguments for that, but where a planning application is required for a new licensed premises it will have been considered fully by the local authority. There would be no point in the licensing system duplicating the planning regime. If we started to refuse new licences on the ground of saturation, would that not result in a skew towards the older established premises, some of which may themselves be the source of disorder? There might be considerable commercial objection to freezing the licensing situation in any one area on the basis of the number of premises involved.

733
London and inner London were mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Thornton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Inner London has seen a reduction of 11 per cent in the number of on-licensed premises over the past three years. I do not think that that problem is getting worse or that dramatic remedies are required to deal with it. In any case, the Bill contains a number of measures that are designed to benefit local residents. Local residents will have a stronger voice than ever before in licensing decisions. The establishment of clear licensing objectives on crime and disorder and public nuisance will govern all licensing decisions.
There has been much reference to Clause 4, which mentions the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety. the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. But it does not state that the Bill will deal with those fundamental social problems. It states:
"A licensing authority must carry out its functions under this Act…with a view to promoting the licensing objectives".
Licensing authorities will, or will not, be able to promote those objectives to the best of their ability. But this is not a Bill to reduce crime. This is not a Bill to convert the morals of the English and Welsh people. That cannot be done, and I am surprised that so many in the Liberal Democratic Party think that it can.
It is true—I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on this point—that residents, police, environmental health officers and others will be able to call for a review of licences. There will be a great deal of opportunity for that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that accident and emergency departments of hospitals would be able to do that. There will, of course, be police powers to close on the spot premises that are a source of disorder or noise nuisance—a point to which reference was made on a number of occasions, particularly effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for which I am grateful. There will also be police powers to confiscate alcohol in sealed containers.
Fundamentally, we are saying that the introduction of flexible hours is intended to widen consumer choice and reduce the density of drinkers in existing centres and at existing limited times. It may not fit in here, but I resist the idea that we should revert to fit and proper judgments on individuals or to any vague ground put up by the police or anyone else. If we restrict ourselves, as the Bill does, to unspent convictions, we shall achieve measures that can be enforced, whereas I am far from sure that other matters can be enforced.
A number of speakers, including my noble friend Lady Thornton, raised the important issue of problems that occur outside licensed premises. I make it clear that we do not intend to make licensees responsible for the activity of patrons away from their premises. However, we believe that the provisions of the Bill will reduce the opportunity for concentrations of disorder, if I may put it in that way. The fact that the proposed measures will be enforced in conjunction with the planning authorities and the police powers to which I have referred and the fact that the Government are taking steps to improve the infrastructure of our
734
cities, particularly late at night, by the provision of night transport, litter collection facilities and so on, should make some difference.
I turn to the point concerning churches, village halls and places whose primary purpose does not come within the purview of any licensing legislation. I can give an assurance straightaway that bell ringing and carol services do not require licences. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London knows, there has been a disparity between the situation in Greater London and areas outside Greater London, in relation to which we have to make a distinction. We must rationalise that position and make the same provision for both London and other areas elsewhere. Our position is that where churches are not used for religious activities but for secular performances. there is no justification for treating them differently from any other charitable body that seeks to raise money.
The issue here is the risk to the public at any public entertainment venue. That risk is neither increased nor diminished by the fact that it is staged by a charity rather than a commercial body, nor is it increased or diminished by the fact that it is conducted in a consecrated building. We shall make it clear in guidance that it would be wholly inappropriate to attach disproportionate conditions to licences affecting churches and other charitable institutions. Incidentally, raffles and lotteries arc not covered by licensing procedures, provided that the alcohol is in sealed containers, and I believe that most raffles and lotteries comply with that requirement.
I turn to the question of the transfer of power from licensing justices to local authorities. The present position is that there are five different licensing regimes with local authorities and one with licensing justices. I stress that that involves licensing justices, who act in an administrative way, not magistrates' courts. We are reducing those six regimes to one. Surely that must be a worthwhile rationalisation. Currently, justices handle only liquor licences and local authorities handle all the rest.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that there is of course no intention to phase out magistrates' courts; I believe that she was being mischievous in suggesting that that had been said. She wanted a denial and she has got it.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I point out, once again, that I am only quoting what we were told by an outside organisation. It said that it had been told by officials that magistrates' courts were being phased out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I were the noble Baroness, I should be wary of secondhand quotes of that kind. It is not true.
I turn to the cost of enforcement, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It must be more economical to have a single licensing regime, in which one puts in one application for liquor licensing and one adds on to that all of the other elements that one wants. I think of those other elements as music and dance, but that is old-fashioned wording.

735
The fees that are charged for licences will be set nationally, but they will be varied for different types of establishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, one does not set the same fee for a huge central London pub as one does for a village pub. One does not set the fee for an outdoor rave event—I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole—as one does for an event in the village hall. To avoid disparity between local authorities setting their own fees, it is right that central government should initiate the fees. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is not with us. It is important that the body should be responsible to the local community, but we should take steps to ensure that it is not subordinate to any particular pressure group within the local community. We expect that the local authority panel undertaking licensing will not contain the councillors from the ward in question.
Local authorities will be able to impose conditions on a licence where it is necessary to do so in order to promote the licensing objectives. Their discretion will come into play only in cases in which a relevant representation has been made.
With reference to Clause 177 and in relation to local authorities, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, used the phrase, "Not in my backyard". The protection to which I have referred deals adequately with that point. Local authorities deal with local matters and they have the right to do so because they are elected to do that. Surely that is the right way for the Bill to be drafted.
There was some misunderstanding about the nature of licensing policy which local authorities will draw up and review every three years. I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in particular, that that will be the policy of local authorities, not that of the Secretary of State. In so far as the Secretary of State will impose by regulation, he will do so in relation to matters such as methods of consultation and time periods for consultation, for example, which have to be the same throughout the country, rather than in relation to the policy that the local authority will draw up for the scope of restriction by licensing in its own area. Because the licensing system will be a single licensing system for all of the aspects that we have discussed, we estimate that it will save the industry just under £2 billion over the first 10 years.
I turn to the issue of how the costs will be set. They will be set centrally at a level that will recover the full costs of the licensing regime. That will avoid the problem of the variation, which has existed in the past. Following on from the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I do not believe that it would be a good idea to set the level according to the amount of alcohol consumed. After all, that is taxed with duty and VAT, and that would interfere with the cost-recovery principle. Of course, my noble friend Lord Evans is entitled to a positive answer on the matter. Proper consultation on licensing fees will be carried out with local authorities and representatives of the businesses affected. That will include the associations of clubs for whom he spoke.
736
I want to make an important point relating to the issue of music. The premises licence would cover any combination of permissions for alcohol, public entertainment and late-night refreshment. It would, of course, include music. No renewals would be involved. We estimate that the fees would be in bands ranging between £100 and £500 with a higher fee for large-scale, one-off events, such as pop festivals. That is because of the amount of inspection required for festivals of that kind. There will be an annual charge to maintain a revenue stream to cover continuing inspection and enforcement. However, we shall consult on those charges and we do not believe that they will be very large. The noble Lord, Lord St John, was concerned about that point but I believe that he can be reassured. It is possible that the bands will also affect lump fees in London.
I have reached 20 minutes. I am in your Lordships' hands.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard should be too inhibited by a limit of 20 minutes. There is no new rule in this respect. The only new rule concerns finishing by 10 o'clock. We have three-quarters of an hour to go should he wish to take a proportion of that time to respond to a few more points than he would otherwise have done. He should not be too inhibited by the time limit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am most grateful. I turn to what is clearly a passionate concern—of mine as well as of others—and that is the subject of music. I believe that there has been a profound misunderstanding of what the Bill seeks to achieve. It was suggested that by abolishing the two-in-a-bar rule, which we all agree was completely anachronistic, somehow we are damaging the possibilities of live music. That could not be further from the truth.
The truth of the matter is that the considerations that we must take into account in licensing music are two-fold: one is noise and the other is safety. It does not matter whether the music is live or canned from a noise or a safety point of view. In the past, canned music has been allowed and live music has been discouraged by the two-in-a-bar rule. If we make adequate provision for noise safety—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, my noble friend Lord Pendry, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Skideisky—then we are meeting the requirements of licensing. But there will be no additional imposition on licensed premises because, as I said, the licence for live music will be an integral part of the premises licence. It will cost no more than obtaining the alcohol licence in the first place.
My view is that there will be an explosion of live music as a result of removing the discriminatory two-in-a-bar provision. The simplification will apply and the inclusion of this measure in an alcohol licence will

737
also apply, regardless of how many musicians are involved. If live musicians make an unacceptable noise which disturbs local residents, then they will be subject to penalties in the same way as applies to canned music. But they will not be discriminated against.
In the guidance we can and will make provision for sound insulation. We can consider whether there should be standards measured on decibel levels. We can provide for fines on licensees who disregard or ignore the provisions of a licence. That is provided for in Clause 134. We can have capacity limits, although anyone who has spent much time in New York bars does not think too much of fire department capacity limits. Of course there are health and safety provisions. But I believe that the provisions for music are enormously to the benefit of live music.
I shall say a few sentences about the protection of children. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke as though there was unrestricted access for children. That is by no means the case. We shall have easier access for children because we have been told by all kinds of people, not just the tourist industry but people from this country, that it is absurd that children should be excluded from pubs as they are now. Tourist families like to eat with children in pubs. They think it is a great attraction of this country. It is a nonsense that they
738
should be excluded. It is a nonsense that children of five years and above can drink alcohol in a pub garden or in a family room. That must be got rid of.
So, yes, there will be access for children, but the sale of alcohol to children will be illegal anywhere. The Bill will introduce a clear prohibition on the sale of alcohol to children, not necessarily by proof-of-age cards. I think there are major difficulties with them.
I recognise the difficulties of servers in pubs in recognising those who are under age. Those problems are not made worse or better by the Bill, but I do not deny that they exist.
I do think that I have now exhausted the patience of the House. I believe that this is fundamentally a good Bill. One has to look only at the list of repeals in Schedule 7 to the Bill to realise how far we have gone in dealing with the ragbag of conflicting and out-of-date legislation which has applied to licensing over the past century or more. I believe that the issues raised in debate today are worthy of detailed attention in Committee. I am sure that they will have that. Many of the points raised can be answered by a closer and more accurate scrutiny of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second lime, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene
  Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene
  Equality Commissions; Framework Agreements
  Equality Commissions; Framework Agreements
  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Tax Relief for Private Pension Contributions
  Tax Relief for Private Pension Contributions
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  British Energy: Deferred Payments of Business Rates
  British Energy: Deferred Payments of Business Rates
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Ponds: Nature Conservation
  Ponds: Nature Conservation
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Perioperative Deaths Inquiry
  Perioperative Deaths Inquiry
  Department of Health: Private Sector Consultants
  Department of Health: Private Sector Consultants
  Irish Language Body
  Irish Language Body
  North/South Language Implementation Body
  North/South Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland: Hospital Consultant Vacancies
  Northern Ireland: Hospital Consultant Vacancies